The eurozone is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union member states that have adopted the euro as their common currency and sole legal tender to coordinate their economic policies and cooperation.
Learning Objective
Explain why the euro was established and which countries currently use it
Key Points
A first attempt to create
an economic and monetary union between the members of the European Economic
Community (EEC) goes back to the 1960s, when the need for “greater co-ordination of economic
policies and monetary cooperation” was defined. However, following the Bretton Woods system collapse, the aspirations for
European monetary union were set back. Then in 1979, the European Monetary System (EMS)
was created, fixing exchange rates onto the European Currency Unit (ECU), an
accounting currency introduced to stabilize exchange rates and counter
inflation.
In 1989, European leaders reached agreement on a currency union with
the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The treaty included the goal of creating a single
currency by 1999, although without the participation of the United Kingdom.
In 1995, the name euro was
adopted for the new currency and it was agreed that it would be launched on
January 1, 1999. In 1998, 11 initial countries were selected to participate in the launch. To adopt the new currency, member states had
to meet strict criteria.
Greece
failed to meet the criteria and was excluded from joining the monetary union in
1999. The UK and Denmark received the opt-outs while Sweden joined the EU in
1995 after the Maastricht Treaty, which was too late to join the initial group
of member-states. In 1998, the European Central Bank succeeded the European
Monetary Institute. The conversion rates between the 11 participating national
currencies and the euro were then established.
The currency was
introduced in non-physical form on January 1, 1999. The notes and coins for
the old currencies continued to be used as legal tender until new notes and
coins were introduced on January 1, 2002.
The
enlargement of the eurozone is an ongoing process. All
member states, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are obliged to adopt the euro. Currently 19 states are members of the eurozone and seven additional states are on the enlargement agenda. Several non-EU European states and some overseas territories also use the euro, but each case is regulated differently.
Following the U.S.
financial crisis in 2008, fears of a sovereign debt crisis developed in 2009
among fiscally conservative investors. Several
eurozone member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus) were
unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted
banks under their national supervision without the assistance of third parties
like other eurozone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB), or the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The
detailed causes of the debt crisis varied. In several countries, private debts
arising from a property bubble were transferred to sovereign debt as a result
of banking system bailouts and government responses to slowing economies
post-bubble. The structure of the eurozone as a currency union (i.e., one
currency) without fiscal union (e.g., different tax and public pension rules)
contributed to the crisis and limited the ability of European leaders to
respond. As concerns intensified, leading European
nations implemented a series of financial support measures, but the crisis had far-reaching effects across the EU.
Key Terms
European Economic Community
A regional organization that aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, it was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009, the EC’s institutions were absorbed into the EU’s wider framework and the community ceased to exist.
European Council
The institution of the European Union (EU) that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission,
charged with defining the EU’s overall political direction and priorities.
Maastricht Treaty
A treaty undertaken to integrate Europe and signed in 1992 by the members of the European Community. Upon its entry into force in 1993, it created the European Union and led to the creation of the single European currency, the euro. The treaty has been amended by the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon.
European Central Bank
The central bank for the euro that administers monetary policy of the eurozone. Consisting of 19 EU member states, it is one of the largest currency areas in the world, one of the world’s most important central banks, and one of the seven institutions of the European Union (EU) listed in the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The capital stock of the bank is owned by the central banks of all 28 EU member states.
Bretton Woods system
A monetary management system that established the rules for commercial and financial relations among the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan in the mid-20th century. It was the first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern monetary relations among independent nation-states. Its chief features were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate (± 1 percent) by tying its currency to gold and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary payment imbalances.
European Commission
An institution of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties, and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, pledging to respect the treaties and be completely independent in carrying out their duties during their mandate.
Origin of Common Currency in Europe
A first attempt to create an economic and monetary union between the members of the European Economic Community (EEC) goes back to an initiative by the European Commission in 1969. The initiative proclaimed the need for “greater coordination of economic policies and monetary cooperation” and was introduced at a meeting of the European Council. The European Council tasked Pierre Werner, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, with finding a way to reduce currency exchange rate volatility. His report was published in 1970 and recommended centralization of the national macroeconomic policies, but he did not propose a single currency or central bank.
In 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon removed the gold backing from the U.S. dollar, causing a collapse in the Bretton Woods system that affected all the world’s major currencies. The widespread currency floats and devaluations set back aspirations for European monetary union. However, in 1979, the European Monetary System (EMS) was created, fixing exchange rates onto the European Currency Unit (ECU), an accounting currency introduced to stabilize exchange rates and counter inflation. In 1989, European leaders reached agreement on a currency union with the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The treaty included the goal of creating a single currency by 1999, although without the participation of the United Kingdom. However, gaining approval for the treaty was a challenge. Germany was cautious about giving up its stable currency, France approved the treaty by a narrow margin, and Denmark refused to ratify until they got an opt-out from the planned monetary union (similar to that of the United Kingdom’s).
In 1994, the European Monetary Institute, the forerunner to the European Central Bank, was created. After much disagreement, in 1995 the name euro was adopted for the new currency (replacing the name ecu used for the previous accounting currency) and it was agreed that it would be launched on January 1, 1999. In 1998, 11 initial countries were selected to participate in the initial launch. To adopt the new currency, member states had to meet strict criteria, including a budget deficit of less than 3% of their GDP, a debt ratio of less than 60% of GDP, low inflation, and interest rates close to the EU average. Greece failed to meet the criteria and was excluded from joining the monetary union in 1999. The UK and Denmark received the opt-outs while
Sweden joined the EU in 1995 after the Maastricht Treaty, which was too late to join the initial group of member-states. In 1998, the European Central Bank succeeded the European Monetary Institute. The conversion rates between the 11 participating national currencies and the euro were then established.
Launch of Eurozone
The currency was introduced in non-physical form (traveler’s checks, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) at midnight on January 1, 1999, when the national currencies of participating countries (the eurozone) ceased to exist independently in that their exchange rates were locked at fixed rates against each other, effectively making them mere non-decimal subdivisions of the euro. The notes and coins for the old currencies continued to be used as legal tender until new notes and coins were introduced on January 1, 2002. Beginning January 1, 1999, all bonds and other forms of government debt by eurozone states were denominated in euros.
Euro coins and banknotes
The designs for the new coins and notes were announced between 1996 and 1998 and production began at the various mints and printers in 1998. The task was large: 7.4 billion notes and 38.2 billion coins would be available for issuance to consumers and businesses in 2002. Despite the fears of chaos,
the eventual switch to the euro was smooth, with very few problems.
In 2000, Denmark held a referendum on whether to abandon their opt-out from the euro. The referendum resulted in a decision to retain the Danish krone and also set back plans for a referendum in the UK as a result.
Greece joined the eurozone on January 1, 2001, one year before the physical euro coins and notes replaced the old national currencies in the eurozone.
Eurozone Today
The enlargement of the eurozone is an ongoing process within the EU. All member states, except Denmark and the United Kingdom which negotiated opt-outs from the provisions, are obliged to adopt the euro as their sole currency once they meet the criteria. Following the EU enlargement by 10 new members in 2004, seven countries joined the eurozone: Slovenia (2007), Cyprus (2008), Malta (2008), Slovakia (2009), Estonia (2011), Latvia (2014), and Lithuania (2015). Seven remaining states, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden, are on the enlargement agenda.
Sweden, which joined the EU in 1995, turned down euro adoption in a 2003 referendum. Since then, the country has intentionally avoided fulfilling the adoption requirements.
Several European microstates outside the EU have adopted the euro as their currency. For the EU to sanction this adoption, a monetary agreement must be concluded. Prior to the launch of the euro, agreements were reached with Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City by EU member states (Italy in the case of San Marino and Vatican City and France in the case of Monaco) allowing them to use the euro and mint a limited amount of euro coins (but not banknotes). All these states previously had monetary agreements to use yielded eurozone currencies. A similar agreement was negotiated with Andorra and came into force in 2012. Outside the EU, there are currently three French territories and a British territory that have agreements to use the euro as their currency. All other dependent territories of eurozone member states that have opted not to be a part of EU, usually with Overseas Country and Territory (OCT) status, use local currencies, often pegged to the euro or U.S. dollar.
Montenegro and Kosovo (non-EU members) have also used the euro since its launch, as they previously used the German mark rather than the Yugoslav dinar. Unlike the states above, however, they do not have a formal agreement with the EU to use the euro as their currency (unilateral use) and have never minted marks or euros. Instead, they depend on bills and coins already in circulation.
Euro Banknotes
The euro banknotes have common designs on both sides created by the Austrian designer Robert Kalina. Each banknote has its own color and is dedicated to an artistic period of European architecture. The front of the note features windows or gateways while the back has bridges, symbolizing links between countries and with the future.
Eurozone Crisis
Following the U.S. financial crisis in 2008, fears of a sovereign debt crisis developed in 2009 among fiscally conservative investors concerning some European states. Several eurozone member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus) were unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted banks under their national supervision without the assistance of third parties like other eurozone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB), or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The detailed causes of the debt crisis varied. In several countries, private debts arising from a property bubble were transferred to sovereign debt as a result of banking system bailouts and government responses to slowing economies post-bubble. The structure of the eurozone as a currency union (i.e., one currency) without fiscal union (e.g., different tax and public pension rules) contributed to the crisis and limited the ability of European leaders to respond. As concerns intensified in 2010 and thereafter, leading European nations implemented a series of financial support measures such as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The ECB also contributed to solve the crisis by lowering interest rates and providing cheap loans of more than one trillion euro to maintain money flow between European banks. In 2012, the ECB calmed financial markets by announcing free unlimited support for all eurozone countries involved in a sovereign state bailout/precautionary program from EFSF/ESM through yield-lowering Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT).
Return to economic growth and improved structural deficits enabled Ireland and Portugal to exit their bailout programs in 2014. Greece and Cyprus both managed to partly regain market access in 2014. Spain never officially received a bailout program. Nonetheless, the crisis had significant adverse economic effects, with unemployment rates in Greece and Spain reaching 27%. It was also blamed for subdued economic growth, not only for the entire eurozone, but for the entire European Union. As such, it is thought to have had a major political impact on the ruling governments in 10 out of 19 eurozone countries, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium, and the Netherlands, as well as outside of the eurozone in the United Kingdom.
38.1.2: Russian Aggression in Georgia and Ukraine
The 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, which violated the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine respectively, demonstrated Russia’s
willingness to wage a full-scale military campaign to attain its political objectives and revealed the weaknesses of the Western defense system.
Learning Objective
Describe the events surrounding Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine
Key Points
The tensions between
Georgia and Russia heightened during the secessionist conflicts in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, which led to the
1991-92 South Ossetia War and the 1992-1993 War
in Abkhazia.
The
strategic importance of the Transcaucasia region has made it a security concern for Russia. Support for the
Abkhaz from various groups within Russia including regular military units, and support for
South Ossetia by their ethnic brethren who lived in Russia’s federal subject of
North Ossetia, proved critical in the de
facto secession
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.
The
conflict between Russia and Georgia began to escalate in 2000, when Russia imposed visa regime on Georgia. In 2001, Eduard Kokoity,
endorsed by Russia, became de
facto president
of South Ossetia. The Russian government also began
massive distribution of Russian passports to the residents of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia in 2002. After Georgia deported four suspected Russian spies in 2006, Russia
began a full-scale diplomatic and economic war against Georgia. In 2008, Abkhazia and
South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia’s
parliament.
By August 1, 2008,
Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages. To put an end to these attacks, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone.
Russian and Ossetian forces battled Georgian
forces in and around South Ossetia and Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front.
On August 17, Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev announced
that Russian forces would begin to pull out of Georgia the following day but several days later he recognized Abkhazia and South
Ossetia as independent states. In accordance with the Georgian stand, many international actors recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as occupied Georgian
territories.
The 2008 war was the first
time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military was used
against an independent state, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to wage a full-scale
military campaign to attain its political objectives. The failure of the
Western security system to respond swiftly to Russia’s attempt to forcibly
revise the existing borders revealed its weaknesses. Shortly after the war,
Russian president Medvedev unveiled a five-point Russian foreign policy, which implied that the presence of Russian citizens in
foreign countries would form a doctrinal foundation for invasion if needed.
Despite being an
independent country since 1991, Russia has perceived Ukraine as part of its
sphere of interests. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, both states
retained close ties, but political, military, and economic tensions began almost immediately. Ukraine’s democratization in the aftermath of the 2004 Orange Revolution and increasingly close ties with NATO and the EU halted with the election of pro-Russian Yanukovich in 2010. When Yanukovich refused to sign an agreement with the EU, protests known as the Euromaidan movement broke out, eventually overthrowing Yanukovich’s government.
In the aftermath of the events, the Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by Russia in March 2014. Since then, the peninsula has been administered as two de facto Russian federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. The annexation was preceded by a military intervention by Russia in Crimea and followed by the War in Donbass. Many members of the international community condemned the annexation, with some imposing sanctions on Russia.
Key Terms
Russo-Georgian War
A war between Georgia, Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The war took place in August 2008 following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia, both formerly constituent republics of the Soviet Union. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region, which borders the Middle East. It was regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.
War in Donbass
An armed conflict in the Donbass region of Ukraine. In March 2014, protests by pro-Russian and anti-government groups began in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the Donbass, in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement. These demonstrations escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and the Ukrainian government.
Orange Revolution
A series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, in the immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, which was claimed to be marred by massive corruption, voter intimidation, and direct electoral fraud. Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, was the focal point of the movement’s campaign of civil resistance, with thousands of protesters demonstrating daily. Nationwide, the democratic revolution was highlighted by a series of acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, and general strikes organized by the opposition movement.
1991–92 South Ossetia War
A war fought as part of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict between Georgian government forces and ethnic Georgian militia on one side and the forces of South Ossetia and ethnic Ossetian militia who wanted South Ossetia to secede from Georgia on the other. The war ended with a Russian-brokered ceasefire, which established a joint peacekeeping force and left South Ossetia divided between the rival authorities.
Commonwealth of Independent States
A regional organization formed during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Nine out of the 15 former Soviet Republics are member states and two are associate members (Ukraine and Turkmenistan). Georgia withdrew its membership in 2008, while the Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia) chose not to participate. The organization has few supranational powers but aims to be more than a purely symbolic organization, nominally possessing coordinating powers in the realms of trade, finance, lawmaking, and security.
1992-1993 War in Abkhazia
A war fought between Georgian government forces and Abkhaz separatist forces, Russian armed forces, and North Caucasian militants. Ethnic Georgians who lived in Abkhazia fought largely on the side of Georgian government forces. The separatists fighting for the autonomy of Abkhasia received support from thousands of North Caucasus and Cossack militants and from the Russian Federation forces stationed in and near Abkhazia.
Euromaidan
A wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine that began on the night of November 21, 2013, with public protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kiev, demanding closer European integration. The scope of the protests expanded, with many calls for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovich and his government. The protests led to the overthrow of Yanukovich’s government.
Background of Russo-Georgian Conflict
The tensions between Georgia and Russia, heightened even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, climaxed during the secessionist conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
From 1922 to 1990, the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast was an autonomous oblast
(administrative unit)
of the Soviet Union created within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. Its autonomy, however, was revoked in 1990 by the Georgian Supreme Council. In response, South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in 1991.
The crisis escalation led to the 1991-92 South Ossetia War.
The separatists were aided by former Soviet military units, now under Russian command. In the aftermath of the war, some parts of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast remained under the Georgian control while the Tskhinvali separatist authorities (the self-proclaimed Republic of South Ossetia) were in control of one-third of the territory of the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast.
Abkhasia, on the other hand, enjoyed autonomy within Soviet Georgia e when the Soviet Union began to disintegrate in the late 1980s. Simmering ethnic tensions between the Abkhaz, the region’s “titular ethnicity,” and Georgians, the largest single ethnic group at that time, culminated in the 1992-1993 War in Abkhazia, which resulted in Georgia’s loss of control of most of Abkhazia, the de facto independence of Abkhazia, and the mass exodus and ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia. Despite the 1994 ceasefire agreement and years of negotiations, the dispute remained unresolved.
Russian Involvement
The region of Transcaucasia lies between the Russian region of the North Caucasus and the Middle East, forming a buffer zone between Russia and the Middle East and bordering Turkey and Iran. The strategic importance of the region has made it a security concern for Russia. Significant economic reasons, such as presence or transportation of oil, also affect Russian interest in Transcaucasia. Furthermore, Russia saw the Black Sea coast and the border with Turkey as invaluable strategic attributes of Georgia. Russia had more vested interests in Abkhazia than in South Ossetia, since the Russian military presence on the Black Sea coast was seen as vital to Russian influence in the Black Sea. Before the early 2000s, South Ossetia was originally intended as a tool to retain a grip on Georgia. Support for the Abkhaz from various groups within Russia such as the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus, Cossacks, and regular military units, and support for South Ossetia by their ethnic brethren who lived in Russia’s federal subject of North Ossetia, proved critical in the de facto secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.
Vladimir Putin became president of the Russian Federation in 2000, which had a profound impact on Russo-Georgian relations. The conflict between Russia and Georgia began to escalate in 2000, when Georgia became the first and only member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on which the Russian visa regime was imposed. In 2001, Eduard Kokoity, an alleged member of organized crime, became de facto president of South Ossetia. He was endorsed by Russia since he would subvert the peaceful reintegration of South Ossetia into Georgia. The Russian government also began massive distribution of Russian passports to the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2002. This “passportization” policy laid the foundation for Russia’s future claim to these territories. In 2003, Putin began to consider the possibility of a military solution to the conflict with Georgia. After Georgia deported four suspected Russian spies in 2006, Russia began a full-scale diplomatic and economic war against Georgia, accompanied by the persecution of ethnic Georgians living in Russia.
In 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia’s parliament. Dmitry Rogozin, Russian ambassador to NATO, warned that Georgia’s NATO membership aspirations would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian State Duma adopted a resolution in which it called on the President of Russia and the government to consider the recognition.
Russo-Georgian War
By August 1, 2008, Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. To put an end to these attacks and restore order, the Georgian Army was sent to the South Ossetian conflict zone. Georgians took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, within hours. Georgia later stated it was also responding to Russia moving non-peacekeeping units into the country. In response, Russia accused Georgia of “aggression against South Ossetia” and launched a large-scale land, air, and sea invasion of Georgia on August 8 with the stated aim of “peace enforcement” operation. Russian and Ossetian forces battled Georgian forces in and around South Ossetia for several days until they retreated. Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge held by Georgia. Russian naval forces blockaded part of the Georgian coast. This was the first war in history in which cyber warfare coincided with military action. An active information war was waged during and after the conflict.
Russo-Georgian War, 2008
The war displaced 192,000 people and while many returned to their homes after the war, 20,272 people remained displaced as of 2014. Russia has, since the war, occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in violation of the ceasefire agreement of August 2008.
Impact
On August 17, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (who took office in May) announced that Russian forces would begin to pull out of Georgia the following day. The two countries exchanged prisoners of war. Russian forces withdrew from the buffer zones adjacent to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in October and authority over them was transferred to the European Union monitoring mission in Georgia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that a military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia was essential to prevent Georgia from regaining control. Georgia considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia Russian-occupied territories. On August 25, 2008, the Russian parliament unanimously voted in favor of a motion urging President Medvedev to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, and a day later Medvedev signed decrees recognizing the two states. In 2011, the European Parliament passed a resolution recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as occupied Georgian territories.
The recognition by Russia was condemned by many international actors, including the United States, France, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, NATO, and the G7 on the grounds that it violated Georgia’s territorial integrity, United Nations Security Council resolutions, and the ceasefire agreement.
Although Georgia has no significant oil or gas reserves, its territory hosts part of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline supplying Europe. The pipeline circumvents both Russia and Iran. Because it has decreased Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the pipeline has been a major factor in the United States’ support for Georgia.
The 2008 war was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military had been used against an independent state, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to wage a full-scale military campaign to attain its political objectives. The failure of the Western security system to respond swiftly to Russia’s attempt to forcibly revise the existing borders revealed its weaknesses. Ukraine and other post-Soviet states received a clear message from the Russian leadership that the possible accession to NATO would cause a foreign invasion and the break-up of the country. The construction of the EU-sponsored Nabucco pipeline (connecting Central Asian reserves to Europe) in Transcaucasia was averted.
The war eliminated Georgia’s prospects for joining NATO.
The Georgian government severed diplomatic relations with Russia.
The war in Georgia showed Russia’s assertiveness in revising international relations and undermining the hegemony of the United States. Shortly after the war, Russian president Medvedev unveiled a five-point Russian foreign policy. The Medvedev Doctrine implied that the presence of Russian citizens in foreign countries would form a doctrinal foundation for invasion if needed. Medvedev’s statement that there were areas in which Russia had “privileged interests” underlined Russia’s particular interest in the former Soviet Union and the fact that Russia would feel endangered by subversion of local pro-Russian regimes.
Post-Soviet Russo-Ukrainian Relations
Despite being an independent country since 1991, Russia has perceived Ukraine as part of its sphere of interests. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, both states retained close ties, but tensions began almost immediately. There were several conflict points, most importantly Ukraine’s significant nuclear arsenal, which Ukraine agreed to abandon on the condition that Russia would issue an assurance against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. A second point was the division of the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine agreed to lease the Sevastopol port so that the Russian Black Sea fleet could continue to occupy it together with Ukraine. Furthermore, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Ukraine and Russia engaged in several gas disputes. Russia was also further aggravated by the Orange Revolution of 2004, which saw pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko rise to power instead of pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich. Ukraine also continued to increase its cooperation with NATO.
Pro-Russian Yanukovich was eventually elected in 2010 and Russia felt that many ties with Ukraine could be repaired. Prior to the election, Ukraine had not renewed the lease of Black Sea Naval base at Sevastopol, which meant that Russian troops would have to leave Crimea by 2017. However, Yanukovich signed a new lease allowing also troops to train in the Kerch peninsula. Many in Ukraine viewed the extension as unconstitutional because Ukraine’s constitution states that no permanent foreign troops would station in Ukraine after the Sevastopol treaty expired. Moreover, Yulia Tymoshenko, the main opposition figure of Yanukovich, was jailed on what many considered trumped-up charges, leading to further dissatisfaction with the government.
Another important factor in the tensions between Russian and Ukraine was Ukraine’s gradually closer ties with the European Union. For years, the EU promoted tight relations with Ukraine to encourage the country to take a more pro-European and less pro-Russian direction.
In 2013, Russia warned Ukraine that if it went ahead with a long-planned agreement on free trade with the EU, it would face financial catastrophe and possibly the collapse of the state. Sergey Glazyev, adviser to President Vladimir Putin, suggested that, contrary to international law, if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries’ borders to be void. Russia would no longer guarantee Ukraine’s status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Russia. In 2013, Viktor Yanukovich declined to sign the agreement with the European Union, choosing closer ties with Russia.
Political Turmoil and Annexation of Crimea
After Yanukovich’s decision, months of protests as part of what would be called the Euromaidan movement followed. In February 2014, protesters ousted the government of Viktor Yanukovich, who had been democratically elected in 2010. The protesters took control of government buildings in the capital city of Kiev, along with the city itself. Yanukovich fled Kiev for Kharkiv in the east of Ukraine, where he traditionally had more support. After this incident, the Ukrainian parliament voted to restore the 2004 Constitution of Ukraine and remove Yanukovich from power. However, politicians from the traditionally pro-Russian eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, declared continuing loyalty to Yanukovich.
Days after Yanukovich fled Kiev, armed men opposed to the Euromaidan movement began to take control of the Crimean Peninsula. Checkpoints were established by unmarked soldiers with green military-grade uniforms and equipment in the capital of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, and the independently-administered port-city of Sevastopol, home to a Russian naval base. After the occupation of the Crimean parliament by these unmarked troops, with evidence suggesting that they were Russian special forces, the Crimean leadership announced it would hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine. This heavily disputed referendum was followed by the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in mid-March. Ukraine and most of the international community refused to recognize the referendum or the annexation. On April 15, the Ukrainian parliament declared Crimea a territory temporarily occupied by Russia.
Since annexing Crimea, the Russian government increased its military presence in the region, with Russian president Vladimir Putin saying a Russian military task force would be established there. In 2014, Ukrainian Border Guard Service announced Russian troops began withdrawing from the areas of Kherson Oblast. They occupied parts of the Arabat Spit and the islands around the Syvash, which are geographically part of Crimea but administratively part of Kherson Oblast. One such village occupied by Russian troops was Strilkove, located on the Arabat Spit, which housed an important gas distribution center. Russian forces stated they took over the gas distribution center to prevent terrorist attacks. Consequently, they withdrew from southern Kherson but continued to occupy the gas distribution center outside Strilkove. In August 2016, Ukraine reported that Russia had increased its military presence along the demarcation line. Border crossings were then closed. Both sides accused each other of killings and provoking skirmishes but it remains unclear which accusations were true, with both Russia and Ukraine denying the opponent’s claims.
Unidentified gunmen on patrol at Simferopol International Airport
In September 2015 the United Nations Human Rights Office estimated that 8000 casualties had resulted from the conflict over the annexation of Crimea, noting that the violence has been “fueled by the presence and continuing influx of foreign fighters and sophisticated weapons and ammunition from the Russian Federation.”
In addition to the annexation of Crimea, an armed conflict in the Donbass region of Ukraine, known as the War in Donbass, began in March 2014. Protests by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the Donbass, in the aftermath of the Euromaidan movement. These demonstrations, which followed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and which were part of a wider group of concurrent pro-Russian protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, with the support of Russian military forces and the Ukrainian government.
Since the start of the conflict, there have been 11 ceasefires, each intended to be indefinite. As of March 2017, the fighting continues.
International Response
There have been a range of international reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea. The UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favor, 11 against, and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared Crimea’s Moscow-backed referendum invalid.
Many countries implemented economic sanctions against Russia, Russian individuals, or companies, to which Russia responded in kind.
The United States government imposed sanctions against persons they deem to have violated or assisted in the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The European Union suspended talks with Russia on economic and visa-related matters and eventually added more stringent sanctions against Russia, including asset freezes. Japan announced sanctions, which include suspension of talks relating to military, space, investment, and visa requirements. NATO condemned Russia’s military escalation in Crimea and stated that it was breach of international law, while the Council of Europe expressed its full support for the territorial integrity and national unity of Ukraine. China announced that it respected “the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.” A spokesman restated China’s belief of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and urged dialogue.
38.1.3: The Financial Crisis of 2008
In Europe, the global financial crisis of 2008 contributed to the European debt crisis and the Great Recession, which affected all the EU member-states and other European countries, resulting in the growing crisis of confidence in the idea of European integration.
Learning Objective
Recall the series of events that led to the financial crisis in 2008.
Key Points
The financial crisis of
2008 is considered by many
economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression
of the 1930s. It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in
the United States and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the
collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008. In Europe, the global crisis contributed to the
European debt crisis and fueled a crisis in the banking system of countries using the euro.
The European debt crisis resulted from a combination of many complex
factors. In the early 2000s, some EU
member states failed to stay within the confines of the Maastricht Treaty criteria, but some governments
managed to mask their deficit and debt levels. The
under-reporting was exposed through a revision of the forecast for the 2009
budget deficit in Greece.
The
panic escalated when Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus were unable to repay
or refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted banks under
their national supervision without the assistance of third parties.
The detailed causes of the
debt crisis varied. In several countries, private debts arising from a property
bubble were transferred to sovereign debt as a result of banking system bailouts
and government responses to slowing economies post-bubble. The structure of the
eurozone as a currency union without fiscal union contributed to the crisis. Also, European banks own a
significant amount of sovereign debt, so concerns regarding the solvency of
banking systems or sovereigns were negatively reinforced.
As concerns intensified, leading European nations implemented a series of
financial support measures such as the European Financial Stability Facility
(EFSF) and European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The ECB
also contributed to solve the crisis by lowering interest rates and providing
cheap loans of more than one trillion euro to maintain money flows
between European banks. In 2012, the ECB calmed financial markets by announcing
free unlimited support for all eurozone countries involved in a sovereign state
bailout/precautionary program from EFSF/ESM.
Many European countries embarked on austerity programs, reducing
their budget deficits relative to GDP from 2010 to 2011. However, with the exception of Germany, each
of these countries had public-debt-to-GDP ratios that increased (i.e.,
worsened) from 2010 to 2011. The crisis had significant
adverse effects on labor market, with the unemployment rates rising in
Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK. The crisis was also blamed for subdued economic growth of the entire European Union. To fight the
crisis, some governments have also raised taxes and lowered expenditures, which
contributed to social unrest.
Despite the substantial
rise of sovereign debt in only a few eurozone countries, effectiveness of the applied measures, and relatively stable return to economic growth, the
debt crisis revealed serious weaknesses in the process of economic integration
within the EU, which in turn resulted in the general crisis of confidence
that the idea of European integration continues to witness today.
Key Terms
European Financial Stability Facility
A special-purpose vehicle financed by members of the eurozone to address the European sovereign-debt crisis. It was established in 2010 with the objective of preserving financial stability in Europe by providing assistance to eurozone states in economic difficulty. Since the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism, its activities are carried out by the ESM.
European debt crisis
A multi-year debt crisis that has been taking place in the European Union since the end of 2009. Several eurozone member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus) were unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted banks under their national supervision without the assistance of third parties like other eurozone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB), or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
European Stability Mechanism
An intergovernmental organization located in Luxembourg City, which operates under public international law for all eurozone member states that ratified a special intergovernmental treaty. It was established in 2012 as a permanent firewall for the eurozone to safeguard and provide instant access to financial assistance programs for member states of the eurozone in financial difficulty, with a maximum lending capacity of €500 billion.
PIGS
An acronym used in economics and finance that originally refers, often derogatorily, to the economies of the Southern European countries of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. During the European debt crisis, these four EU member states were unable to refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted banks on their own during the crisis.
Great Recession
A period of general economic decline observed in world markets during the late 2000s and early 2010s. Its scale and timing varied from country to country. In terms of overall impact, the International Monetary Fund concluded that it was the worst global recession since World War II.
Maastricht Treaty
A treaty undertaken to integrate Europe, signed in
1992 by the members of the European Community. Upon its entry into force in
1993, it created the European Union and led to the creation of the
single European currency, the euro. The treaty has been amended by the treaties
of Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon.
eurozone
A monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states that have adopted the euro (€) as their common currency and sole legal tender.
The financial crisis of 2008, also known as the global financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in the United States and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008. Excessive risk-taking by banks such as Lehman Brothers helped to globally magnify the financial impact. Massive bail-outs of financial institutions and other palliative monetary and fiscal policies were employed to prevent a possible collapse of the world’s financial system. The crisis was nonetheless followed by a global economic downturn, the Great Recession. In Europe, it contributed to the European debt crisis and fueled a crisis in the banking system of countries using the euro.
European Debt Crisis
The European debt crisis, known also as the eurozone crisis, resulted from a combination of complex factors, including the globalization of finance, easy credit conditions from 2002-2008 that encouraged high-risk lending and borrowing practices, the financial crisis of 2008, international trade imbalances, real estate bubbles that have since burst, the Great Recession of 2008–2012, fiscal policy choices related to government revenues and expenses, and approaches used by states to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.
In 1992, members of the European Union signed the Maastricht Treaty, under which they pledged to limit their deficit spending and debt levels. However, in the early 2000s, some EU member states failed to stay within the confines of the Maastricht criteria and sidestepped best practices and international standards. Some governments managed to mask their deficit and debt levels through a combination of techniques, including inconsistent accounting, off-balance-sheet transactions, and the use of complex currency and credit derivatives structures. The under-reporting was exposed through a revision of the forecast for the 2009 budget deficit in Greece from 6-8% of GDP (according to the Maastricht Treaty, the deficit should be no greater than 3% of GDP) to 12.7%, almost immediately after the social-democratic PASOC party won the 2009 Greek national elections. Large upwards revision of budget deficit forecasts due to the international financial crisis were not limited to Greece, but in Greece the low forecast was not reported until very late in the year. The fact that the Greek debt exceeded 12% of GDP and France owned 10% of that debt struck terror among investors. The panic escalated when several eurozone member states were unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out over-indebted banks under their national supervision without the assistance of third parties like other eurozone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB), or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The countries involved, most notably Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, were collectively referred to by the derogatory acronym PIGS. During the debt crisis, Ireland replaced Italy as “I” as the acronym was originally coined to refer to the economies of Southern European countries.
The detailed causes of the debt crisis varied. In several countries, private debts arising from a property bubble were transferred to sovereign debt as a result of banking system bailouts and government responses to slowing economies post-bubble. The structure of the eurozone as a currency union (i.e., one currency) without fiscal union (e.g., different tax and public pension rules) contributed to the crisis and limited the ability of European leaders to respond. Also, European banks own a significant amount of sovereign debt, so concerns regarding the solvency of banking systems or sovereigns were negatively reinforced.
As concerns intensified in early 2010 and thereafter, leading European nations implemented a series of financial support measures such as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and European Stability Mechanism (ESM).
The mandate of the EFSF was to “safeguard financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance” to eurozone states. It could issue bonds or other debt instruments on the market to raise the funds needed to provide loans to eurozone countries in financial troubles, recapitalize banks, or buy sovereign debt.
The ESM was established in 2012 (taking over the functions of the EFSF) as a permanent firewall for the eurozone, to safeguard and provide instant access to financial assistance programs for member states of the eurozone in financial difficulty, with a maximum lending capacity of €500 billion.
The ECB also contributed to solve the crisis by lowering interest rates and providing cheap loans of more than one trillion euro to maintain money flows between European banks. In 2012, the ECB calmed financial markets by announcing free unlimited support for all eurozone countries involved in a sovereign state bailout/precautionary program from EFSF/ESM.
Great Recession in Europe
Many European countries, including non-EU members like Iceland, embarked on austerity programs, reducing their budget deficits relative to GDP from 2010 to 2011. For example, Greece improved its budget deficit from 10.4% GDP in 2010 to 9.6% in 2011. Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, France, and Spain also improved their budget deficits from 2010 to 2011 relative to GDP. However, with the exception of Germany, each of these countries had public-debt-to-GDP ratios that increased (i.e., worsened) from 2010 to 2011. Greece’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 143% in 2010 to 165% in 2011 to 185% in 2014. This indicates that despite improving budget deficits, GDP growth was not sufficient to support a decline (improvement) in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Eurostat reported that the debt to GDP ratio for the 17 Euro-area countries together was 70.1% in 2008, 79.9% in 2009, 85.3% in 2010, and 87.2% in 2011.
The crisis had significant adverse effects on labor market. From 2010 to 2011, the unemployment rates in Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK increased, reaching particularly high rates (over 20%) in Spain and Greece. France had no significant changes, while in Germany and Iceland the unemployment rate declined. Eurostat reported that eurozone unemployment reached record levels in September 2012 at 11.6%, up from 10.3% the prior year, but unemployment varied significantly by country. The crisis was also blamed for subdued economic growth, not only for the entire eurozone but for the entire European Union. As such, it is thought to have had a major political impact on the ruling governments in 10 out of 19 eurozone countries, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium, and the Netherlands, as well as outside of the eurozone in the United Kingdom.
Poland and Slovakia are the only two members of the European Union that avoided a GDP recession during the years affected by the Great Recession.
To fight the crisis, some governments have also raised taxes and lowered expenditures. This contributed to social unrest and debates among economists, many of whom advocate greater deficits (thus no austerity measures) when economies are struggling. Especially in countries where budget deficits and sovereign debts have increased sharply, a crisis of confidence has emerged with more stable national economies attracting more investors. By the end of 2011, Germany was estimated to have made more than €9 billion out of the crisis as investors flocked to safer but near zero interest rate German federal government bonds (bunds). By mid-2012, the Netherlands, Austria, and Finland benefited from zero or negative interest rates, with Belgium and France also on the list of eventual beneficiaries.
100,000 people protest against the austerity measures in front of parliament building in Athens, May 29, 2011
On May 1, 2010, the Greek government announced a series of austerity measures (the third austerity package within months) to secure a three-year €110 billion loan. This was met with great anger by some Greeks, leading to massive protests, riots, and social unrest.
Despite the substantial rise of sovereign debt in only a few eurozone countries, with Greece, Ireland, and Portugal collectively accounting for only 6% of the eurozone’s gross domestic product (GDP), it has become a perceived problem for the area as a whole, leading to speculation of further contagion of other European countries and a possible break-up of the eurozone. In total, the debt crisis forced five out of 17 eurozone countries to seek help from other nations by the end of 2012. Due to successful fiscal consolidation and implementation of structural reforms in the countries most at risk and various policy measures taken by EU leaders and the ECB, financial stability in the eurozone has improved significantly and interest rates have steadily fallen. This has also greatly diminished contagion risk for other eurozone countries. As of October 2012, only three out of 17 eurozone countries, Greece, Portugal, and Cyprus, still battled with long-term interest rates above 6%. By early 2013, successful sovereign debt auctions across the eurozone, most importantly in Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, showed that investors believed the ECB-backstop has worked.
Return to economic growth and improved structural deficits enabled Ireland and Portugal to exit their bailout programs in mid-2014. Greece and Cyprus both managed to partly regain market access in 2014. Spain never officially received a bailout program. Its rescue package from the ESM was earmarked for a bank recapitalization fund and did not provide financial support for the government itself. Despite this progress, the debt crisis revealed serious weaknesses in the process of economic integration within the EU, which in turn resulted in the general crisis of confidence that the idea of European integration continues to witness today.
38.1.4: Austerity Measures
The austerity measures introduced as a response to the European debt crisis under the pressure of EU leadership had mixed results in terms of stabilizing European economies and a largely negative impact on ordinary Europeans, many of whom faced unemployment, lower wages, and higher taxes.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the effectiveness of the austerity measures advocated by the European Union’s leadership
Key Points
Austerity
is a set of economic policies that aim to demonstrate the government’s fiscal
discipline by bringing
revenues closer to expenditures. Policies grouped under the term austerity
measures generally
include cutting state spending and increasing taxes to stabilize
public finances, restore competitiveness, and create a better investment
environment. Under the pressure of European Union leadership, many European countries embarked on austerity
programs in response to their debt crisis.
In 2010 and 2011, the Greek
government announced a series of austerity measures to secure loans from the Troika. All the implemented measures have helped Greece bring down its
primary deficit, but also worsened its recession. The Greek GDP had its
worst decline in 2011. Greeks lost much of their purchasing power, spent less on goods and services, and saw a record high seasonal adjusted unemployment rate of 27.9% in 2013.
The Irish sovereign debt
crisis arose not from government over-spending, but from the state guaranteeing
the six main Irish-based banks who financed a property bubble. Ireland initially benefited from austerity measures but subsequent
research demonstrated that its economy suffered from austerity.
Unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to 14% by 2010, while the national budget
went from a surplus in 2007 to a deficit of 32% GDP in 2010, the highest in the
history of the eurozone.
In 2010, the Portuguese
government announced a fresh austerity package through a series of tax hikes
and salary cuts for public servants. Also in 2010, the country reached a record
high unemployment rate of nearly 11%. In the first half of
2011, Portugal requested a €78 billion IMF-EU bailout package in a bid to
stabilize its public finances, affected greatly by decades-long government
overspending and bureaucratized civil service. After the bailout was
announced, the state’s
finances improved but unemployment
increased to over 15% in 2012. The bail-out conditions of austerity also
created a political crisis.
Spain initiated an austerity program consisting primarily of tax
increases. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced on in 2012 €65 billion of
austerity, including cuts in wages and benefits and a VAT increase from 18% to
21%. The government eventually reduced its budget deficit from
11.2% of GDP in 2009 to 8.5% in 2011. Due to reforms already instituted by Spain’s
conservative government, less stringent austerity requirements were included.
There
has been substantial criticism of the austerity measures implemented by most
European nations to counter the debt crisis, with economists predicting that the timing and level of austerity would only worsen the recession. As ordinary citizens paid the highest cost for the measures, including high unemployment, lower wages, and higher taxes, protests against austerity broke out across Europe.
Key Terms
European debt crisis
A multi-year debt crisis in the European Union since the end of 2009. Several
eurozone member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus)
were unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out
over-indebted banks under their national supervision without the assistance of
third parties like other eurozone countries, the European Central
Bank (ECB), or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Troika
The designation of the triumvirate representing the European Union in its foreign relations, in particular concerning its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Currently, the term is used to refer to a decision group formed by the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
austerity
A set of economic policies that aim to demonstrate the government’s fiscal discipline, usually to creditors and credit rating agencies, by bringing revenues closer to expenditures. Policies grouped under the term generally include cutting the state’s spending and increasing taxes to stabilize public finances, restore competitiveness, and create better investment expectation.
Austerity is a set of economic policies that aim to
demonstrate the government’s fiscal discipline, usually to creditors and credit rating agencies, by bringing revenues closer to expenditures.
Policies considered austerity measures generally include cutting the state’s spending and increasing taxes to stabilize public finances, restore competitiveness, and create a better investment environment.
A typical goal of austerity is to reduce the annual budget deficit without sacrificing growth. Over time, this may reduce the overall debt burden, often measured as the ratio of public debt to GDP.
Under the pressure of the European Union leadership, many European countries embarked on austerity programs in response to the European debt crisis, despite evidence that overspending was only to a certain extent in some cases responsible for the unfolding economic disaster. However, austerity measures became the main condition under which the eurozone countries in the most dramatic economic situation, most notably Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, would receive financial support from the Troika,
a tripartite committee formed by the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (EC, ECB and IMF).
Response to European Debt Crisis
On May 1, 2010, the Greek government announced a series of austerity measures to secure a three-year €110 billion loan. The Troika offered Greece a second bailout loan worth €130 billion in October 2011, but with activation conditional on implementation of further austerity measures and a debt restructuring agreement. All the implemented measures have helped Greece bring down its primary deficit but contributed to a worsening of its recession. The Greek GDP had its worst decline in 2011, when 111,000 Greek companies went bankrupt (27% higher than in 2010). As a result, Greeks lost about 40% of their purchasing power since the start of the crisis, spent 40% less on goods and services, and experienced a record high seasonal adjusted unemployment rate that grew from 7.5% in September 2008 to a record high of 27.9% in June 2013. The youth unemployment rate rose from 22% to as high as 62%.
In February 2012, an IMF official negotiating Greek austerity measures admitted that excessive spending cuts were harming Greece. The IMF predicted the Greek economy to contract by 5.5 % by 2014. Harsh austerity measures led to an actual contraction after six years of recession of 17%.
The Irish sovereign debt crisis arose not from government over-spending, but from the state guaranteeing the six main Irish-based banks who had financed a property bubble. Irish banks had lost an estimated 100 billion euros, much of it related to defaulted loans to property developers and homeowners made in the midst of the bubble, which burst around 2007. The economy subsequently collapsed in 2008.
Ireland was one country that initially benefited from austerity measures but subsequent research demonstrated that its economy suffered from austerity. Unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to 14% by 2010, while the national budget went from a surplus in 2007 to a deficit of 32% GDP in 2010, the highest in the history of the eurozone.
In 2009, the Portuguese deficit was 9.4%, one of the highest in the eurozone.
In 2010, the Portuguese government announced a fresh austerity package through a series of tax hikes and salary cuts for public servants. Also in 2010, the country reached a record high unemployment rate of nearly 11%, a figure not seen for over two decades, while the number of public servants remained very high. In the first half of 2011, Portugal requested a €78 billion IMF-EU bailout package in a bid to stabilize its public finances, affected greatly by decades-long governmental overspending and an over-bureaucratized civil service. After the bailout was announced, the government managed to implement measures to improve the state’s financial situation and seemed to be on the right track. This, however, led to a strong increase of the unemployment rate to over 15% in 2012. The bail-out conditions of austerity also created a political crisis in the country, resolved in 2015 with the anti-austerity left-wing coalition leading the country.
Spain entered the crisis period with a relatively modest public debt of 36.2% of GDP. This was largely due to ballooning tax revenue from the housing bubble, which helped accommodate a decade of increased government spending without debt accumulation. In response to the crisis, Spain initiated an austerity program consisting primarily of tax increases. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced in 2012 €65 billion of austerity, including cuts in wages and benefits and a VAT increase from 18% to 21%. The government eventually reduced its budget deficit from 11.2% of GDP in 2009 to 8.5% in 2011.
A larger economy than other countries that received bailout packages, Spain had considerable bargaining power regarding the terms of a bailout. Due to reforms already instituted by Spain’s conservative government, less stringent austerity requirements were included than in earlier bailout packages for Ireland, Portugal, and Greece.
“Education not Emigration” – a poster for the national student march in 2010 in Ireland.
A student demonstration took place in Dublin on November 3, 2010, in opposition to a proposed increase in university registration fees, further cuts to the student maintenance grant, and increasing graduate unemployment and emigration levels. Organized by the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) and student unions nationwide, it saw between 25,000 and 40,000 protesters on the streets of central Dublin during what “the largest student protest for a generation.”
The text of the poster reads, “Education not emigration. Can you afford a £3,999 reg fee in September? No…then march!”
Economic Debates on Austerity
There has been substantial criticism over the austerity measures implemented by most European nations to counter this debt crisis. U.S. economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman argued that the deflationary policies imposed on countries such as Greece and Spain would prolong and deepen their recessions. Together with over 9,000 signatories of A Manifesto for Economic Sense, Krugman also dismissed the belief of austerity-focusing policy makers that “budget consolidation” revives confidence in financial markets over the longer haul.
According to some economists, “growth-friendly austerity” relies on the false argument that public cuts would be compensated for by more spending from consumers and businesses, a theoretical claim that has not materialized. The case of Greece shows that excessive levels of private indebtedness and a collapse of public confidence (over 90% of Greeks fear unemployment, poverty, and the closure of businesses) led the private sector to decrease spending in an attempt to save up for rainy days ahead. This led to even lower demand for both products and labor, which further deepened the recession and made it even more difficult to generate tax revenues and fight public indebtedness.
Some economists also criticized the timing and amount of austerity measures in the bailout programs, arguing that such extensive measures should not be implemented during the crisis years with an ongoing recession, but delayed until after some positive real GDP growth returns. In 2012, a report published by the IMF also found that tax hikes and spending cuts during the most recent decade indeed damaged the GDP growth more severely compared to forecasts.
Social Impact of Austerity Measures
Opponents of austerity measures argue that they depress economic growth and ultimately cause reduced tax revenues that outweigh the benefits of reduced public spending. Moreover, in countries with already anemic economic growth, austerity can engender deflation, which inflates existing debt. Such austerity packages can also cause the country to fall into a liquidity trap, causing credit markets to freeze up and unemployment to increase.
Supporting the conclusions of these macroeconomic models, austerity measures applied during the European debt crisis negatively affected ordinary citizens. The outcomes of introducing harsh austerity measures included the rapid increase of unemployment as government spending fell, reducing jobs in the public and/or private sector; the reduction of household disposable income through tax increases, which in turn reduced spending and consumption; and the bankruptcy of many small businesses, which contributed to even more unemployment and lowered already low productivity.
Apart from arguments over whether or not austerity, rather than increased or frozen spending, is a macroeconomic solution, union leaders argued that the working population was unjustly held responsible for the economic mismanagement errors of economists, investors, and bankers. Over 23 million EU workers became unemployed as a consequence of the global economic crisis of 2007-2010, leading many to call for additional regulation of the banking sector across not only Europe, but the entire world.
The anti-austerity protests in Greece in 2010 and 2011
Anti-austerity activists demonstrated in major cities across Greece. Some of the events later turned violent, particularly in the capital city of Athens. Inspired by the anti-austerity protests in Spain, these demonstrations were organized entirely using social networking sites, which earned it the nickname “May of Facebook.”
The photograph on the left shows a violent protest in 2010. The photograph on the right shows a peaceful protest in 2011.
Following the announcement of plans to introduce austerity measures in Greece, massive demonstrations occurred throughout the country aimed at pressing parliamentarians to vote against the austerity package. In Athens alone, 19 arrests were made, while 46 civilians and 38 policemen were injured by the end of June 2011. The third round of austerity was approved by the Greek parliament in 2012 and met strong opposition, especially in Athens and Thessaloniki, where police clashed with demonstrators. Similar protests took place in Spain and Ireland, led by student communities.
The ethics of austerity have been questioned in recent years outside of the European states hit by the harshest measures as a result of the bail-out conditions. For example, the Royal Society of Medicine revealed that the United Kingdom’s austerity measures in healthcare may have resulted in 30,000 deaths in England and Wales in 2015.
38.1.5: The Refugee Crisis
As millions of refugees escape wars and persecution in their home countries and flee to Europe, both the European Union and the larger European community have been testing the limits of integration and solidarity as some countries accept— and others refuse— the responsibility to deal with the crisis.
Learning Objective
Discuss the origins and scope of the current refugee crisis
Key Points
Movement across Europe is
largely regulated by the Schengen Agreement, by which 26 countries formed an area where border checks between
the member states are abolished and checks are
restricted to the external Schengen borders. Carriers that transport people into the Schengen area
are, if they transport people who are refused entry, responsible to pay for the return of the refused people and additional penalties. Many migrants attempt to travel illegally. Those who have basis to seek asylum in the EU face
the rules of the Dublin Regulation, which determines the EU member state
responsible for examining an asylum application.
According to the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of forcibly
displaced people worldwide reached 59.5 million in 2014, which includes 19.5 million
refugees and 1.8 million asylum seekers. Among
them, Syrian refugees became the largest group in 2014. Developing nations, not Western countries, hosted the largest share of refugees (86% by the end of 2014). Most of the people arriving in Europe in 2015 were leeing war and
persecution in countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea. Wars fueling the crisis are the
Syrian Civil War, the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Somalia, and
the War in Darfur.
Amid an upsurge in the
number of sea arrivals in Italy from Libya in 2014, several European Union
governments refused to fund the Italian-run rescue option Operation Mare
Nostrum, which was replaced by Frontex’s Operation Triton. The latter involves
voluntary contributions from 15 other European nations. The Italian government requested additional funds from the other EU member states, but they did not
offer the requested support. In 2015, Greece
overtook Italy as the first EU country of arrival, becoming the starting point of a flow of refugees and migrants moving to northern European countries, mainly Germany and Sweden.
Since April 2015, the
European Union has struggled to cope with the crisis, increasing funding for
border patrol operations in the Mediterranean, devising plans to fight migrant
smuggling, launching Operation Sophia with the aim of neutralizing established
refugee smuggling routes in the Mediterranean, and proposing a new quota system
to relocate asylum seekers among EU states.
Individual
countries have at times reintroduced border controls within the Schengen area
and rifts have emerged between countries willing to allow entry of asylum
seekers for processing of refugee claims and those trying to
discourage their entry for processing. Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and
Austria received around two-thirds of the EU’s asylum applications in 2015,
with Hungary, Sweden, and Austria the top recipients per capita. Germany has been the most sought-after final
destination in the EU migrant and refugee crisis.
The escalation of
shipwrecks of migrant boats in the Mediterranean in 2015 led European Union
leaders to reconsider their policies on border control and processing of
migrants. The European
Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed to distribute 160,000 asylum
seekers among EU states under a new migrant quota system. By September 2016, the quota system
proposed by EU was abandoned after resistance by Visegrad Group
countries. The refugee crisis also fueled nationalist sentiments across Europe
and the appeal of politicians who oppose the idea of European integration.
Key Terms
refugee
Legally, a person who has left his or her country of origin because of well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to return or avail themselves of that country’s protection.
Operation Triton
A border security operation conducted by Frontex, the European Union’s border security agency. The operation, under Italian control, began in 2014 and involves voluntary contributions from 15 other European nations (both EU member states and non-members). It was undertaken after Italy ended Operation Mare Nostrum, which had become too costly for a single country to fund. The Italian government requested additional funds from the other EU member states but they refused.
asylum seeker
A person who flees his or her home country and “spontaneously” enters another country and applies for asylum, i.e. the right to international protection. A person attains this status by making a formal application for the right to remain in another country and keeps that status until the application has been concluded.
Schengen Agreement
A treaty which led to the creation of an area of Europe where internal border checks have largely been abolished. It was signed in 1985 by five of the ten member states of the European Economic Community. It proposed measures intended to gradually abolish border checks at the signatories’ common borders, including reduced speed vehicle checks that allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, freedom for residents in border areas to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonization of visa policies.
Dublin Regulation
A European Union (EU) law that determines the EU member state responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers of international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive within the European Union.
Background: EU and Migration
Movement across Europe is largely regulated by the Schengen Agreement, by which 26 European countries (22 of the 28 European Union member states, plus
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) joined to form an area where border checks between the 26 member states (internal Schengen borders) are abolished and checks are restricted to the external Schengen borders. Countries with external borders are obligated to enforce border control regulations. Countries may reinstate internal border controls for a maximum of two months for “public policy or national security” reasons.
Article 26 of the Schengen Convention states that carriers that transport people into the Schengen area shall, if they transport people who are refused entry into the Schengen area, be responsible to pay for the return of the refused people and additional penalties. This means that migrants without a visa are not allowed on aircraft, boats, or trains going into the Schengen area. After being refused passage, many migrants attempt to travel illegally, relying on migrant smugglers. Those who have basis to seek asylum in the EU (asylum seekers) face the rules of the Dublin Regulation, which determines the EU member state responsible to examine an asylum application. This prevents asylum applicants in the EU from applying for asylum to numerous member states and situations when no member state takes responsibility for an asylum seeker. By default (when no family reasons or humanitarian grounds are present), the first member state that an asylum seeker entered and in which they have been fingerprinted is responsible. If the asylum seeker then moves to another member state, he or she can be transferred back to the member state they first entered. Many criticize the Dublin rules for placing too much responsibility for asylum seekers on member states on the EU’s external borders (e.g., Italy, Greece, and Hungary), instead of devising a burden-sharing system among EU states.
Migrants crossing illegally into Hungary underneath the unfinished Hungary–Serbia border fence, August 25, 2015, photo by Gémes Sándor.
The Hungary-Serbia border is one external border of the Schengen area and also of the European Union.
In 2016, border controls were temporarily introduced in seven Schengen countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, and Sweden) in response to the European refugee crisis.
Global Refugee Crisis
According to the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide reached 59.5 million at the end of 2014, the highest level since World War II. Of these 59.5 million, 19.5 million were refugees and 1.8 million were asylum seekers. The rest were persons displaced within their own countries (internally displaced persons). Among them, Syrian refugees became the largest refugee group in 2014 (as of February 2017, the UNHCR reported over 4.7 million registered Syrian refugees worldwide), overtaking Afghan refugees, previously the largest refugee group for three decades. Six of the ten largest countries of origin of refugees were African: Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, and Eritrea.
Developing countries hosted the largest share of refugees (86% by the end of 2014). Although most Syrian refugees were hosted by neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, the number of asylum applications lodged by Syrian refugees in Europe steadily increased between 2011 and 2015, totaling 813,599 in 37 European countries as of November 2015. Fifty-seven percent of them applied for asylum in Germany or Serbia.
According to the UNHCR, most people arriving in Europe in 2015 were refugees, fleeing war and persecution in countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea. Eighty-four percent of Mediterranean Sea arrivals in 2015 came from the world’s top ten refugee-producing countries: Syria (49%), Afghanistan (21%), Iraq (8%), Eritrea (4%), Pakistan (2%), Nigeria (2%), Somalia (2%), Sudan (1%), the Gambia (1%), and Mali (1%). Asylum seekers of seven nationalities,
Syrians, Eritreans, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, and Sudanese, had an asylum recognition rate of over 50% in EU states in the first quarter of 2015, meaning that they obtained protection over half the time they applied. Wars fueling the crisis are the Syrian Civil War, the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Somalia, and the War in Darfur. Refugees from Eritrea, one of the most repressive states in the world, flee from indefinite military conscription and forced labor. Some ethnicities or religions from an originating country are more represented among the migrants than others; for instance, Kurds make up a substantial number of refugees from Turkey and Iraq. Fifty-eight percent of the refugees and migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015 were men, 17% were women, and 25% were children.
Europe’s Response
Amid an upsurge in the number of sea arrivals in Italy from Libya in 2014, several European Union governments refused to fund the Italian-run rescue option Operation Mare Nostrum, which was replaced by Frontex’s Operation Triton. The latter involves voluntary contributions from 15 other European nations (both EU member states and non-members). Current voluntary contributors
are Croatia, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, and Malta. The operation was undertaken after Italy ended Mare Nostrum, which had become too costly for a single country to fund. The Italian government requested additional funds from the other EU member states, but they refused. In the first six months of 2015, Greece overtook Italy as the first EU country of arrival, becoming, in the summer 2015, the starting point of a flow of refugees and migrants moving through Balkan countries to northern European countries, mainly Germany and Sweden.
Migrants in Budapest railway station, with most heading to Germany, September 4, 2015, photo by Elekes Andor.
Germany placed temporary travel restrictions from Austria by rail in 2015 but has imposed the least onerous restrictions for migrants entering by the Western Balkans route.
The November 2015 Paris attacks prompted reevaluation of German officials’ stance on the EU’s policy toward migrants. There appeared to be a consensus among officials, with the notable exception of Angela Merkel, that a higher level of scrutiny was needed in vetting migrants with respect to their mission in Germany. However, while not officially limiting the influx, Merkel has tightened asylum policy in Germany.
Since April 2015, the European Union has struggled to cope with the crisis, increasing funding for border patrol operations in the Mediterranean, devising plans to fight migrant smuggling, launching Operation Sophia
with the aim of neutralizing established refugee smuggling routes in the Mediterranean, and proposing a new quota system both to relocate asylum seekers among EU states for processing of refugee claims to alleviate the burden on countries on the outer borders of the Union and to resettle asylum seekers who have been determined refugees. Individual countries have at times reintroduced border controls within the Schengen area and rifts have emerged between countries willing to allow entry of asylum seekers for processing of refugee claims and those trying to discourage their entry for processing. According to Eurostat, EU member states received over 1.2 million first-time asylum applications in 2015, more than double that of the previous year. Four states (Germany, Hungary, Sweden, and Austria) received around two-thirds of the EU’s asylum applications in 2015, with Hungary, Sweden, and Austria the top recipients per capita.
Germany has been the most sought-after final destination in the EU migrant and refugee crisis.
The escalation of shipwrecks of migrant boats in the Mediterranean in 2015 led European Union leaders to reconsider their policies on border control and processing of migrants. The European Commission proposed a plan that included deploying teams in Italy and Greece for joint processing of asylum applications, and German chancellor Angela Merkel proposed a new system of quotas to distribute non-EU asylum seekers around the EU member states. As thousands of migrants started to move from Budapest to Vienna, Germany, Italy, and France demanded asylum-seekers to be shared more evenly between EU states. The European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed to distribute 160,000 asylum seekers among EU states under a new migrant quota system. Leaders of the Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) declared they will not accept any compulsory long-term quota on redistribution of migrants. France announced that it would accept 24,000 asylum-seekers over two years. Britain announced that it would take in up to 20,000 refugees, primarily vulnerable children and orphans, and Germany pledged USD $6.7 billion to deal with the migrant crisis. However, also in 2015, both Austria and Germany warned that they would not be able to keep up with the current pace of the influx and that it would need to slow down. By September 2016, the quota system proposed by EU was abandoned after staunch resistance by Visegrad Group countries. The refugee crisis also fueled nationalist sentiments across Europe and the appeal of politicians who oppose the idea of European integration entirely or in its current form, often advocating anti-immigrant and anti-refugee slogans.
38.1.6: The Future of the European Union
Although the future of the European Union is currently impossible to predict and its many challenges continue to fuel the crisis of confidence in both the eurozone and the larger integration project, enlargement plans are in place and the EU remains a leading economic and political power.
Learning Objective
Predict how the European Union will develop over the next few years
Key Points
The 2008 financial crisis
followed by the European debt crisis caused a delay in the schedule for Euro adoption for most new EU members. As of 2017, there are 19 EU member
states in the eurozone; three Baltic states, Estonia (2011), Latvia
(2014), and Lithuania (2015), joined after the outbreak of the debt crisis.
Seven states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and
Sweden) are on the enlargement agenda and despite the crisis, the eurozone and
its economies are currently relatively stable.
Although the eurozone is
open to all EU member states once they meet the criteria, the treaty is
silent on the matter of states leaving the eurozone, neither prohibiting nor
permitting it. Likewise, there is no provision for a state to be expelled from
the euro. Greece is the only country where the question of leaving the eurozone (Grexit) has gained
serious political traction. The debate continues although as of 2017, it remains mostly political. No practical steps to arrange Greece’s exit from the eurozone have
been taken either by Greece or by the EU.
The most dramatic and
uncertain outcome of the growing lack of confidence in the project of European
integration has been the British decision to exit the European Union (Brexit).
From the beginning of the
European integration, Britain represented a different approach
than that proposed by France and Germany. While the latter pushed for gradual but increasingly stronger integration that would go beyond the common
market, Britain maintained its stand of focusing largely
on the economic union.
As late as December 2015, a clear majority was in favor of Britain remaining in
the EU.
Under pressure from many
of his MPs and the rise of euroskeptic sentiments, in 2013, Cameron announced that the conservative government would hold an
in0out referendum on EU membership. The referendum took
place in on June 23, 2016; 51.9%
voted in favor of leaving the EU and 48.1% voted in favor of remaining a member
of the EU. No member state has ever left the EU and it
remains unclear how the process will unfold. One likely consequences may be the independence of Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU.
Despite the ongoing crisis, currently, accession
negotiations are under way with several states. The Western
Balkans have been prioritized for membership since emerging from war during the
breakup of Yugoslavia. Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey are all
recognized as official candidates and the latter three are undergoing
membership talks. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are recognized as potential
candidates for membership. However, in 2014, President of the European
Commission Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the EU has no plans to expand in
the next five years.
Moldova, Ukraine, and
Georgia signed Association Agreements with the EU in 2014, which deepened their
trade and political links with the EU.
In 2002, the European Parliament noted that
Armenia and Georgia may enter the EU in the future. However, in 2015, to the
east of the EU, the countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia launched the
creation of the Eurasian Union, which was subsequently joined by Armenia and
Kyrgyzstan. Armenia stated in 2017 that it seeks to cooperate with both organizations.
Currently, Georgia is the only country in the Caucasus actively seeking EU
membership.
Key Terms
Eurasian Union
An economic union of states located primarily in northern Eurasia. A treaty aiming for the establishment of the union was signed in 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and came into force in 2015. Treaties aiming for Armenia’s and Kyrgyzstan’s accession were signed in 2014, with Armenia’s accession treaty coming into force in 2015.
European debt crisis
A multi-year debt crisis that
has been taking place in the European Union since the end of 2009. Several
eurozone member states (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus)
were unable to repay or refinance their government debt or bail out
over-indebted banks under their national supervision without the assistance of
third parties like other eurozone countries, the European Central
Bank (ECB), or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Brexit
The United Kingdom’s prospective withdrawal from the European Union.
Maastricht Treaty
A treaty undertaken to integrate
Europe, signed in 1992 by the members of the European Community. Upon its
entry into force in 1993, it created the European Union and led to
the creation of the single European currency, the euro. The treaty has been
amended by the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon.
Grexit
The potential exit of Greece from the eurozone, primarily to deal with its government debt crisis.
eurozone
A monetary union of 19 of the
28 European Union (EU) member states that have adopted the euro (€) as
their common currency and sole legal tender.
Since eurozone membership establishes a single monetary policy for the
respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, such as increasing their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by
printing money and subsequent devaluation, or printing money to finance excessive government
deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a
consequence, if member states do not show fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht Treaty),
they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country. This is what happened to
Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, and Spain, and the debt crisis spiraled into the
crisis of confidence in not only the common currency but also the project of European integration.
The
2008 financial crisis followed by the European debt crisis caused a delay in
the euro adoption schedule for adoption for most new EU members (those who
joined in 2004 or later). As a general rule, the majority of economic experts
recommend new EU member states with a forecasted era of catching
up and a past record of “macroeconomic imbalance” or “financial instability”
first address these issues before
adopting the euro.
As of
2017, there are 19 EU member states in the eurozone, with three Baltic states, Estonia
(2011), Latvia (2014), and Lithuania (2015), joining after the outbreak of the debt crisis. Seven states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden)
are on the
enlargement agenda and despite the crisis, the eurozone and its economies are currently relatively stable.
Although
the eurozone is open to all EU member states once they meet the
criteria, the treaty is silent on the matter of states leaving the eurozone,
neither prohibiting nor permitting it. Likewise, there is no provision for a
state to be expelled from the euro. Some, however, including the Dutch
government, favor the creation of such a provision in the event that a heavily
indebted state in the eurozone refuses to comply with an EU economic reform
policy. The outcome of leaving the euro would vary depending on the situation.
If the country’s own replacement currency was expected to devalue against the
euro, the state might experience a large-scale exodus of money, whereas if the
currency were expected to appreciate, more money would flow into the
economy. Rapidly appreciating currency, however, would be detrimental to the country’s
exports.
Greece remains the only country where a debate over the question of leaving the eurozone has gained serious political traction; its potential exit is referred to as Grexit. Proponents of
the proposal argue that leaving the euro and reintroducing the drachma would
dramatically boost exports and tourism while discouraging expensive imports
and thereby give the Greek economy the possibility to recover and stand on its
own feet. Opponents argue that the proposal would impose excessive hardship on
the Greek people, as the short-term effects would be a significant consumption
and wealth reduction for the Greek population. This may cause civil unrest in
Greece and harm the reputation of the eurozone. Additionally, it could cause
Greece to align more with non-EU states. The debate continues although as of 2017, it
remains mostly political. So far, no practical steps to arrange Greece’s exit from the
eurozone have been taken either by Greece or by the EU.
Crisis of Integration:
Brexit
The most dramatic and uncertain outcome of the growing lack of
confidence in the project of European integration has been the British decision
to exit the European Union, commonly known as Brexit. The UK was not a signatory to
the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Communities – the
predecessor of the EU – in 1957. The country subsequently applied to join the
organization in 1963 and in 1967, but both applications were vetoed by
the President of France, Charles de Gaulle. Once de Gaulle relinquished the
French presidency in 1969, the UK made a third and successful application for
membership.
From the beginning of the European integration project, however,
Britain represented a different approach than that proposed by France and
Germany. While the latter pushed for the gradual but increasingly stronger
integration that would go beyond the common market (economic integration), Britain maintained its stand of
focusing largely on the economic union. Opinion polls taken after the accession
in 1973 until the end of 2015 generally revealed popular British support for EU
membership. As late as December 2015, there was a clear majority in favor of
remaining in the EU, albeit with a warning that voter intentions would be
considerably influenced by the outcome of Prime Minister David Cameron’s
ongoing EU reform negotiations, especially with regards to the issues of safeguards
for non-eurozone member states and immigration.
Under pressure from many of his MPs and the rise of the euroskeptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), in 2013 Cameron announced that the conservative government would hold an in-out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a renegotiated package, if he was elected in 2015. The Conservative Party unexpectedly won the 2015 general election with a majority. Soon after, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced into Parliament to enable the referendum. Cameron favored remaining in a reformed EU and sought to renegotiate on four key points: protection of the single market for non-eurozone countries, reduction of red tape, exempting Britain from certain policies that would strengthen integration, and restricting EU migration.
The referendum took place in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on June 23, 2016; 51.9% voted in favor of leaving the EU and 48.1% voted in favor of remaining a member of the EU.
The process of withdrawal from the EU has been governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. No member state has ever left the EU and it remains unclear how the process will unfold. Article 50 provides an invocation procedure whereby a member can notify the European Council, followed by a negotiation period of up to two years after which the treaties cease to apply; however, a leaving agreement may be reached by qualified majority voting. Unless the Council of the European Union unanimously agrees to extensions, the timing for the UK leaving under the article is two years from when the country gives official notice to the EU.
Before the referendum, leading figures with a range of opinions regarding Scottish independence suggested that in the event the UK as a whole voted to leave the EU but Scotland as a whole voted to remain (as happened), a second Scottish independence referendum might be precipitated (the first took place in 2014).
On March 13, 2017,
Scottish First Minister Nicola
Sturgeon announced she would seek Scottish Parliament approval to negotiate with the UK Government for a Section 30 order enabling a second independence referendum, which would take place between the fall of 2018 and the spring of 2019.
Enlargement of EU
Currently, accession negotiations are underway with several states. The process of enlargement is sometimes referred to as European integration. This term is also used to refer to intensified cooperation between EU member states as national governments allow for the gradual harmonization of national laws.
The Western Balkans have been prioritized for membership since emerging from war during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey (a candidate since 1987, which makes it the longest-waiting candidate) are all recognized as official candidates, and the latter three are undergoing membership talks. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are recognized as potential candidates for membership by the EU. In 2014, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the EU has no plans to expand in the next five years. Montenegro and Serbia have set a goal to finish accession talks by 2019.
The three major western European countries that are not EU members, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland, have all submitted membership applications in the past.
Iceland’s application is currently withdrawn by government and Switzerland’s is frozen. Norway rejected membership in two referendums. They all, however, along with Liechtenstein, participate in the EU Single Market as well as the Schengen Area, which closely aligns them with the EU. In 2017, Iceland’s newly elected government announced that it may seek to begin talks with the EU on possible future membership once again.
Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia signed Association Agreements with the EU in 2014, which deepened their trade and political links with the EU. The European Parliament also passed a resolution recognizing the “European perspective” of all the three post-Soviet countries. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko announced 2020 as a target for an EU membership application, but in 2016 Juncker stated that it would take at least 20–25 years for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO. The potential EU membership of Ukraine remains the critical source of tensions between the EU and Russia.
EU 28 and further European Union enlargement: [dark blue] Current members; [medium blue] Candidate countries; [light blue] Potential candidate countries; [green] Membership possible.
Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty (as amended) says that any European state that respects the “principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law,” may apply to join the Union.
The map shows that the current member states are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It shows that Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, and Turkey are candidate countries. It shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are potential candidate countries. Finally, it shows that Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are countries for which membership is possible.
In 2002, the European Parliament noted that Armenia and Georgia may enter the EU in the future. However, in 2015, to the east of the EU, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia launched the creation of the
Eurasian Union, which was subsequently joined by Armenia and
Kyrgyzstan. In 2017, Tigran Sargsyan, the Chairman of the Eurasian Economic Commission stated that Armenia’s stance was to cooperate and work with both the European Union and the Eurasian Union. Sargsyan added that although Armenia is part of the Eurasian Union, a new European Union Association Agreement between Armenia and the EU would be finalized shortly. Both Armenia and Georgia are members of the Council of Europe and the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, which seeks to foster greater cooperation between the EU and Eastern European states.
Currently, Georgia is the only
country in the Caucasus actively seeking EU membership.
38.2: The Middle East and North Africa in the 21st Century
38.2.1: Democracy and Authoritarianism in the Middle East
Only two Middle Eastern countries are considered democratic and five others as partial democracies, while the rest are categorized as authoritarian regimes. All states in the region face serious human rights challenges.
Learning Objective
Compare democratic and authoritarian countries in the Middle East
Key Points
According
to the measure of the level of democracy in nations throughout the world
published by Freedom House, the Middle Eastern countries with the highest scores
are Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait, and Jordan. The
remaining countries of the Middle East are categorized as authoritarian
regimes, though some have certain democratic aspects.
Freedom House categorizes Israel and Tunisia as the only “free”
countries of the region. Tunisia is a representative democracy and a republic
with a president serving as head of state, prime minister as head of
government, a unicameral parliament, and a civil law court system. Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic
republic with universal suffrage. Some organizations and states, however, see the Israeli
treatment of Palestinians as a serious blemish on Israel’s democratic
system.
Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait,
Morocco, and Jordan are all categorized as “partly free.” All of these countries are to some extent representative democracies. Despite its “partly free” status, Lebanon is still considered one of the most democratic states in the region while Kuwait is
among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and
political rights. Jordan was upgraded from “not free” to
“partly free” only in 2017 and while it is a constitutional monarchy, the king holds wide
executive and legislative powers.
None
of the Middle Eastern countries received the “free” status from the
Freedom House in their 2016 Freedom
of the Press report,
which measures specifically the level of freedom and editorial
independence enjoyed by the press. Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and Kuwait
were determined “partly free” while all the other countries in
the region received the “not free” status.
All the remaining Middle Eastern states are
currently determined to be “not free” (including Western Sahara,
which is controlled by Morocco). In some cases, what may seem a democratic model
does not stand the test of scrutiny (e.g., elections in Syria, Egypt, or Iran).
Absolute monarchy is
common in the Middle East. Authoritarian regimes (not necessarily monarchies)
evolving around a powerful individual holding power has long been the critical
feature of the Middle Eastern politics.
There are diverse theories
on why the Middle East remains essentially undemocratic.
Nearly
all the Middle Eastern states, including those categorized as democratic,
violate some human rights according to international legal standards. Some of the gravest violations include the application of capital punishment and lack of legal protection for women and children.
Key Terms
Freedom of the Press report
A yearly report by U.S.-based non-governmental organization Freedom House, measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in nations and significant disputed territories around the world.
confessionalism
A system of government where high-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups. It is usually applied to prevent sectarian conflicts.
Freedom House
A U.S.-based and U.S.-government funded non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. It was founded in October 1941. Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. It describes itself as a “clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world.”
Democratic Status of Middle Eastern Nations
According to the measure of the level of democracy in nations throughout the world published by Freedom House,
a U.S. Government funded non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights, the Middle Eastern countries with the highest scores are Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait, and Jordan. The remaining countries of the Middle East are categorized as authoritarian regimes, though some have certain democratic aspects. The lowest scores are held by Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Freedom House (data from the 2017 report) categorizes Israel and Tunisia as the only “free” countries of the region.
Tunisia is a representative democracy and a republic with a president serving as head of state, prime minister as head of government, a unicameral parliament, and a civil law court system. The number of legalized political parties in Tunisia has grown considerably since the beginning of the democratic reforms. Rare for the Arab world, women hold a significant share of seats in the constituent assembly (between 24% and 31%).
Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic with universal suffrage.
It has no official religion, but the definition of the state as “Jewish and democratic” creates a strong connection with Judaism as well as a conflict between state law and religious law. Interaction between the political parties keeps the balance between state and religion. Some organizations and states, however, see the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as a serious blemish on Israel’s democratic system.
Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait, Morocco, and Jordan are all categorized as “partly free.”
Until 1975, Freedom House considered Lebanon to be one of only two (together with Israel) politically free countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. The country lost this status with the outbreak of the Civil War and has not regained it since. Even though Lebanon, a parliamentary democracy that includes confessionalism (high-ranking offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups to prevent sectarian conflicts), is now rated “partly free,” the United States still considers Lebanon one of the most democratic nations in the Arab world.
Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy but recent developments, particularly the efforts to expand the prerogatives of president, cracking down on opposition, and silencing media and individuals who criticize the government, have caused serious concerns that it is taking an anti-democratic turn.
Kuwait is a constitutional emirate with a semi-democratic political system. The emir is the head of state and the hybrid political system is divided between an elected parliament and appointed government. Kuwait is among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and political rights. Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister is the head of government and a multi-party system is growing.
Jordan, which in 2017 was upgraded from “not free” to “partly free,” is a constitutional monarchy where the King holds wide executive and legislative powers.
None of the Middle Eastern countries received the “free” status from the Freedom House in their 2016 Freedom of the Press report, which measures specifically the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press. Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and Kuwait were determined to be “partly free” while all the other countries in the region received the “not free” status.
Authoritarianism
Apart from the seven states discussed above, all the remaining Middle Eastern states are currently determined to be “not free” (including Western Sahara, which is controlled by Morocco). In some cases, what may seem a democratic model does not stand the test of scrutiny. For example, a number of presidential republics embracing Arab socialism, such as Syria and Egypt, regularly hold elections. However, critics assert that these are not full multi-party systems since they do not allow citizens to choose between many different candidates for presidency election. Moreover, the constitution of modern Egypt has given the president a virtual monopoly over the decision-making process, devoting 30 articles (15 percent of the whole constitution) to presidential prerogatives. Another example is Iran, where the Iranian Revolution of 1979 resulted in an electoral system (an Islamic Republic with a constitution), but the system has a limited democracy in practice. One of the main problems of Iran’s system is the consolidation of too much power in the hands of the Supreme Leader who is elected by Assembly of Experts for life (unless the Assembly of Experts decides to remove him which has never happened). Another main problem is the closed loop in the electoral system; the elected Assembly of Experts elects the Supreme Leader of Iran, who appoints the members of the Guardian Council, who in turn vets the candidates for all elections including those for Assembly of Experts. However some elections in Iran, such as those for city councils, satisfies free and democratic election criteria to some extent.
Absolute monarchy is common in the Middle East. Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates are all absolute monarchies. Authoritarian regimes (not necessarily monarchies) evolving around a powerful individual holding power has long been the critical feature of the Middle Eastern politics. For example, in the past, Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were among the most influential figures of the region. Today, Bashar al-Assad, who refused to resign from the presidency of Syria, which is one cause behind the brutal civil war that has been waged since 2011, serves as a symbol of the authoritarian rejection of democratic changes in the region.
Iraqi police show of their ink-stained index fingers – proof that they visited the polls to cast their ballot in Iraq’s historic parliamentary elections in 2005, photo by
Jim Goodwin.
According to Transparency International, Iraq’s is the most corrupt government in the Middle East and is described as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”).
Theoretical Considerations
The endurance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East is notable in comparison to the rest of the world. While such regimes have fallen throughout Eastern Europe or sub-Saharan Africa, for example, they have persisted in the Middle East. At the same time, Middle Eastern history includes significant episodes of conflict between rulers and proponents of change.
Theories on why the Middle East remains essentially undemocratic are diverse. Revisionist theories argue that democracy is slightly incompatible with Middle Eastern values. On the other hand, post-colonial theories propose a number of explanations for the relative absence of liberal democracy in the Middle East, including the long history of imperial rule by the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and France and the contemporary political and military intervention by the United States, all of which have been blamed for preferring authoritarian regimes because they simplify the business environment while enriching the governing elite and the companies of the imperial countries.
Albrecht Schnabel argues that a strong civil society is required to produce leaders and mobilize the public around democratic duties, but for such a civil society to flourish, a democratic environment and process allowing freedom of expression and order is required in the first place. This theory therefore supports the intervention of outside countries, such as the United States, in establishing democracy. Other analysts, however, disagree. Some researchers suggest that independent nongovernmental associations help foster a participatory form of governance. They cite the lack of voluntary associations as a reason for the persistence of authoritarianism in the region. Others believe that the lack of a market-driven economy in many Middle Eastern countries undermines the capacity to build the kind of individual autonomy and power that helps promote democracy. Therefore, the relationship of the state to civil society is one of the most important indicators of the chances of democracy evolving in a particular country. Poverty, inequality, and low literacy rates also compromise people’s commitment to democratic reforms since survival becomes a higher priority.
Human Rights Violations
Nearly all the Middle Eastern states, including those categorized as democratic, violate some of what according to international legal standards falls under the category of human rights.
In regard to capital punishment, the countries of the region can be separated into two categories. Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Israel are considered abolitionist in practice. Aside from Israel, all of the above countries maintain the death penalty for serious crimes although no executions have been carried out in a long time. All other countries in the Middle East execute prisoners for crimes. In the de facto autonomous Rojava federation in Syria, formed during the Syrian Civil War, capital punishment has been abolished.
No country in the region (with the sole exception of the Rojava federation) offers specific protections against spousal rape or domestic violence. There is a lack of official protection of rights within the home and a lack of government accountability. Domestic violence is typically covered up and kept within the family as many women in the region feel they cannot discuss their abuse without damaging their own and their family’s reputation and honor.
Women have varying degrees of difficulty moving freely in Middle Eastern countries. Some nations prohibit women from ever traveling alone, while in others women can travel freely but experience a greater risk of sexual harassment or assault than they would in Western countries. Women have the right to drive in all Middle Eastern countries except Saudi Arabia.
All the states in the Middle East have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Following the ratification of the CRC, Middle Eastern countries have enacted or proposed laws to protect children from violence, abuse, neglect, or exploitation. A number of countries have comprehensive laws that bring together legal provisions for protection of the child. However, child labor, violence against girls and women, gender gaps within education, and socioeconomic conditions continue to be identified areas of concern. Both external and internal conflict, ongoing political instability, and the Syrian refugee crisis remain grave dangers for children. The escalating armed conflict in Iraq has placed more children in peril. Human rights organizations document grave violations against children, particularly in conflict-ridden and politically unstable areas, focusing specifically on discrimination issues, sectarian violence, and abuse of women and girls.
Israel, the most democratic state in the Middle East,
faces significant human rights problems regarding institutional discrimination of Arab citizens of Israel (many of whom self-identify as Palestinian), Ethiopian Israelis and women, and the treatment of refugees and irregular migrants. Other human rights problems include institutional discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews and intermarried families and labor rights abuses against foreign workers. In the last several states, Tunisia, the second most democratic states of the region, has made significant progress by enacting sweeping legislation to protect the rights of many previously vulnerable groups, including women, children, and the disabled. Human rights organizations note the country is currently at the stage of transition and they continue to observe whether the legislation is put in practice.
One group that has not benefited noticeably from the Tunisian turn to democratic reforms is the LGBTQ community.
38.2.2: The Rise of Islamism
The rise of radical Islamism is a result of many complex factors, including Western colonialism in Muslim-dominated regions, state-sponsored aggressive popularization of ultra-orthodox interpretations of Islam, Western and pro-Western Muslim support for Islamist groups during the Cold War, and victories of Islamist groups over pro-Western politicians and factions in the Middle East.
Learning Objective
Connect the rise of Islamism with outside intervention in the Middle East
Key Points
The concept of Islamism has been debated in both
public and academic contexts. The term can refer to diverse forms of social and
political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided
by Islamic principles, or more specifically to movements that call for full
implementation of sharia. In Western media, the term tends to refer to groups
that aim to establish a sharia-based Islamic state, often with connotations of political extremism and implications of
violent tactics and human rights violations.
Islamism is not a united movement. Rather, it takes different forms and spans a wide range of
strategies and tactics. Moderate and reformist Islamists accept and work within the
democratic process. Islamist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas participate in
the democratic and political process and carry out armed attacks. Radical Islamist
groups entirely reject democracy and call for violent/offensive jihad or urge and conduct attacks on a religious basis.
Western colonialism of the Muslim world, beginning in the 19th
century, greatly contributed to equating the secular West with the enemy of Islam, thus fueling the development of increasingly radical Islamism. Beginning in
the 1970s, Western and pro-Western governments often supported fledgling
Islamists and Islamist groups that later came to be seen as dangerous enemies.
For Islamists, the primary threat of the West is cultural rather than political
or economic.
In the late 20th century, an Islamic revival developed in the
Muslim world. It was manifested in greater religious piety and a growing
adoption of Islamic culture. Two of the most important events that fueled the
resurgence were the Arab oil embargo and subsequent quadrupling of the price of
oil in the mid-1970s and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which established an
Islamic republic in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. Although religious extremism and attacks on civilians and military targets represent
only a small part of the movement, the revival has seen a proliferation of
Islamic extremist groups.
The number of militant Islamic movements calling for “an
Islamic state and the end of Western influence” is relatively small.
According to polls taken in 2008 and 2010 by Pew and Gallop, pluralities of the
population in Muslim-majority countries are undecided as to what extent
religion should influence public life,
politics, and the legal system.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have devotec considerable energies to
spreading Salafism and to gaining influence in the countries that benefited from
their financial support. Such developments as the Iranian Revolution and the
Soviet-Afghan War convinced many that the Westernization of the Muslim world
was avoidable and fueled radical Islamism. As a result, groups like
al-Quaeda, Taliban, and Islamic State gained popularity and tangible military
and political power across the Middle East and other regions of the world.
Key Terms
Muslim Brotherhood
A transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928. The organization has combined political activism with charity work as its model of functioning, gaining supporters throughout the Arab world and influencing other Islamist groups. As of 2015, it is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of five Arab countries and Russia, but claims to be a peaceful, democratic organization that condemns violence.
Islamism
A term that can refer to diverse forms of social and political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles, or more specifically to movements that call for full implementation of sharia. It is commonly used interchangeably with the terms political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism.
Its meaning has been debated in both public and academic contexts.
jihad
An Arabic word that literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim. It can have many shades of meaning in an Islamic context, such as struggle against one’s evil inclinations or efforts toward the moral betterment of society. In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate it with defensive warfare. The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups.
sharia
The religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term refers to God’s divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its scholarly interpretations. The manner of its application in modern times has been a subject of dispute between Muslim traditionalists and reformists.
Hamas
A Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist that has been the governing authority of the Gaza Strip since 2007. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify it as a terrorist group.
Hezbollah
A Shia Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon. Its status as a legitimate political party, terrorist group, resistance movement, or some combination thereof is a contentious issue.
Islamic State
A Salafi jihadist extremist militant group led by and mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq. In 2014, the group proclaimed itself a caliphate, with religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. As of March 2015, it had control over territory occupied by ten million people in Syria and Iraq, and has nominal control over small areas of Libya, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. It also operates or has affiliates in other parts of the world, including North Africa and South Asia.
Taliban
A Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan currently waging war (an insurgency, or jihad) within that country. The group has used terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals.
Salafism
An ultra-conservative reform branch or movement within Sunni Islam that developed in Arabia in the first half of the 18th century against a background of European colonialism. It advocated a return to the traditions of the “devout ancestors” (the salaf).
al-Qaeda
A militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. It has been widely designated as a terrorist group.
What Is Islamism?
Islamism is a concept whose meaning has been debated in both public and academic contexts. The term can refer to diverse forms of social and political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles, or more specifically to movements that call for full implementation of sharia. Sharia is the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition, derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the hadith (various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Islamism is commonly used interchangeably with the terms political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. In Western media, the term tends to refer to groups who aim to establish a sharia-based Islamic state, often with connotations of political extremism and implications of violent tactics and human rights violations.
Different currents of Islamist thought have advocated a revolutionary strategy of Islamizing society through exercise of state power or a reformist strategy of re-Islamizing society through grassroots social and political activism. Islamists may emphasize the implementation of sharia (Islamic law), pan-Islamic political unity and an Islamic state, or selective removal of non-Muslim influences, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences, from the Muslim world.
Islamism is not a united movement, but takes different forms and spans a wide range of strategies and tactics. Moderate and reformist Islamists who accept and work within the democratic process include parties like the Tunisian Ennahda Movement. Jamaat-e-Islami of Pakistan is basically a sociopolitical and democratic vanguard party, but has also gained political influence through military coup d’états. Islamist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas participate in the democratic and political process as well as in armed attacks.
Hezbollah is a Shia Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s status as a legitimate political party, terrorist group, resistance movement, or some combination thereof is a contentious issue. Similarly, Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist that has been the governing authority of the Gaza Strip since 2007. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. Radical Islamist groups like al-Qaeda or the Taliban entirely reject democracy and call for violent/offensive jihad or urge and conduct attacks on a religious basis.
Islamism and the West
In the 19th century, European encroachment on the Muslim world came with the retreat of the Ottoman Empire, the French conquest of Algeria (1830), the disappearance of the Moghul Empire in India (1857), and the Russian incursions into the Caucasus and Central Asia. The first Muslim reaction to European encroachment was of rural and working class and not urban origin. Charismatic leaders launched the call for jihad and formed tribal coalitions. Sharia in defiance of local common law was imposed to unify tribes. All these movements eventually failed, despite some successes over the colonizing armies.
Under later Western colonialism, nostalgia for the days of successful Islamic empire simmered. This played a major role in the Islamist political ideal of Islamic state, a state in which Islamic law is preeminent. The Islamist political program is generally accomplished by reshaping the governments of existing Muslim nation-states. Today, however, the means of doing this varies greatly across movements and circumstances. Many Islamist movements, such as the Jamaat-e-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood, have used the democratic process and focus on votes and coalition-building with other political parties. Radical movements such as Taliban and al-Qaeda embrace militant Islamic ideology.
Beginning in the 1970s, Western and pro-Western governments often supported fledgling Islamists and Islamist groups that later came to be seen as dangerous enemies. Islamists were considered by Western governments bulwarks against what were thought ore dangerous leftist/communist/nationalist insurgents, which Islamists were correctly seen as opposing. The U.S. spent billions of dollars to aid the
Muslim Afghan enemies of the Soviet Union during the Soviet-Afghan War. Similarly, although Hamas is a strong opponent of Israel’s existence, it traces its origins to institutions and clerics supported by Israel in the 1970s and 1980s. Israel tolerated and supported Islamist movements in Gaza as it perceived them preferable to the secular and then more powerful al-Fatah. Egyptian pro-Western, anti-Soviet, and pro-Israeli President Anwar Sadat released Islamists from prison and welcomed home exiles in tacit exchange for political support in his struggle against leftists. Sadat was later assassinated and a formidable insurgency was formed in Egypt in the 1990s.
For Islamists, the primary threat of the West is cultural rather than political or economic. Islamists assume that cultural dependency robs one of faith and identity and thus destroys Islam and the Islamic community far more effectively than political rule. Furthermore, the end of the Cold War and Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has eliminated the common atheist Communist enemy uniting some religious Muslims and the capitalist west.
Islamic Revivalism
In the late 20th century an Islamic revival or Islamic awakening developed in the Muslim world, manifested in greater religious piety and growing adoption of Islamic culture. Two of the most important events that fueled or inspired the resurgence were the Arab oil embargo and subsequent quadrupling of the price of oil in the mid-1970s and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which established an Islamic republic in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. The first created a flow of many billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia to fund Islamic books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques around the world. The second undermined the assumption that Westernization strengthened Muslim countries and was the irreversible trend of the future.
The revival is a reversal of the Westernization approach common among Arab and Asian governments earlier in the 20th century. Although religious extremism and attacks on civilians and military targets represent only a small part of the movement, the revival has seen a proliferation of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world. They have voiced their anger at perceived exploitation as well as materialism, Westernization, democracy, and modernity, which are most commonly associated with accepting Western secular beliefs and values.
Rise of Radical Islamism
The number of militant Islamic movements calling for “an Islamic state and the end of Western influence” is relatively small. According to polls taken in 2008 and 2010 by Pew and Gallop, pluralities of the population in Muslim-majority countries are undecided as to what extent religion (and certain interpretations of) should influence public life, politics, and the legal system.
Starting in the mid-1970s, the Islamic resurgence was funded by an abundance of money from Saudi Arabian oil exports. The tens of billions of dollars obtained from the recently heightened price of oil funded most of the expenses associated with the resurgence. Throughout the Muslim world, religious institutions for people both young and old received Saudi funding along with training for the preachers and teachers who went on to teach and work at the emerging universities, schools, and mosques. The funding was also used to reward journalists and academics who followed the Saudis’ strict interpretation of Islam known as Salafism (sometimes referred to as Wahhabism, but Salafists consider the term derogatory). In its harshest form, it preaches that Muslims should not only “always oppose” infidels “in every way,” but “hate them for their religion … for Allah’s sake,” that democracy “is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century,” and that Muslims not ascribing to this strict interpretation were infidels. While this effort has by no means converted all or even most, it has done much to undermine more moderate local interpretations.
The strength of the Islamist movement was manifest in an event that might have seemed sure to turn Muslim public opinion against fundamentalism, but did just the opposite. In 1979, the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, was seized by an armed fundamentalist group and held for over a week. Scores were killed, including many pilgrim bystanders in a gross violation of one of the most holy sites in Islam, where arms and violence are strictly forbidden. Instead of prompting a backlash, Saudi Arabia, already very conservative, responded by shoring up its fundamentalist credentials with even more Islamic restrictions. Crackdowns followed on everything, including shopkeepers who did not close for prayer and newspapers that published pictures of women. In other Muslim countries, blame for and wrath against the seizure was directed not against fundamentalists, but against Islamic fundamentalism’s foremost geopolitical enemy – the United States.
Saudi soldiers fighting their way into the Qaboo Underground beneath the Grand Mosque of Mecca, 1979
The seizure of Islam’s holiest site, the taking of hostages from among the worshipers, and the deaths of hundreds of militants, security forces, and hostages caught in crossfire in the ensuing battles for control of the site, all shocked the Islamic world. Following the attack, the Saudi state implemented a stricter enforcement of Islamic code.
Just like Saudi Arabia, Qatar has devolved considerable energies to spreading Salafism and gaining influence in the countries that benefited from its support. Over the past two decades, the country has exerted a semi-formal patronage for the international movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar is known to have backed Islamist factions in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Hamas has also been among the primary beneficiaries of Qatar’s financial support.
The first modern Islamist state was established among the Shia of Iran. In a major shock to the rest of the world, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution of 1979 in order to overthrow the oil-rich, well-armed, Westernized, and pro-American secular monarchy ruled by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. Khomeini believed that complete imitation of the Prophet Mohammad and his successors was essential to Islam, that many secular, Westernizing Muslims were actually agents of the West, and that acts such as the plundering of Muslim lands were part of a long-term conspiracy against Islam by Western governments. The Islamic Republic has also maintained its hold on power in Iran in spite of U.S. economic sanctions and has created or assisted like-minded Shia terrorist groups in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (Hezbollah).
In 1979, the Soviet Union deployed its army into Afghanistan, attempting to suppress an Islamic rebellion against an allied Marxist regime in the Afghan Civil War. The conflict, pitting indigenous impoverished Muslims against an anti-religious superpower, galvanized thousands of Muslims around the world to send aid and sometimes to go themselves to fight for their faith. When the Soviet Union abandoned the Marxist Najibullah regime and withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 (the regime finally fell in 1992), many Muslims saw the victory as the triumph of Islamic faith over superior military power and technology that could be duplicated elsewhere. The veterans of the war returning home to Algeria, Egypt, and other countries were often eager to continue armed jihad.
Another factor in the early 1990s that worked to radicalize the Islamist movement was the Gulf War, which brought several hundred thousand U.S. and allied non-Muslim military personnel to Saudi Arabian soil to put an end to Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait. Prior to 1990, Saudi Arabia played an important role in restraining the many Islamist groups that received its aid. But when Saddam, secularist and Ba’athist dictator of neighboring Iraq, attacked Saudi Arabia (his enemy in the war), western troops came to protect the Saudi monarchy. Islamists accused the Saudi regime of being a puppet of the west.
These attacks resonated with conservative Muslims and the problem did not go away with Saddam’s defeat, since American troops remained stationed in the kingdom. Saudi Arabia attempted to compensate for its loss of prestige among the conservative groups by repressing those domestic Islamists who attacked it (bin Laden being a prime example) and increasing aid to Islamic groups that did not (including some violent groups), but its pre-war influence on behalf of moderation was greatly reduced. One result of this was a campaign of attacks on government officials and tourists in Egypt, a bloody civil war in Algeria, and Osama bin Laden’s terror campaign climaxing in the 9/11 attack.
In 1992, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan ruled by communist forces collapsed and democratic Islamist elements founded the Islamic State of Afghanistan. In 1996, a more conservative and anti-democratic Islamist movement known as the Taliban rose to power, defeated most of the warlords, and took over roughly 80% of Afghanistan. The Taliban differed from other Islamist movements to the point where they might be more properly described as Islamic fundamentalist or neofundamentalist, interested in spreading “an idealized and systematized version of conservative tribal village customs” under the label of Sharia to an entire country. Their ideology was also described as influenced by Wahhabism and the extremist jihadism of their guest Osama bin Laden. The Taliban considered politics to be against sharia and thus did not hold elections. The Taliban’s hosting of Osama bin Laden led to an American-organized attack that drove them from power following the 9/11 attacks. Taliban are still very much alive and fighting a vigorous insurgency with suicide bombings and armed attacks launched against NATO and Afghan government targets.
The Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is a Salafi jihadist extremist militant group led by and mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq. In 2014, the group proclaimed itself a caliphate, with religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. As of March 2015, it had control over territory occupied by ten million people in Syria and Iraq, and has nominal control over small areas of Libya, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. ISIL (commonly referred to ISIS) also operates or has affiliates in other parts of the world, including North Africa and South Asia.
Originating in 1999, ISIL pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004, participated in the Iraqi insurgency that followed the invasion of Iraq by Western coalition forces in 2003, joined the fight in the Syrian Civil War beginning in 2011, and was expelled from al-Qaeda in early 2014. It gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in June 2014. The group is adept at social media, posting Internet videos of beheadings of soldiers, civilians, journalists, and aid workers and is known for its destruction of cultural heritage sites. The United Nations (UN) has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing on a “historic scale” by the group. The group has been designated a terrorist organization by the UN, the European Union (EU) and member states, the United States, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other countries.
38.2.3: The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq failed to stabilize the political situation in the Middle East and contributed to ongoing civil conflicts, with counterterrorism experts arguing that they created circumstances beneficial to the escalation of radical Islamism.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the consequences of American military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
Key Points
The U.S. invasion
of Afghanistan occurred after the September 11 attacks in late 2001. U.S.
President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden
and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. The Taliban government refused unless it provided evidence of his involvement
in the 9/11 attacks. The request was dismissed by the United States as a meaningless
delaying tactic and on October 7, 2001, it launched Operation Enduring Freedom
with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces.
Although outgunned and
outnumbered, insurgents from the Taliban and other radical groups have waged
asymmetric warfare with guerrilla raids and ambushes in the countryside, suicide
attacks against urban targets, and turncoat killings against coalition forces.
From
2006, the Taliban made significant gains and showed an increased willingness to
commit atrocities against civilians. Violence sharply escalated from 2007 to
2009.
On May 2, 2011, U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. A year later,
NATO leaders endorsed an exit strategy for withdrawing their forces. UN-backed peace
talks have since taken place between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
Although there was a
formal end to combat operations, as of 2017 American forces continue to conduct airstrikes
and special operations raids, while Afghan forces are losing ground to Taliban
forces in some regions.
War
crimes by have been committed both sides.
The Iraq War began on
March 20, 2003, with the United States, joined by the United Kingdom and
several coalition allies, launching a “shock and awe” bombing
campaign. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba’athist government. President Saddam Hussein
was captured in 2003 and executed by a
military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam’s
demise and the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian
violence and insurgency against U.S.
and coalition forces.
The Bush administration
based its rationale for the war principally on the assertion that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction, but no substantial evidence for this claim was found.
President
Barack Obama formally withdrew all combat troops from Iraq by
December 2011, but
Iraqi insurgency surged in
the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. In 2014, ISIS took over the cities of Mosul and
Tikrit and stated it was ready to march on Baghdad. In the summer of 2014, President Obama announced the return of U.S. forces to Iraq in an effort to halt the advance of ISIS forces, render
humanitarian aid to stranded refugees, and stabilize the political situation.
The war resulted in
a humanitarian crisis, including child malnutrition, the psychological scarring of Iraqi children, a scarcity of safe drinking water (resulting in a cholera
outbreak), the outflow of half of Iraqi doctors, birth defects caused by the
use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus by the U.S. military, 4.4 million internally displaced persons, and the dramatic decline of the population
of Iraqi Christians. Throughout the entire
war, there have been human rights abuses on all sides of the conflict. Arguably
the most controversial incident was a series of human rights violations against
detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Key Terms
Iraq War
A protracted armed conflict that began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government.
War in Afghanistan
A war that followed the 2001 United States invasion of Afghanistan, supported initially by the United Kingdom and joined by the rest of NATO in 2003. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda and deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.
al-Qaeda
A militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded
in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other
Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in the 1980s. It has been widely designated as a terrorist group.
Islamic State
A Salafi jihadist extremist militant group led by and
mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq. In 2014, the group
proclaimed itself a caliphate, with religious, political, and military
authority over all Muslims worldwide. As of March 2015, it has control over
territory occupied by ten million people in Syria and Iraq and nominal
control over small areas of Libya, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. It also operates
or has affiliates in other parts of the world, including North Africa and South
Asia.
Operation Enduring Freedom
A code name used to officially describe the War in Afghanistan, from the period between October 2001 and December 2014. Continued operations in Afghanistan by the United States’ military forces, both non-combat and combat, now occur under the name Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.
Taliban
A Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement in
Afghanistan currently waging war (an insurgency, or jihad) within that
country. The group has used terrorism as a specific tactic to further their
ideological and political goals.
War in Afghanistan
The United States invasion of Afghanistan occurred after the September 11 attacks in late 2001. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. The Taliban government refused to extradite him (or others sought by the U.S.) without evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic and on October 7, 2001, it launched Operation Enduring Freedom with the United Kingdom. The two were later joined by other forces, including the Afghan Northern Alliance that had been fighting the Taliban in the ongoing civil war since 1996. In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan interim authorities with securing Kabul. At the Bonn Conference the same month, Hamid Karzai was selected to head the Afghan interim administration, which after a 2002 loya jirga (Pashto for “grand assembly”)
in Kabul became the Afghan transitional administration. In the popular elections of 2004, Karzai was elected president of the country, now named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
NATO became involved in ISAF in 2003 and later that year assumed leadership of its troops from 43 countries. NATO members provided the core of the force. One portion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan operated under NATO command. The rest remained under direct U.S. command. The Taliban was reorganized by its leader Mullah Omar and in 2003, launched an insurgency against the government and ISAF. Although outgunned and outnumbered, insurgents from the Taliban and other radical groups have waged asymmetric warfare with guerrilla raids and ambushes in the countryside, suicide attacks against urban targets, and turncoat killings against coalition forces. The Taliban exploited weaknesses in the Afghan government, among the most corrupt in the world, to reassert influence across rural areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan. In the initial years, there was little fighting but from 2006 the Taliban made significant gains and showed an increased willingness to commit atrocities against civilians. Violence sharply escalated from 2007 to 2009. While ISAF continued to battle the Taliban insurgency, fighting crossed into neighboring northwestern Pakistan.
On May 2, 2011, United States Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. A year later, NATO leaders endorsed an exit strategy for withdrawing their forces. UN-backed peace talks have since taken place between the Afghan government and the Taliban. In May 2014, the United States announced that its major combat operations would end in December and that it would leave a residual force in the country. In October 2014, British forces handed over the last bases in Helmand to the Afghan military, officially ending their combat operations in the war. In December 2014, NATO formally ended combat operations in Afghanistan and transferred full security responsibility to the Afghan government.
Aftermath and Consequences
Although there was a formal end to combat operations, partially because of improved relations between the United States and the new President
Ashraf Ghani, American forces increased raids against Islamic militants and terrorists, justified by a broad interpretation of protecting American forces. In March 2015, it was announced that the United States would maintain almost ten thousand service members in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2015, a change from planned reductions. In October 2015, the Obama administration announced that U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan past the original planned withdrawal date of December 31, 2016. As of 2017, American forces continue to conduct airstrikes and special operations raids, while Afghan forces are losing ground to Taliban forces in some regions.
War casualty estimates vary significantly. According to a UN report, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009. In 2011, a record over three thousand civilians were killed, the fifth successive annual rise. According to a UN report, in 2013 there were nearly three thousand civilian deaths, with 74% blamed on anti-government forces. A report titled Body Count put together by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) concluded that 106,000–170,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan at the hands of all parties to the conflict. According to the Watson Institute for International Studies Costs of War Project, 21,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the war.
An estimated 96% of Afghans have been affected either personally by or from the wider consequences of the war. Since 2001, more than 5.7 million former refugees have returned to Afghanistan but 2.2 million others remained refugees in 2013. In 2013, the UN estimated that 547,550 were internally displaced persons, a 25% increase over the 2012 estimates.
Victims of the Narang night raid that killed at least 10 Afghan civilians, December 2009
The Narang night raid was a raid on a household in the village of Ghazi Khan in the early morning hours of December 27, 2009. The operation was authorized by NATO and resulted in the death of ten Afghan civilians, most of whom were students and some of whom were children. The status of the deceased was initially in dispute, with NATO officials claiming the dead were Taliban members found with weapons and bomb-making materials, while some Afghan government officials and local tribal authorities asserted they were civilians.
A large crowd gathers around the bodies of the victims.
From 1996 to 1999, the Taliban controlled 96% of Afghanistan’s poppy fields and made opium its largest source of revenue. Taxes on opium exports became one of the mainstays of Taliban income. By 2000, Afghanistan accounted for an estimated 75% of the world’s opium supply. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar then banned opium cultivation and production dropped. Some observers argue that the ban was issued only to raise opium prices and increase profit from the sale of large existing stockpiles. The trafficking of accumulated stocks continued in 2000 and 2001. Soon after the invasion, opium production increased markedly. By 2005, Afghanistan was producing 90% of the world’s opium, most of which was processed into heroin and sold in Europe and Russia. In 2009, the BBC reported that “UN findings say an opium market worth $65bn funds global terrorism, caters to 15 million addicts, and kills 100,000 people every year.”
War crimes have been committed by both sides and include civilian massacres, bombings of civilian targets, terrorism, use of torture, and the murder of prisoners of war. Additional common crimes include theft, arson, and the destruction of property not warranted by military necessity. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIGRC) called the Taliban’s terrorism against the Afghan civilian population a war crime. According to Amnesty International, the Taliban commit war crimes by targeting civilians, including killing teachers, abducting aid workers, and burning school buildings. The organization reported that up to 756 civilians were killed in 2006 by bombs, mostly on roads or carried by suicide attackers belonging to the Taliban. NATO has also alleged that the Taliban has used civilians as human shields.
In 2009, the U.S. confirmed that Western military forces in Afghanistan use white phosphorus, condemned by human rights organizations as cruel and inhumane because it causes severe burns, to illuminate targets or as an incendiary to destroy bunkers and enemy equipment. U.S. forces used white phosphorus to screen a retreat in the Battle of Ganjgal when regular smoke munitions were not available. White phosphorus burns on the bodies of civilians wounded in clashes near Bagram were confirmed. The U.S. claims at least 44 instances in which militants have used white phosphorus in weapons or attacks.
Iraq War
The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003, with the United States, joined by the United Kingdom and several coalition allies, launching a “shock and awe” bombing campaign. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba’athist government (under the rule of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party’s). President Saddam Hussein was captured during Operation Red Dawn in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam’s demise and the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces. The United States responded with a troop surge in 2007. The winding down of U.S. involvement in Iraq accelerated under President Barack Obama and the U.S. formally withdrew all combat troops from Iraq by December 2011, but left private security contractors in its place to continue the war.
The Bush administration based its rationale for the war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the Iraqi government posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Select U.S. officials accused Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, while others cited the desire to end the repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq. After the invasion, no substantial evidence was found to verify the initial claims about WMDs. The rationale and misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence faced heavy criticism within the U.S. and internationally.
In the aftermath of the invasion, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and remained in office until 2014. The al-Maliki government enacted policies that were widely seen as having the effect of alienating the country’s Sunni minority and worsening sectarian tensions.
Aftermath of 2011 Withdrawal
The invasion and occupation led to sectarian violence, which caused widespread displacement among Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi Red Crescent organization estimated the total internal displacement was around 2.3 million in 2008, and as many as 2 million Iraqis left the country. The invasion preserved the autonomy of the Kurdish region and because the Kurdish region is historically the most democratic area of Iraq, many Iraqi refugees from other territories fled into the Kurdish land.
Poverty led many Iraqi women to turn to prostitution to support themselves and their families, attracting sex tourists from regional lands.
Iraqi insurgency surged in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. Terror campaigns involving Iraqi (primarily radical Sunni) anti-government insurgent groups and various factions within Iraq escalated. The events of post U.S. withdrawal have showed patterns raising concerns that the surging violence might slide into another civil war. By mid-2014, the country was in chaos with a new government yet to be formed following national elections and the insurgency reaching new heights. In early June 2014, the ISIL (ISIS) took over the cities of Mosul and Tikrit and stated it was ready to march on Baghdad, while Iraqi Kurdish forces took control of key military installations in the major oil city of Kirkuk. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked his parliament to declare a state of emergency that would give him increased powers, but the lawmakers refused.
In the summer of 2014 President Obama announced the return of U.S. forces to Iraq, but only in the form of aerial support, in an effort to halt the advance of ISIS forces, render humanitarian aid to stranded refugees, and stabilize the political situation. In August 2014, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki succumbed to pressure at home and abroad to step down. This paved the way for Haidar al-Abadi to take over. In what was claimed to be revenge for the aerial bombing ordered by President Obama, ISIS, which by this time had changed its name to the Islamic State, beheaded an American journalist, James Foley, who had been kidnapped two years earlier. Despite U.S. bombings and breakthroughs on the political front, Iraq remained in chaos with the Islamic State consolidating its gains and sectarian violence continuing unabated.
Consequences
Various scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 and over one million Iraqis died as a result of the conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily. A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014. Regarding the Iraqis, however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent.
A city street in Ramadi heavily damaged by the fighting in 2006
The Iraq War caused hundreds of thousands of civilian and thousands of military casualties. The majority of casualties occurred as a result of the insurgency and civil conflicts between 2004 and 2007. The war destroyed the country and resulted in the humanitarian crisis.
The war also resulted in a humanitarian crisis. The child malnutrition rate rose to 28%. Some 60–70% of Iraqi children were reported to be suffering from psychological problems in 2007. Most Iraqis had no access to safe drinking water. A cholera outbreak in northern Iraq was thought to be the result of poor water quality. As many as half of Iraqi doctors left the country between 2003 and 2006. The use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus by the U.S. military has been blamed for birth defects and cancers in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. By the end of 2015, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 4.4 million Iraqis had been internally displaced. The population of Iraqi Christians dropped dramatically during the war, from 1.5 million in 2003 to perhaps only 275,000 in 2016. The Foreign Policy Association reported that “the most perplexing component of the Iraq refugee crisis” was that the U.S. has accepted only around 84,000 Iraqi refugees.
Throughout the entire Iraq war, there have been human rights abuses on all sides of the conflict. Arguably the most controversial incident
was a series of human rights violations against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These violations included physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy, and murder. The abuses came to widespread public attention with the publication of photographs of the abuse by CBS News in April 2004. The incidents received widespread condemnation both within the United States and abroad, although the soldiers received support from some conservative media within the United States. The administration of George W. Bush attempted to portray the abuses as isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy. This was contradicted by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. After multiple investigations, these organizations stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents, but were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Several scholars stated that the abuses constituted state-sanctioned crimes.
Iraq War and Terrorism
Although explicitly stating that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11, President George W. Bush consistently referred to the Iraq war as “the central front in the war on terror” and argued that if the United States pulled out of Iraq, “terrorists will follow us here.” While other proponents of the war regularly echoed this assertion, as the conflict dragged on, members of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. public, and even U.S. troops questioned the connection between Iraq and the fight against anti-U.S. terrorism. In particular, a consensus developed among intelligence experts that the Iraq war actually increased terrorism. Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna frequently referred to the invasion of Iraq as a “fatal mistake.”
London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become “a potent global recruitment pretext” for radical Muslim fighters and that the invasion “galvanized” al-Qaeda and “perversely inspired insurgent violence.” The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a 2005 report that the war in Iraq had become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists. David Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills … There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.” The Council’s chairman Robert Hutchings noted, “At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity.” The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, which outlined the considered judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that “the Iraq conflict has become the ’cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”
38.2.4: The Arab Spring
The Arab Spring was a revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent protests in North Africa and the Middle East that began in 2010, triggered by authoritarianism, human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and some demographic structural factors. This resulted in limited pro-democratic changes, with Tunisia emerging as the only democratic country in the Arab world.
Learning Objective
Discuss whether the Arab Spring was a success
Key Points
The
Arab Spring was a revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent
demonstrations, protests, riots, coups, and civil wars in North Africa and the
Middle East that began in 2010 with the Tunisian Revolution.
Analysts
have pointed to a number of complex factors behind the movement, including
authoritarianism, human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a demographic structural factors such as a large percentage of educated but
dissatisfied youth.
In
the wake of the Arab Spring protests, a considerable amount of attention has
been focused on the role of social media and digital technologies in allowing
citizens to circumvent state-operated media channels. The influence of social
media on political activism during the Arab Spring has been much
debated. While social networks were a critical instrument
for rebels in the countries with high Internet usage rates, mainstream electronic media devices and word of mouth remained important means of communication.
Prior to the Arab Spring, social unrest had been escalating in the Arab world.
Tunisia
experienced a series of conflicts. In Egypt, the labor movement had been strong for years and provided an important venue for
organizing protests and collective action. In
Algeria, discontent had been building for years over a number of social issues. In Western
Sahara, a group of young Sahrawis demonstrated against labor discrimination, unemployment, looting of resources, and human
rights abuses.
The
catalyst for the escalation of protests was the self-immolation of Tunisian
Mohamed Bouazizi. Unable to find work and selling fruit at a roadside stand,
Bouazizi had his wares confiscated by a municipal inspector in December 2010.
An hour later he doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire. His death
on January 4, 2011, brought together various groups dissatisfied with the
existing system, including many unemployed individuals, political and human rights
activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers, and others, to
begin the Tunisian Revolution.
The demonstrations, triggered directly by
Bouazizi’s death, brought to the forefront such issues as high unemployment,
food inflation, corruption, lack of political freedoms, and poor living
conditions. With
the success of the protests in Tunisia, a wave of unrest sparked in Algeria,
Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen and then spread to other countries. By the end of
February 2012, rulers had been forced from power and protests occurred across the region.
Several leaders announced their intentions to
step down at the end of their current terms.
In
the aftermath of the Arab Spring in various countries, there was a wave of
violence and instability known as the Arab Winter. It was characterized by extensive civil wars, general regional
instability, economic and demographic decline, and religious wars between Sunni
and Shia Muslims. Although
the long-term effects of the Arab Spring have yet to be shown, its short-term
consequences varied greatly across the Middle East and North Africa. As of
2017, Tunisia is considered the only full democracy in the Arab World.
Key Terms
Arab Winter
A term for the rise of authoritarianism and Islamic extremism evolving in the aftermath of the Arab Spring protests in Arab, Kurdish, and Berber countries. The process is characterized by the emergence of multiple regional civil wars, mounting regional instability, economic and demographic decline of Arab countries, and ethno-religious sectarian strife. According to a study by the American University of Beirut, as of summer 2014, it resulted in nearly a quarter of a million deaths and millions of refugees.
Egyptian Revolution
Social unrest that began in January 2011 and took place across all of Egypt. It consisted of demonstrations, marches, occupations of plazas, non-violent civil resistance, acts of civil disobedience, and strikes. Millions of protesters from a range of socioeconomic and religious backgrounds demanded the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Arab Spring
A revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots, coups, and civil wars in North Africa and the Middle East that began in December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution.
Tunisian Revolution
An intensive campaign of civil resistance that took place in Tunisia and led to the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011. It eventually led to a thorough democratization of the country and to free and democratic elections.
The Arab Spring was a revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots, coups, and civil wars in North Africa and the Middle East that began in 2010 with the Tunisian Revolution. The Tunisian Revolution effect spread strongly to five other countries: Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, where either the regime was toppled or major uprisings and social violence occurred, including civil wars or insurgencies. Sustained street demonstrations took place in Morocco, Bahrain, Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Sudan. Minor protests occurred in Djibouti, Mauritania, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara. A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world was “the people want to bring down the regime.”
Analysts have pointed to a number of complex factors behind the movement, including issues such as authoritarianism, human rights violations, political corruption (at the time, explicitly revealed to the public by Wikileaks diplomatic cables), economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural factors, such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth. Catalysts for the revolts in all Northern African and Persian Gulf countries included the concentration of wealth in the hands of autocrats in power for decades, insufficient transparency of its redistribution, corruption, and especially the refusal of the youth to accept the status quo. Some protesters looked to the Turkish model, with contested but peaceful elections, fast-growing but liberal economy, and secular constitution but Islamist government, as an ideal.
Role of Media
In the wake of the Arab Spring protests, a considerable amount of attention has been focused on the role of social media and digital technologies in allowing citizens to circumvent state-operated media channels. The influence of social media on political activism during the Arab Spring has been much debated. Protests took place both in states with a very high level of Internet usage (such as Bahrain with 88% of its population online in 2011) and in states with one of the lowest Internet use rates (Yemen and Libya).
Facebook, Twitter, and other major social media played a key role in the movement of Egyptian and Tunisian activists in particular. Nine out of ten Egyptians and Tunisians responded to a poll that they used Facebook to organize protests and spread awareness. In Egypt, young men referred to themselves as “the Facebook generation.” Furthermore, 28% of Egyptians and 29% of Tunisians from the same poll said that blocking Facebook greatly hindered and/or disrupted communication.
During the protests, people created pages on Facebook to raise awareness about alleged crimes against humanity, such as police brutality in the Egyptian Revolution.
The use of social media platforms more than doubled in Arab countries during the protests, with the exception of Libya.
Social networks were not the only instrument for rebels to coordinate their efforts and communicate. In the countries with the lowest Internet penetration and the limited role of social networks, such as Yemen and Libya, the role of mainstream electronic media devices such as cell phones, emails, and video clips was very important to cast light on the situation in the country and spread the word about the protests in the outside world. In Egypt, in Cairo particularly, mosques were one of the main platforms to coordinate the protest actions and raise awareness to the masses. Jared Keller, a journalist for The Atlantic, noted differences between the Arab countries where protests emerged. For example, in Egypt, most activists and protesters used Facebook (among other social media) to organize while in Iran, “good old-fashioned word of mouth” was the main means of communication.
Social Unrest in the Arab World
Tunisia experienced a series of conflicts during the three years leading up to the Arab Spring, most notably in the mining area of Gafsa in 2008 where protests continued for many months. These included rallies, sit-ins, and strikes. In Egypt, the labor movement had been strong for years, with more than 3,000 labor actions since 2004, and provided an important venue for organizing protests and collective action. One important demonstration was an attempted workers’ strike in 2008 at the state-run textile factories of al-Mahalla al-Kubra, outside Cairo. The idea for this type of demonstration spread throughout the country, promoted by computer-literate working class youths and their supporters among middle-class college students. A Facebook page to promote the strike attracted tens of thousands of followers and provided the platform for sustained political action in pursuit of the “long revolution.” The government mobilized to break the strike through infiltration and riot police, and while the regime was somewhat successful in forestalling a strike, dissidents formed a committee of youths and labor activists that became one of the major forces calling for the anti-Mubarak demonstration.
In Algeria, discontent had been building for years over a number of issues. Some estimates suggest that during 2010 there were as many as 9,700 protests throughout the country. Many events focused on issues such as education and health care, while others cited rampant corruption. In Western Sahara, the Gdeim Izik protest camp was erected 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south-east of El Aaiún by a group of young Sahrawis (an ethnic groups living in western part of the Sahara desert)
in 2010. Their intention was to demonstrate against labor discrimination, unemployment, looting of resources, and human rights abuses. The camp contained between 12,000 and 20,000 inhabitants, but it was destroyed and its inhabitants evicted by Moroccan security forces. The security forces faced strong opposition from some young Sahrawi civilians and rioting soon spread to El Aaiún and other towns within the territory, resulting in an unknown number of injuries and deaths. Violence against Sahrawis in the aftermath of the protests was cited as a reason for renewed protests months later, after the start of the Arab Spring.
Catalyst of Arab Spring
The catalyst for the escalation of protests was the self-immolation of Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi. Unable to find work and selling fruit at a roadside stand, Bouazizi had his wares confiscated by a municipal inspector in December 2010. An hour later he doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire. His death on January 4, 2011, brought together various groups dissatisfied with the existing system, including many unemployed individuals, political and human rights activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers, and others, to begin the Tunisian Revolution.
The demonstrations, triggered directly by Bouazizi’s death, brought to the forefront such issues as high unemployment, food inflation, corruption, lack of political freedoms, and poor living conditions.
Protesters on Avenue Habib Bourguiba, downtown Tunis on January 14, 2011, a few hours before president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country, VOA Photo/L. Bryant.
Tunisia is the only country where the Arab Spring resulted in the consistent democratization of the state.
It is now a representative democracy and a republic with a president serving as head of state, prime minister as head of government, a unicameral parliament, and a civil law court system. In October 2014, Tunisia held its first elections under the new constitution following the Arab Spring. The number of legalized political parties in Tunisia has grown considerably since the revolution.
With the success of the protests in Tunisia, a wave of unrest sparked in Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen and then spread to other countries. By the end of February 2012, rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Civil uprisings had erupted in Bahrain and Syria. Major protests had broken out in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan. Minor protests had occurred in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Western Sahara, and Palestine. Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia in January 2011. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak resigned in February 2011 after 18 days of massive protests, ending his 30-year presidency. The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown in August 2011 and killed in October 2011. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh signed the power-transfer deal in which a presidential election was held, resulting in his successor Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi formally replacing him as the president of Yemen in February 2012, in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Weapons and Tuareg (a large Berber ethnic confederation)
fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War stoked a simmering conflict in Mali, which has been described as a fallout from the Arab Spring in North Africa.
During this period of regional unrest, several leaders announced their intentions to step down at the end of their current terms. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir announced that he would not seek re-election in 2015, as did Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose term was ending in 2014, although there were violent demonstrations demanding his immediate resignation in 2011. Protests in Jordan also caused the sacking of four successive governments by King Abdullah. The popular unrest in Kuwait resulted in resignation of Prime Minister Nasser Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah cabinet.
Aftermath: Arab Winter
In the aftermath of the Arab Spring in various countries, there was a wave of violence and instability commonly known as the Arab Winter or Islamist Winter. The Arab Winter was characterized by extensive civil wars, general regional instability, economic and demographic decline, and religious wars between Sunni and Shia Muslims. According to a study by the American University of Beirut, as of summer 2014, the Arab Winter resulted in nearly a quarter of a million deaths and millions of refugees.
Although the long-term effects of the Arab Spring are not yet evident, its short-term consequences varied greatly across the Middle East and North Africa. In Tunisia and Egypt, where the existing regimes were ousted and replaced through a process of free and fair election, the revolutions were considered short-term successes. This interpretation is, however, undermined by the subsequent political turmoil that emerged, particularly in Egypt. Elsewhere, most notably in the monarchies of Morocco and the Persian Gulf, existing regimes co-opted the Arab Spring movement and managed to maintain order without significant social change. In other countries, particularly Syria and Libya, the apparent result of Arab Spring protests was a complete collapse of social order. As of 2017,
Tunisia is considered the only full democracy in the Arab World, despite many challenges the country still faces. Since the end of the revolution, Egypt has gone through political turmoil, with
democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi attempting to pass an extremist Islamist constitution that would grant him unparalleled powers, just to be ousted in 2013 by a military coup. Despite some democratic gestures (e.g., secular constitution and elections), international organizations currently consider Egypt to be an authoritarian regime.
Celebrations in Tahrir Square after Omar Suleiman’s statement concerning Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, photo by Jonathan Rashad.
While it initially seemed that Egypt might be as successful in introducing democratic reforms as Tunisia, the country remains an autocratic regime where political opposition is repressed and grave human rights violations constitute the major issue.
Social scientists have endeavored to understand the circumstances that led to this variation in outcome. A variety of causal factors have been highlighted, most of which hinge on the relationship between the strength of the state and the strength of civil society. Countries with stronger civil society networks in various forms saw more successful reforms during the Arab Spring. One of the primary influences highlighted in the analysis of the Arab Spring is the relative strength or weakness of a society’s formal and informal institutions prior to the revolts. When the Arab Spring began, Tunisia had an established infrastructure and a lower level of petty corruption than did other states such as Libya. This meant that following the overthrow of the existing regime, there was less work to be done in reforming Tunisian institutions than elsewhere and consequently it was less difficult to transition to and consolidate a democratic system of government.
Also crucial was the degree of state censorship over print, broadcast, and social media in different countries. Television coverage by channels like Al Jazeera and BBC News provided worldwide exposure and prevented mass violence by the Egyptian government in Tahrir Square. In other countries, such as Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, such international press coverage was not present to the same degree and the governments were able to act more freely in suppressing the protests. Strong authoritarian regimes with high degrees of censorship in their national broadcast media were able to block communication and prevent the domestic spread of information necessary for successful protests. Morocco is a case in point, as its broadcast media at the time of the revolts was owned and operated almost exclusively by political elites with ties to the monarchy. Countries with greater access to social media, such as Tunisia and Egypt, proved more effective in mobilizing large groups of people and appear to have been more successful overall than those with greater state control over media.
The support, even if tacit, of national military forces during protests has also been correlated to the success of the Arab Spring movement in different countries. In Egypt and Tunisia, the military actively participated in ousting the incumbent regime and in facilitating the transition to democratic elections. Countries like Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, exhibited a strong mobilization of military force against protesters, effectively ending the revolts in their territories. Others, including Libya and Syria, failed to stop the protests entirely and instead ended up in civil war. The support of the military in Arab Spring protests has also been linked to the degree of ethnic homogeneity in different societies. In Saudi Arabia and Syria, where the ruling elite was closely linked with ethnic or religious subdivisions of society, the military sided with the existing regime and took on the ostensible role of protector to minority populations.
Scholars Quinn Mecham and Tarek Osman have identified some trends in political Islam resulting from the Arab Spring. These include repression of the Muslim Brotherhood (transnational organization that claims to be pro-democratic although many Middle Eastern commentators questions its commitment to democracy); rise of Islamist state-building, most prominently in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, as Islamists have found it easier than competing non-Islamists to fill the void of state failure by securing external funding, weaponry, and fighters; increasing sectarianism (primarily Sunni-Shia); increased caution and political learning in countries such as Algeria and Jordan where Islamists have chosen not to lead a major challenge against their governments; and in countries where Islamists did chose to lead a major challenge and did not succeed in transforming society (particularly Egypt), a disinterest in finding the answer as to what went wrong in favor of antagonism, anger, and a thirst for revenge.
38.2.5: The Syrian Civil War
The Syrian Civil War is an ongoing armed conflict
that grew out of discontent with the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad and escalated into a brutal war fought by a complex network of factions, including the Syrian government and its allies, many fractured anti-government rebel groups, and radical Islamist organizations that aim to establish an Islamic state.
Learning Objective
Outline the events that led to the Syrian Civil War
Key Points
Since 1949, Syrian has been under authoritarian rule, with
numerous coups shifting the center of power. In 1971, Hafez al-Assad
declared himself President. Immediately after his death in 2000, the Parliament
amended the constitution, reducing the mandatory minimum age of the President
from 40 to 34, which allowed his son, Bashar al-Assad, to become legally
eligible for nomination by the ruling Ba’ath party. Bashar inspired hopes for
reform and a Damascus Spring of intense political and social debate took place
from mid-2000 to mid-2001. However, the movement was suppressed.
Following the Arab Spring trends across the Arab world, in March
2011, protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic
reforms and the release of political prisoners. Security forces retaliated by
opening fire on the protesters. Initially, the protesters demanded mostly
democratic reforms, but by April, the emphasis in demonstration slogans
began shifting toward a call to overthrow the Assad regime. Protests spread
widely to other cities.
In July 2011, seven defecting Syrian Armed Forces officers formed
the Free Syrian Army (FSA), aiming to overthrow the Assad government with
united opposition forces. In August, a coalition of anti-government groups
called the Syrian National Council was formed. The council, based in Turkey,
attempted to organize the opposition. The opposition, however, including the
FSA, remained a fractious collection of different groups. By September 2011,
Syrian rebels were engaged in an active insurgency campaign in many parts of
Syria.
The war is currently being fought by a complex network of
factions: the Syrian government and its allies, a loose alliance of Sunni
Arab rebel groups (including the Free Syrian Army), the majority-Kurdish
Syrian Democratic Forces, Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra
Front) who sometimes cooperate with the Sunni rebel groups, and the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Hezbollah, Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and Russia support the pro-Assad forces while a number of countries,
including many NATO members, participate in the Combined Joint Task Force,
chiefly to fight ISIL and support rebel groups perceived as moderate and
friendly to Western nations.
Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition
activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000. The use of chemical weapons attacks
has been confirmed by UN investigations. Formerly rare infectious diseases have
spread in rebel-held areas, brought on by poor sanitation and deteriorating
living conditions. The violence has caused millions to flee their homes. As of
March 2017, the UNHCR reports 6.3 million Syrians are internally displaced
and nearly five million registered as Syrian refugees (outside of
Syria).
According to various human rights organizations and the United
Nations, human rights violations have been committed by both the government and
the rebels, with the “vast majority of the abuses having been committed by
the Syrian government.” The war has also led to the massive destruction of
Syrian heritage sites.
Key Terms
Damascus Spring
A period of intense political and social debate in Syria, which started after the death of President Hafiz al-Assad in June 2000 and continued to some degree until fall 2001, when most of its activities were suppressed by the government.
Free Syrian Army
A faction in the Syrian Civil War founded in July 2011 by officers who defected from the Syrian Armed Forces, with the stated goal to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad.
shabiha
Mostly Alawite groups of armed militia in support of the Ba’ath Party government of Syria, led by the Al-Assad family. However, in the Aleppo Governorate, they were composed entirely of the local pro-Assad Sunni tribes. The Syrian opposition stated that they are a tool of the government for cracking down on dissent. Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that some of the groups are mercenaries.
Syrian Civil War
An armed conflict taking place in Syria. The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal turned violent in response to the crackdown on dissent. The war is being fought by several factions: the Syrian government and its allies, a loose alliance of Sunni Arab rebel groups (including the Free Syrian Army), the majority-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces, Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front) who sometimes cooperate with the Sunni rebel groups, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
al-Nusra Front
A Sunni Islamist terrorist organization fighting against Syrian Government forces in the Syrian Civil War with the aim of establishing an Islamist state in the country. It was the official Syrian branch of al-Qaeda until July 2016, when it ostensibly split, now also operating in neighboring Lebanon. In early 2015, the group became one of the major components of the powerful jihadist joint operations room named the Army of Conquest, which took over large territories in Northwestern Syria.
Arab Spring
A revolutionary
wave of both violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots,
coups, and civil wars in North Africa and the Middle
East that began in December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian
Revolution.
Assad Regime
Syria became an independent republic in 1946, although democratic rule ended with a coup in 1949, followed by two more coups the same year. A popular uprising against military rule in 1954 saw the army transfer power to civilians. The secular Ba’ath Syrian Regional Branch government came to power through a successful coup d’état in 1963. For the next several years, Syria went through additional coups and changes in leadership. In 1971, Hafez al-Assad declared himself President, a position that he held until his death in 2000. Immediately following al-Assad’s death, the Parliament amended the constitution, reducing the mandatory minimum age of the President from 40 to 34, which allowed his son, Bashar al-Assad, to become legally eligible for nomination by the ruling Ba’ath party. In 2000, Bashar al-Assad was elected President by referendum, in which he ran unopposed, garnering the alleged 97.29% of the vote according to Syrian government statistics.
Bashar, who speaks French and English and has a British-born wife, inspired hopes for reform, and a Damascus Spring of intense political and social debate took place from mid-2000 to mid-2001. The period was characterized by the emergence of numerous political forums or salons where groups of like-minded people met in private houses to debate political and social issues. The phenomenon of salons spread rapidly in Damascus and to a lesser extent in other cities. The movement ended with the arrest and imprisonment of ten leading activists who had called for democratic elections and a campaign of civil disobedience.
Syria’s Social Profile
Syrian Arabs, together with some 600,000 Palestinian Arabs, make up roughly 74 percent of the population. Syrian Muslims are 74 percent Sunnis (including Sufis) and 13 percent Shias (including 8-12 percent Alawites), 3 percent are Druze, and the remaining 10 percent are Christians. Not all of the Sunnis are Arabs. The Assad family is mixed. Bashar is married to a Sunni with whom he has several children, but is affiliated with the minority Alawite sect. The majority of Syria’s Christians belonged to the Eastern Christian churches. Syrian Kurds, an ethnic minority making up approximately 9 percent of the population, have been angered by ethnic discrimination and the denial of their cultural and linguistic rights as well as the frequent denial of citizenship rights.
Socioeconomic inequality increased significantly after free market policies were initiated by Hafez al-Assad in his later years, and it accelerated after Bashar al-Assad came to power. With an emphasis on the service sector, these policies benefited a minority of the nation’s population, mostly people who had connections with the government and members of the Sunni merchant class of Damascus and Aleppo. This coincided with the most intense drought ever recorded in Syria, which lasted from 2007 to 2010 and resulted in widespread crop failure, an increase in food prices, and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. The country also faced particularly high youth unemployment rates.
The human rights situation in Syria has long been the subject of harsh critique from global organizations. The rights of free expression, association, and assembly were strictly controlled. The country was under emergency rule from 1963 until 2011 and public gatherings of more than five people were banned. Security forces had sweeping powers of arrest and detention. Authorities have harassed and imprisoned human rights activists and other critics of the government, who were often detained indefinitely and tortured while under prison-like conditions. Women and ethnic minorities faced discrimination in the public sector. Thousands of Syrian Kurds were denied citizenship in 1962 and their descendants were labeled “foreigners.”
Breakout of Civil War
Following the Arab Spring trends across the Arab world, in March 2011 protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. Security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters. The protest was triggered by the arrest of a boy and his friends for writing in graffiti “The people want the fall of the government” in the city of Daraa. The protesters burned down a Ba’ath Party headquarters and other buildings. The ensuing clashes claimed the lives of seven police officers and 15 protesters. Several days later in a speech, President Bashar al-Assad blamed “foreign conspirators” pushing “Israeli propaganda” for the protests.
Initially, the protesters demanded mostly democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, an increase in freedoms, abolition of the emergency law, and an end to corruption. Already by April, however, the emphasis in demonstration slogans shifted slowly towards a call to overthrow the Assad regime. Protests spread widely to other cities. By the end of May, 1,000 civilians and 150 soldiers and policemen had been killed and thousands detained. Among the arrested were many students, liberal activists, and human rights advocates.
In July 2011, seven defecting Syrian Armed Forces officers formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA), originally composed of defected Syrian military officers and soldiers aiming to overthrow the Assad government with united opposition forces. In August, a coalition of anti-government groups called the Syrian National Council was formed. The council, based in Turkey, attempted to organize the opposition. The opposition, however, including the FSA, remained a fractious collection of political groups, longtime exiles, grassroots organizers, and armed militants divided along ideological, ethnic and/or sectarian lines. Throughout August, government forces stormed major urban centers and outlying regions, and continued to attack protests. By September 2011, Syrian rebels were engaged in an active insurgency campaign in many parts of Syria. By October, the FSA started to receive active support from the Turkish government, which allowed the rebel army to operate its command and headquarters from the country’s southern Hatay Province close to the Syrian border and its field command from inside Syria.
The scene of the October 2012 Aleppo bombings, for which al-Nusra Front claimed responsibility
The fighting has caused damage to entire cities, including both civilian quarters and numerous historic buildings. All six UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the country have been destroyed. Destructive effects of the conflict are caused by shelling, looting, and rebel occupation.
Fighting Factions
The war is currently being fought by a complex network of factions. A number of sources have emphasized that as of at least late 2015/early 2016, the Syrian government was dependent on a mix of volunteers and militias rather than the Syrian Armed Forces. The Syrian National Defense Force was formed out of pro-government militias. They act in an infantry role, directly fighting against rebels on the ground and running counter-insurgency operations in coordination with the army, who provides them with logistical and artillery support. The shabihaare unofficial pro-government militias drawn largely from Syria’s Alawite minority group. Since the uprising, the Syrian government has been accused of using shabiha to break up protests and enforce laws in restive neighborhoods.
The Christian militias in Syria and northern Iraq are largely made up of ethnic Assyrians, Syriac-Arameans, and Armenians. Sensing that they depend on the largely secular government, the militias of Syrian Christians fight both on the Syrian government’s side and with Kurdish forces. The Eastern Aramaic-speaking Assyrians in north eastern Syria and northern Iraq have formed various militias (including the Assyrian Defense Force, Dwekh Nawsha, and Sootoro) to defend their ancient towns, villages, and farmsteads from ISIS. They often but not always fight in conjunction with Kurdish and Armenian groups.
In February 2013, former secretary general of Hezbollah Sheikh Subhi al-Tufayli confirmed that Hezbollah was fighting for the Syrian Army. Iran, on the other hand, continues to officially deny the presence of its combat troops in Syria, maintaining that it provides military advice to Assad’s forces in their fight against terrorist groups. Since the civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War, Iran has provided the Syrian government with financial, technical, and military support, including training and some combat troops. The number of Afghans fighting in Syria on behalf of the Syrian government has been estimated at 10,000-12,000 while the number of Pakistanis is not known. In September 2015, Russia’s Federation Council unanimously granted the request by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to permit the use of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria.
The armed opposition consists of various groups that were either formed during the course of the conflict or joined from abroad. In the northwest of the country, the main opposition faction is the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front allied with numerous other smaller Islamist groups, some of which operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The designation of the FSA by the West as a moderate opposition faction has allowed it to receive sophisticated weaponry and other military support from the U.S., Turkey, and some Gulf countries that effectively increases the total fighting capacity of the Islamist rebels. In the east, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, known more commonly as ISIS), a jihadist militant group originating from Iraq, made rapid military gains in both Syria and Iraq. ISIL eventually came into conflict with other rebels, especially with al-Nusra, leaders of which did not want to pledge allegiance to ISIL. As of 2015, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were openly backing the Army of Conquest, an umbrella rebel group that reportedly includes an al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front and another Salafi coalition known as Ahrar ash-Sham and Faylaq Al-Sham, a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebel groups. Also, in the northeast local Kurdish militias have taken up arms and fought with both rebel Islamist factions and government loyalists.
The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are an alliance of Arab, Assyrians, Armenian, Kurdish, and Turkmen militias fighting for a democratic and federalist Syria. They are opposed to the Assad government, but have directed most of their efforts against Al-Nusra Front and ISIL.
A number of countries, including many NATO members, participate in the Combined Joint Task Force, chiefly to fight ISIL and support rebel groups perceived as moderate and friendly to Western nations such as the Free Syrian Army. Those who have conducted airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Some members are involved in the conflict beyond combating ISIL. Turkey has been accused of fighting against Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, including intelligence collaborations with ISIL in some cases.
Consequences
Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000. In April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 deaths.
A UN fact-finding mission was requested by member states to investigate 16 alleged chemical weapons attacks. Seven of them have been investigated (nine were dropped for lack of “sufficient or credible information”) and in four cases the UN inspectors confirmed use of sarin gas. The reports, however, did not blame any party for using chemical weapons. Many, including the United States and the European Union, have accused the Syrian government of conducting several chemical attacks, the most serious eing the 2013 Ghouta attacks. Before this incident, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte, who has been investigating sarin gas use in Syria, accused the opposition of the government of using sarin gas in 2013.
Formerly rare infectious diseases have spread in rebel-held areas, brought on by poor sanitation and deteriorating living conditions. The diseases have primarily affected children and include measles, typhoid, hepatitis, dysentery, tuberculosis, diphtheria, whooping cough, and the disfiguring skin disease leishmaniasis. Of particular concern is the contagious and crippling poliomyelitis.
The violence in Syria caused millions to flee their homes. In March 2015, Al-Jazeera estimated 10.9 million Syrians, or almost half the population, were displaced. As of March 2017, the UNHCR reports 6.3 million Syrians are internally displaced and nearly five million registered as Syrian refugees (outside of Syria). Most Syrian refugees have sought safety in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq.
In 2017, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance (in 2014, the population of Syria was about 18 million).
Wounded civilians arrive at a hospital in Aleppo during the civil war in Syria, October 2012
Aleppo is an ancient city and one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, possibly since the 6th millennium BCE. During the Battle of Aleppo, the city suffered massive destruction and has been the worst-hit city in the Syrian Civil War. In December 2016, the Syrian government achieved full control of Aleppo following a successful offensive.
According to various human rights organizations and United Nations, human rights violations have been committed by both the government and the rebels, with the “vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government.” The UN commission investigating human rights abuses in Syria confirms at least nine intentional mass killings in the period 2012 to mid-July 2013, identifying the perpetrator as Syrian government and its supporters in eight cases and the opposition in one. By late 2013, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network reported approximately 6,000 women have been raped since the start of the conflict, with figures likely to be much higher given that most cases go unreported. According to some international lawyers, Syrian government officials could face war crimes charges in the light of a huge cache of evidence smuggled out of the country showing the systematic killing of about 11,000 detainees. Most of the victims were young men and many corpses were emaciated, bloodstained, and bore signs of torture. Experts note this evidence is more detailed and on a far larger scale than anything else that has yet emerged from the crisis. In 2014, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing government forces razing to the ground seven anti-government districts in the cities of Damascus and Hama. Witnesses spoke of explosives and bulldozers used to knock down buildings. Satellite imagery was provided as part of the report and the destruction was characterized as collective punishment against residents of rebel-held areas. UN also reported that armed forces of both sides of the conflict blocked access of humanitarian convoys, confiscated food, cut off water supplies, and targeted farmers working their fields. UN has also accused ISIS forces of using public executions, amputations, and lashings in a campaign to instill fear. Enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions have also been a feature since the Syrian uprising began. In February 2017, Amnesty International published a report which accused the Syrian government of murdering an estimated 13,000 persons, mostly civilians, at the Saydnaya military prison.
As the conflict has expanded across Syria, many cities have been engulfed in a wave of crime as fighting caused the disintegration of much of the civilian state and many police stations stopped functioning. Rates of theft increased, with criminals looting houses and stores. Criminal networks have been used by both the government and the opposition during the conflict. Facing international sanctions, the Syrian government relied on criminal organizations to smuggle goods and money in and out of the country. The economic downturn caused by the conflict and sanctions also led to lower wages for shabiha members. In response, some shabiha members began stealing civilian properties and engaging in kidnappings. Rebel forces sometimes rely on criminal networks to obtain weapons and supplies. Black market weapon prices in Syria’s neighboring countries have significantly increased since the start of the conflict. To generate funds to purchase arms, some rebel groups have turned towards extortion, theft, and kidnapping.
As of March 2015, the war has affected 290 heritage sites, severely damaged 104, and completely destroyed 24. All the six UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Syria have been damaged. Destruction of antiquities has been caused by shelling, army entrenchment, and looting at various tells, museums, and monuments. A group called Syrian Archaeological Heritage Under Threat is monitoring and recording the destruction in an attempt to create a list of heritage sites damaged during the war and to gain global support for the protection and preservation of Syrian archaeology and architecture. In 2014 and 2015, following the rise of the ISIL, several sites in Syria were destroyed by the group as part of a deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites.
38.2.6: The Iranian Nuclear Deal
The Iran nuclear deal is an international agreement on the limits and international control imposed on the nuclear program of Iran. It was reached in 2015 after years of negotiations between Iran, the P5+1, and the European Union.
Learning Objective
Explain the arguments for and against the nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran
Key Points
The
nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines,
a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known
uranium enrichment plants. In 1970, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), making its nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) verification. The program was launched in the 1950s with the help
of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.
The participation
of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program
continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.
Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation
with Iran was cut off.
In
the 2000s, the revelation of Iran’s clandestine uranium enrichment program
raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. While since 2003 the United
States has alleged that Iran has a program to develop nuclear weapons, Iran has
maintained that its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.
Formal negotiations toward the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program began with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. For the next twenty months, Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations, and in April 2015 agreed on an Iran nuclear deal framework for the final agreement. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 agreed on the plan.
Under the agreement, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges. For the next 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67%. Iran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water facilities for the same period of time. Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility. Other facilities will be converted to avoid proliferation risks. To monitor and verify Iran’s compliance with the agreement, the IAEA will have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities.
More than 90 countries endorsed the agreement as did many
international organizations, including the UN and NATO. The most notable critic
of the agreement is the state of Israel. Nuclear experts and watchdogs agreed that the agreement was a positive development. An
intense public debate in the United States took place during the congressional
review period, with various groups lobbying both opposition and support for the
agreement.
With the prospective lifting of some
sanctions, the agreement is expected to have a significant impact on both the
economy of Iran and global markets. The energy sector is particularly
important. The agreement will boost Iran’s scientific cooperation with Western powers and has already improved diplomatic relations in some cases. However, Iran and the U.S. have been both accused of violating the agreement, and its future under Trump administration is uncertain.
Key Terms
International Atomic Energy Agency
An international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons. It was established as an autonomous organization in 1957. Although established independently of the United Nations through its own international treaty, it reports to both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.
Joint Plan of Action
A pact signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in Geneva, Switzerland in 2013. It consisted of a short-term freeze of portions of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for decreased economic sanctions on Iran as the countries worked towards a long-term agreement. It represented the first formal agreement between the United States and Iran in 34 years. Implementation of the agreement began January 20, 2014.
Iran Sanctions Act
A 1996 act of Congress that imposed economic sanctions on firms doing business with Iran (and originally also with Libya, but the act does not apply to Libya since 2006). The act allows the president to waive sanctions on a case-by-case basis, although this waiver is subject to renewal every six months. Despite the restrictions on American investment in Iran, other provisions apply to all foreign investors, and many Iranian expatriates based in the U.S. continue to make substantial investments in Iran.
On December 1, 2016, the Senate voted 99-0 in favor of extending the sanctions a further ten years.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
An international agreement, known commonly as the Iran deal or Iran nuclear deal, on the nuclear program of Iran reached in Vienna in July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany), and the European Union.
P5+1
A group of six world powers that joined together in diplomatic efforts with Iran with regard to its nuclear program. The group consists of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
An international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Opened for signature in 1968, the treaty entered into force in 1970. As of August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, although North Korea announced its withdrawal in 2003.
Iran’s Nuclear Program
The
nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines,
a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known
uranium enrichment plants. In 1970, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), making its nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) verification. The program was launched in the 1950s with the help
of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The participation
of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program
continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.
Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation
with Iran was cut off. In 1981, Iranian officials concluded that the country’s
nuclear development should continue. Negotiations took place with France in the
late 1980s and with Argentina in the early 1990s, and agreements were reached.
In the 1990s, Russia formed a joint research organization with Iran, providing
Iran with Russian nuclear experts and technical information.
In
the 2000s, the revelation of Iran’s clandestine uranium enrichment program
raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA
launched an investigation in 2003 after an Iranian dissident group revealed
undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran. While since 2003 the United
States has alleged that Iran has a program to develop nuclear weapons, Iran has
maintained that its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.
The United States’s position is that “a nuclear-armed Iran is not
acceptable,” and the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have also attempted
to negotiate a cessation of nuclear enrichment activities by Iran.
In
2006, American and European representatives noted that Iran has enough
unenriched uranium hexafluoride gas to make ten atomic bombs, adding that it
was “time for the Security Council to act.” In 2006, because of
Iran’s noncompliance with its NPT obligations, the United Nations Security
Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. In 2007, the United
States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated that Iran halted an alleged
active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003. In 2011, the IAEA reported
credible evidence that Iran had been conducting experiments aimed at designing
a nuclear bomb until 2003 and that research may have continued on a smaller
scale after that time.
Negotiations
In
March 2013, the United States began a series of secret bilateral talks with
Iranian officials in Oman and in June, Hassan Rouhani was elected president of
Iran. Rouhani has been described as “more moderate, pragmatic and willing
to negotiate” than his predecessor, the anti-Western hardliner Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. However, in a 2006 nuclear negotiation with European powers,
Rouhani said that Iran had used the negotiations to dupe the Europeans, saying
that during the negotiations, Iran managed to master the conversion of uranium
yellowcake (the conversion of yellowcake is an important step in the nuclear
fuel process). In August 2013, three days after his inauguration, Rouhani
called for a resumption of serious negotiations with the P5+1 (the UN Security
Council’s five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) on the Iranian nuclear program.
In September 2013, Obama and Rouhani had a telephone conversation, the first
high-level contact between U.S. and Iranian leaders since 1979. U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry also had a meeting with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif, signaling that the two countries were open to cooperation.
After
several rounds of negotiations, in November 2013, the Joint Plan of Action
(JPA), an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, was signed between
Iran and the P5+1 countries in Geneva, Switzerland. It consisted of a
short-term freeze of portions of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for
decreased economic sanctions on Iran as the countries work towards a long-term
agreement. The IAEA began “more intrusive and frequent inspections”
under this interim agreement, formally activated in January 2014. The IAEA
issued a report stating that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim
agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, beginning
the dilution process (to reduce half of the stockpile of 20 percent enriched
uranium to 3.5 percent), and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor. A major
focus of the negotiations was limitations on Iran’s key nuclear facilities.
The foreign ministers of the P5+1 nations, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, and the Iranian foreign minister in November 2013, when the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, was adopted in Geneva, photo by U.S. Department of State.
In June 2006, China, Russia, and the United States joined the three EU-3 countries, which had been negotiating with Iran since 2003, to offer another proposal for comprehensive negotiations with Iran.
Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action
The
final agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) is the culmination of 20 months of “arduous”
negotiations. It followed the JPA and an Iran nuclear deal framework was
reached in April 2015. Under this framework, Iran agreed tentatively to accept
restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a
decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of
international inspections. The negotiations were extended several times until
the final JCPOA was finally reached on July 14, 2015.
The
final agreement’s complexity shows the impact of a public letter written by a
bipartisan group of 19 U.S. diplomats, experts, and others in June 2015, when
negotiations were still ongoing. That letter outlined concerns about the
several provisions in the then-unfinished agreement and called for a number of
improvements to strengthen the prospective agreement and win support.
Major
provisions of the final accord include:
Iran’s current stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced
by 98 percent, from 10,000 kg to 300 kg. This reduction will be
maintained for 15 years. For the same 15-year period, Iran will be
limited to enriching uranium to 3.67%, a percentage sufficient for civilian
nuclear power and research, but not for building a nuclear weapon.
For ten years, Iran will place over two-thirds of its centrifuges
in storage, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium, an enrichment
capacity limited to the Natanz plant.
Iran will not build any new uranium-enrichment facilities for
15 years.
Iran may continue research and development work on enrichment, but
that work will take place only at the Natanz facility and include certain
limitations for the first eight years.
Iran, with cooperation from the “Working Group” (the
P5+1 and possibly other countries), will modernize and rebuild the Arak heavy
water research reactor based on an agreed design to support its peaceful
nuclear research and production needs and purposes, but in such a way as to
minimize the production of plutonium and prevent production of weapons-grade
plutonium.
Iran’s Fordow facility will stop enriching uranium and researching
uranium enrichment for at least 15 years and the facility will be
converted into a nuclear physics and technology center.
Iran will implement an Additional Protocol agreement, which will
continue in perpetuity for as long as Iran remains a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). The signing of the Additional Protocol represents a continuation
of the monitoring and verification provisions “long after the
comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is implemented.”
A comprehensive inspections regime will be implemented to
monitor and confirm that Iran is complying with its obligations and is not
diverting any fissile material.
Following
the issuance of a IAEA report verifying implementation by Iran of the
nuclear-related measures, the UN sanctions against Iran and some EU
sanctions will terminate and some will be suspended. Once sanctions are lifted,
Iran will recover approximately $100 billion of its assets (U.S. Treasury
Department estimate) frozen in overseas banks.
Response
More than 90 countries endorsed the agreement as did many
international organizations, including the UN and NATO. The most notable critic
of the agreement is the state of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said, “Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran, because Iran continues
to seek our destruction, we will always defend ourselves.” Netanyahu
called the deal a “capitulation” and “a bad mistake of historic
proportions.” Most of Israel’s other political figures, including the
opposition, were similarly critical of the agreement. The two countries
maintain extremely hostile relations, with some Iranian leaders calling for the
destruction of Israel.
Following
the unveiling of the agreement, “a general consensus quickly emerged”
among nuclear experts and watchdogs that the agreement “is as close to a
best-case situation as reality would allow.” In August 2015, 75 arms
control and nuclear nonproliferation experts signed a statement endorsing the
deal as “a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation
efforts” that exceeds the historical standards for arms control
agreements.
An
intense public debate in the United States took place during the congressional
review period, with various groups lobbying both opposition and support for the
agreement. Many Iranian Americans, even those who fled repression in Iran and
oppose its government, welcomed the JCPOA as a step forward. U.S. pro-Israel
groups are divided on the JCPOA. Various other groups have run ad campaigns for or
against the agreement. For example, the New York-based Iran Project, a
nonprofit led by former high-level U.S. diplomats and funded by the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, along with the United Nations Association of the United States,
supports the agreement. In July 2015, a bipartisan open letter endorsing the
Iran agreement was signed by more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and
high-ranking State Department officials. A separate public letter to Congress
in support of the agreement from five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel from
administrations of both parties and three former Under Secretaries of State was
also released in July 2015. Another public letter to Congress urging approval
of the agreement was signed by a bipartisan group of more than 60 “national-security leaders,” including politicians, retired military
officers, and diplomats. In August 2015, 29 prominent U.S. scientists, mostly
physicists, published an open letter endorsing the agreement. An open letter
endorsing the agreement was also signed by 36 retired military generals and
admirals. However, this letter was answered by a letter signed by more than 200
retired generals and admirals opposing the deal.
Republican leaders vowed to attempt to kill
the agreement as soon as it was released, even before classified sections were
made available to Congress. According to the Washington Post,
“most congressional Republicans remained deeply skeptical, some openly
scornful, of the prospect of relieving economic sanctions while leaving any
Iranian uranium-enrichment capability intact.” Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said the deal “appears to fall
well short of the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that
Iran would not be a nuclear state.” A New York Times news
analysis stated that Republican opposition to the agreement “seems born of
genuine distaste for the deal’s details, inherent distrust of President Obama,
intense loyalty to Israel and an expansive view of the role that sanctions have
played beyond preventing Iran’s nuclear abilities.” The Washington
Post identified twelve issues related to the agreement on which the
two sides disagreed, including the efficacy of inspections at undeclared sites;
the effectiveness of the snapback sanctions; the significance of limits on
enrichment; the significance of IAEA side agreements; the effectiveness of
inspections of military sites; the consequences of walking away from an
agreement; and the effects of lifting sanctions.
One
area of disagreement between supporters and opponents of the JCPOA is the
consequences of walking away from an agreement and whether renegotiation of the
agreement is a realistic option. According to an Associated Press report, the
classified assessment of the United States Intelligence Community on the
agreement concludes that because Iran will be required by the agreement to
provide international inspectors with “unprecedented volume of information
about nearly every aspect of its existing nuclear program,” Iran’s ability
to conceal a covert weapons program will be diminished.
Souvenir signatures of lead negotiators on the cover page of the JCPOA document. The Persian handwriting on top left side is a homage by Javad Zarif to his counterparts’ efforts in the negotiations: “[I am] Sincere to Mr. Abbas [Araghchi] and Mr. Majid [Takht-Ravanchi].
The final agreement is based upon (and buttresses) “the rules-based
nonproliferation regime created by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and including especially the IAEA safeguards system.”
Impact
With the prospective lifting of some
sanctions, the agreement is expected to have a significant impact on both the
economy of Iran and global markets. The energy sector is particularly
important, with Iran having nearly 10 percent of global oil reserves and 18
percent of natural gas reserves. Millions of barrels of Iranian oil may come
onto global markets, lowering the price of crude oil. The economic impact of a
partial lifting of sanctions extends beyond the energy sector. The New
York Times reported that “consumer-oriented companies, in
particular, could find opportunity in this country with 81 million
consumers,” many of whom are young and prefer Western products. Iran is
“considered a strong emerging market play” by investment and trading
firms.
In July 2015, Richard Stone wrote in the
journal Science that if the agreement is fully implemented,
“Iran can expect a rapid expansion of scientific cooperation with Western
powers. As its nuclear facilities are repurposed, scientists from Iran and
abroad will team up in areas such as nuclear fusion, astrophysics, and
radioisotopes for cancer therapy.”
In
August 2015, the British embassy in Tehran reopened almost four years after it
was closed after protesters attacked the embassy in 2011.
Hours
before the official announcement of the activation of JCPOA in January 2016,
Iran released four imprisoned Iranian Americans. A fifth American left Iran in
a separate arrangement.
After
the adoption of the JCPOA, the United States imposed several new non-nuclear
sanctions against Iran, some of which have been condemned by Iran as a possible
violation of the deal. According to Seyed Mohammad Marandi, professor at the
University of Tehran, the general consensus in Iran while the negotiations were
taking place was that the United States would move towards increasing sanctions
on non-nuclear areas. He said that these post-JCPOA sanctions could
“severely damage the chances for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
bearing fruit.”
In
March 2016, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), defined by
English-speaking media as a branch of Iran’s Armed Forces, conducted
ballistic missile tests as part of its military drills, with one of the missiles
carrying the inscription, “Israel should be wiped off the Earth.”
Israel called on Western powers to punish Iran for the tests, which U.S.
officials said do not violate the nuclear deal, but may violate a United
Nations Security Council Resolution. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif insisted that the tests were not in violation of the UNSC resolution. On
March 17, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Iranian and British companies
for involvement in the Iranian ballistic missile program.
Future?
In
November 2016, Deutsche Welle, citing a source from the IAEA, reported that
“Iran has violated the terms of its nuclear deal.” In December 2016,
the U.S. Senate voted to renew the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) for another decade.
The Obama Administration and outside experts said the extension would have no
practical effect and risked antagonizing Iran. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khamenei, President Rouhani, and Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said that
the extension of sanctions would be a breach of the nuclear deal. Some Iranian
officials said that Iran might ramp up uranium enrichment in response.
In
January 2017, representatives from Iran, P5+1, and EU gathered in Vienna’s
Palais Coburg hotel to address Iran’s complaint about the US congressional bill.
The future of nuclear agreement with Iran is uncertain under the administration
of President Trump.
38.3: East Asia in the 21st Century
38.3.1: The Rising Economies of East Asia
East Asia is home to some of the world’s most prosperous economies while Southeast Asia witnesses the growth of some of the world’s fastest growing emerging economies, with
favorable political-legal environments for industry and commerce, abundant natural resources, and adaptable labor determined to be the main factors of the success.
Learning Objective
Explain how East Asian economies have been increasing their share of the global economy.
Key Points
East Asian countries’ various reforms resulted in “economic
miracles,” making East Asia home to some of the world’s largest and most
prosperous economies, including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan,
Japan, and South Korea. Major growth factors have ranged from favorable
political and legal environments for industry and commerce, through abundant
natural resources, to plentiful supplies of relatively low-cost, skilled, and
adaptable labor. The region’s economic success has led the World Bank to dub it
an East Asian Renaissance.
The economy of Japan is the third-largest in the world by
nominal GDP, the fourth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and the
world’s second largest developed economy. Japan is the world’s third largest
automobile manufacturing country, has the largest electronics goods industry,
and is often ranked among the world’s most innovative countries. The Japanese
economy faces considerable challenges posed by a dramatically declining
population.
China’s socialist market economy is the world’s second largest
economy by nominal GDP and the world’s largest economy by PPP according to the
IMF. China is a global hub for manufacturing and the largest manufacturing
economy in the world as well as the largest exporter of goods in the world.
China’s unequal transportation system—combined with important differences in
the availability of natural and human resources and in industrial
infrastructure—has produced significant variations in the regional economies.
More recently, the government has struggled to contain the social strife and environmental
damage related to the economy’s rapid transformation.
In accordance with the One Country, Two Systems policy, the
economies of the former British colony of Hong Kong and Portuguese colony of
Macau are separate from the rest of China and each other. Both Hong
Kong and Macau are free to conduct and engage in economic
negotiations with foreign countries as well as participate as full members in
various international economic organizations.
The Four Asian Tigers are the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Korea, and Taiwan, which underwent rapid industrialization and maintained
exceptionally high growth rates between the early 1960s (mid-1950s for Hong
Kong) and 1990s. By the 21st century, all four had developed into advanced and
high-income economies, specializing in areas of competitive advantage. Export
policies have been the de facto reason for the rise of the Four Asian Tiger
economies although te approach taken has been different among the four nations.
The term Tiger Cub Economies collectively refers to the economies
of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Four countries
are included in HSBC’s list of top 50 economies in 2050, while Vietnam,
Indonesia, and the Philippines are included in Goldman Sachs’s Next Eleven list
of economies because of their rapid growth and large population. Out of these,
Vietnam has been determined to become possibly the fastest-growing of the
world’s emerging economies by 2020. The so-called “bamboo network” –
a network of overseas Chinese businesses operating in these markets – has been
critical to the countries’ economic growth.
Key Terms
G7
A group consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries are the seven major advanced economies as reported by the International Monetary Fund and represent more than 64% of the net global wealth ($263 trillion).
socialist market economy
The economic model employed by the People’s Republic of China. It is based on the dominance of the state-owned sector and an open-market economy and has its origins in the Chinese economic reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping. The ideological rationale is that China is in the primary stage of socialism, an early stage within the socialist mode of production and therefore has to adapt capitalist techniques to thrive. Despite this, the system has widely been cited as a form of state capitalism.
Four Asian Tigers
A collective name used to refer to the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, which underwent rapid industrialization and maintained exceptionally high growth rates (in excess of 7 percent a year) between the early 1960s (mid-1950s for Hong Kong) and 1990s.
Tiger Cub Economies
A collective term used to
refer to the economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, the five dominant countries in Southeast Asia. They are so named because they follow the same export-driven model of economic development pursued by the Four Asian Tigers.
bamboo network
A term used to conceptualize connections between certain businesses operated by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. It links the overseas Chinese community of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Singapore) with the economies of Greater China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Overseas Chinese companies have a prominent role in the private sector of Southeast Asia and are usually managed as family businesses with a centralized bureaucracy.
One Country, Two Systems
A constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the Paramount Leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese regions such as Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own capitalist economic and political systems, while the rest of China uses the socialist system.
East Asian Renaissance
The economy of East Asia is one of the most successful regional economies of the world. The changes that turned the area into the economic power began with the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century, when Japan rapidly transformed into the only industrial power outside Europe and the United States. Japan’s early industrial economy reached its height during World War II and its eventual defeat in the war slowed down economic development for a relatively short period of time. Japan’s economy recovered already in the 1950s and by the 1980s, the country was the world’s second largest economy.
Other East Asian countries followed with their own reforms and resulting “economic miracles” and today, East Asia is home of some of the world’s largest and most prosperous economies, including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Major growth factors have ranged from favorable political and legal environments for industry and commerce, through abundant natural resources, to plentiful supplies of relatively low-cost, skilled, and adaptable labor.
Local populations have rapidly adjusted to the requirements of new technologies and scientific discoveries while also demonstrating exceptional work ethics.
The region’s economic success has led the World Bank to dub it an East Asian Renaissance.
Although technically not seen as part of the East Asian Renaissance, India, associated more closely with the South Asian region, has become an equally thriving and critical Asian member of the global economy in the last several decades. For more information on India’s economic power see “India’s Growing Economy” module.
Japan
In the three decades of economic development following 1960, Japan ignored defense spending in favor of economic growth, thus allowing for a rapid economic growth referred to as the Japanese post-war economic miracle. With average growth rates of 10% in the 1960s, 5% in the 1970s, and 4% in the 1980s, Japan was able to establish and maintain itself as the world’s second largest economy from 1978 until 2010, when it was surpassed by the People’s Republic of China.
The economy of Japan is the third-largest in the world by nominal GDP, the fourth-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and the world’s second largest developed economy. Japan is a member of the G7. Due to a volatile currency exchange rate, Japan’s GDP as measured in dollars fluctuates widely. Accounting for these fluctuations, Japan is estimated to have a GDP per capita of around $38,490.
Japan is the world’s third largest automobile manufacturing country, has the largest electronics goods industry, and is often ranked among the world’s most innovative countries leading several measures of global patent filings. Facing increasing competition from China and South Korea, manufacturing in Japan today focuses primarily on high-tech and precision goods, such as optical instruments, hybrid vehicles, and robotics. Japan is the world’s largest creditor nation. It generally runs an annual trade surplus and has a considerable net international investment surplus. In 2015, 54 of the Fortune Global 500 companies were based in Japan.
The Japanese economy faces considerable challenges posed by a dramatically declining population. Statistics showed an official decline for the first time in 2015, while projections suggest that it will continue to fall from 127 million down to below 100 million by the middle of the 21st century.
A mountainous, volcanic island country, Japan has inadequate natural resources to support its growing economy and large population and therefore exports goods, in which it has a comparative advantage such as engineering-oriented, research, and development-led industrial products in exchange for the import of raw materials and petroleum. Japan is among the top-three importers for agricultural products in the world next to the European Union and United States in total volume for covering of its own domestic agricultural consumption.
China
China’s socialist market economy is the world’s second largest economy by nominal GDP and the world’s largest economy by PPP according to the IMF, although China’s National Bureau of Statistics rejects this claim. Until 2015, China was the world’s fastest-growing major economy, with growth rates averaging 10% over 30 years. Due to historical and political facts of China’s developing economy, China’s public sector accounts for a bigger share of the national economy than the burgeoning private sector.
China is a global hub for manufacturing and is the largest manufacturing economy in the world as well as the largest exporter of goods in the world. It is also the world’s fastest growing consumer market and second largest importer of goods in the world. It is a net importer of services products and the largest trading nation in the world, playing the most important role in international trade. However,
Western media have criticized China for unfair trade practices, including artificial currency devaluation, intellectual property theft, protectionism, and local favoritism due to one-party oligopoly by the Communist Party of China and its socialist market economy.
China’s unequal transportation system—combined with important differences in the availability of natural and human resources and in industrial infrastructure—has produced significant variations in the regional economies of China. Economic development has generally been more rapid in coastal provinces than in the interior and there are large disparities in per capita income between regions. Three wealthiest regions are along the southeast coast. It is the rapid development of these areas that is expected to have the most significant effect on the Asian regional economy as a whole and Chinese government policy is designed to remove the obstacles to accelerated growth in these wealthier regions.
A Chinese coal miner at the Jin Hua Gong Mine, photo by Peter Van den Bossche.
One of the hallmarks of China’s socialist economy was its promise of employment to all able and willing to work and job-security with virtually lifelong tenure. Reformers targeted the labor market as unproductive because industries were frequently overstaffed to fulfill socialist goals and job-security reduced workers’ incentive to work. This socialist policy was pejoratively called the iron rice bowl.
More recently, the government has struggled to contain the social strife and environmental damage related to the economy’s rapid transformation. Battling corruption and other economic crimes as well as sustaining adequate job growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force have also been some of the major challenges. From 50 to 100 million rural workers were adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time low-paying jobs. Although the economic growth has resulted in the creation of a strong middle class, hundreds of millions remain excluded from its benefits and inequalities persist. The large-scale underemployment in both urban and rural areas and changing price policies remain a source of concern for the government as potential causes of popular resistance. The prices of certain key commodities, especially of industrial raw materials and major industrial products, are determined by the state and large subsidies were built into the price structure. By the early 1990s, these subsidies began to be eliminated, in large part due to China’s admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which carried with it requirements for further economic liberalization and deregulation. On a per capita income basis, China ranked 72nd by nominal GDP and 84th by GDP (PPP) in 2015, according to the IMF.
In accordance with the One Country, Two Systems policy, the economies of the former British colony of Hong Kong and Portuguese colony of Macau are separate from the rest of China and each other. Both Hong Kong and Macau are free to conduct and engage in economic negotiations with foreign countries as well as participate as full members in various international economic organizations, often under the names “Hong Kong, China” and “Macau, China.”
Both regions retain their own capitalist economic and political systems.
Four Asian Tigers
The Four Asian Tigers are the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, which underwent rapid industrialization and maintained exceptionally high growth rates (in excess of 7 percent a year) between the early 1960s (mid-1950s for Hong Kong) and 1990s. By the 21st century, all four had developed into advanced and high-income economies, specializing in areas of competitive advantage. For example, Hong Kong and Singapore have become world-leading international financial centers, whereas South Korea and Taiwan are world leaders in information technology manufacturing. Their economic success stories have served as role models for many developing countries, especially the Tiger Cub Economies (see below).
Export policies have been the de facto reason for the rise of the Four Asian Tiger economies. The approach taken has been different among the four nations. Hong Kong and Singapore introduced trade regimes that were neoliberal in nature and encouraged free trade, while South Korea and Taiwan adopted mixed regimes that accommodated their own export industries. In Hong Kong and Singapore, due to small domestic markets, domestic prices were linked to international prices. South Korea and Taiwan introduced export incentives for the traded-goods sector. The governments of Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan also worked to promote specific exporting industries, which were termed as an export push strategy. All these policies helped these four nations to achieve a growth averaging 7.5% each year for three decades and as such they achieved developed country status.
A controversial World Bank report (see The East Asian Miracle 1993) credited neoliberal policies with the responsibility for the boom, including maintenance of export-led regimes, low taxes, and minimal welfare states. Some state intervention has been also admitted to be a factor. However, many have argued that industrial policy had a much greater influence than the World Bank report suggested. The World Bank report itself acknowledged benefits from policies of the repression of the financial sector, such as state-imposed below-market interest rates for loans to specific exporting industries. Other important aspects include major government investments in education, non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years of development, high levels of U.S. bond holdings, and high public and private savings rates.
Tiger Cub Economies
The term Tiger Cub Economies collectively refers to the economies of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, the five dominant countries in Southeast Asia. They are so named because they follow the same export-driven model of economic development pursued by the Four Asian Tigers. Four countries are included in HSBC’s list of top 50 economies in 2050, while Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are included in Goldman Sachs’s Next Eleven list of economies because of their rapid growth and large population. Out of these, Vietnam has been determined to become possibly the fastest-growing of the world’s emerging economies by 2020. Similarly to China, the country’s socialist-oriented market economy is a developing planned economy and market economy. In the 21st century, Vietnam is in a period of being integrated into the global economy. It has become a leading agricultural exporter and served as an attractive destination for foreign investment in Southeast Asia.
The Tiger Cub Economies (yellow) are five countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Also shown are the Four Asian Tigers (red), source: Wikipedia.
The term “bamboo network” is used to conceptualize connections between certain businesses operated by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. It links the overseas Chinese community of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Singapore) with the economies of Greater China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Overseas Chinese companies have a prominent role in the private sector of Southeast Asia, and are usually managed as family businesses with a centralized bureaucracy.
Overseas Chinese entrepreneurs played a prominent role in the development of the region’s private sectors. These businesses are part of the larger “bamboo network,” a network of overseas Chinese businesses operating in the markets of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines that share common family and cultural ties. China’s transformation into a major economic power in the 21st century has led to increasing investments in Southeast Asian countries where the bamboo network is present.
38.3.2: Tensions in the South China Sea
Several countries have made competing territorial claims over the South China Sea, as one-third of the world’s shipping sails through its waters and it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed, turning the territorial disputes into Asia’s most potentially dangerous source of conflict.
Learning Objective
Identify the causes of territorial disputes in the South China Sea
Key Points
The
South China Sea is a marginal sea encompassing an area from the Karimata and Malacca Straits to the Strait of
Taiwan. The sea is
located south of China, east of Vietnam and Cambodia, northwest of the
Philippines, east of the Malay peninsula and Sumatra up to the Strait of
Malacca in the west, and north of the Bangka–Belitung Islands and Borneo. One-third of the world’s shipping
sails through its waters and it is believed the sea holds huge oil and gas
reserves beneath its seabed.
Several countries have made competing territorial
claims over the South China Sea. These disputes have been seen as Asia’s most
potentially dangerous point of conflict.
Both China and Taiwan claim almost the entire body as their own, demarcating their claims
within what is known as the nine-dash line. Competing claims over parts of the area include Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Thailand.
The
area may be rich in oil and natural gas deposits, although estimates vary.
The once abundant fishing opportunities within the region are
another motivation for claims. According to studies by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines), this body of
water holds one-third of the entire world’s marine biodiversity, making
it a very important area for the ecosystem. Finally, the area is one of the busiest shipping
routes in the world.
China
and Vietnam have both been vigorous in prosecuting their claims. The
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in general and Malaysia in
particular have been keen to ensure that the territorial disputes within the
South China Sea do not escalate into armed conflicts. Joint Development
Authorities have been set up in areas of overlapping claims to jointly develop
the area and divide the profits equally, without settling the issue of
sovereignty. Generally, China has preferred to resolve competing
claims bilaterally, while some ASEAN countries prefer multi-lateral talks.
In
2011, China attempted to keep India away from the South China Sea waters and protested Indian-Vietnamese cooperation in the oil sector. Vietnam
and Japan reached an agreement early in 1978 on the development of oil in the
South China Sea, which gradually turned Vietnam into a powerful oil producer. In
2012 and 2013, Vietnam and Taiwan clashed over what Vietnam considered
anti-Vietnamese military exercises by Taiwan. In 2014, Indonesia imposed a policy
threatening any foreign fishermen caught illegally fishing in Indonesian waters
to destroy their vessels. Since then, many neighboring countries fishing
vessels have been blown up by Indonesian authorities. The
South China Sea had also become known for Indonesian and Filipino pirates.
The United States and China are currently in
disagreement over the South China Sea. The U.S. State Department voiced support for fair access by reiterating that freedom of
navigation and respect of international law are a matter of national interest to
the United States. China’s Foreign Ministry stated that this stand
was “in effect an attack on China.” China has repeatedly warned the U.S. to stay out of the issue and that its involvement may lead to a military conflict.
The
position of China on its maritime claims based on UNCLOS and history has been
ambiguous, particularly with the nine-dash line map.
China has also
repeatedly indicated that the Chinese claims are drawn on a historical
basis, but the
vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China’s claims
based on historical claims are invalid.
Key Terms
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The international agreement that defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. It was concluded in 1982.
Philippines v. China
An arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning certain issues in the South China Sea including the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim. In 2013, China declared that it would not participate but in 2015, the arbitral tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case. In 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines. China has rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan.
exclusive economic zone
A sea zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from its coast. As opposed to the territorial sea, which confers full sovereignty over the waters, this type of a sea zone is merely a “sovereign right,” which refers to the coastal state’s rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters are international waters.
nine-dash line
A term that refers to the demarcation line used initially by the government of the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) and subsequently also by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), for their claims of the major part of the South China Sea. The contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, and various other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank, and the Scarborough Shoal. The claim encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation known as the “great wall of sand.”
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
A regional organization comprising ten Southeast Asian states, which promotes intergovernmental cooperation and facilitates economic integration amongst its members. Since its founding in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, the organization’s membership has expanded to include Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), and Vietnam. Its principal aims include accelerating economic growth, social progress, and sociocultural evolution among its members, alongside the protection of regional stability and the provision of a mechanism for member countries to resolve differences peacefully.
South China Sea
A marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Karimata and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan. One-third of the world’s shipping sails through its waters and it is believed the sea holds huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed. Several countries have made competing territorial claims over the area.
Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea
The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Karimata and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan (around 3.5 million sq km or 1.4 million sq mi). The sea is located south of China, east of Vietnam and Cambodia, northwest of the Philippines, east of the Malay peninsula and Sumatra, up to the Strait of Malacca in the west, and north of the Bangka–Belitung Islands and Borneo.
The area’s importance results from the fact that one-third of the world’s shipping sails through its waters and it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed.
Several countries have made competing territorial claims over the South China Sea. These disputes have been seen as Asia’s most potentially dangerous point of conflict. Both People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) claim almost the entire body as their own, demarcating their claims within what is known as the nine-dash line. The area overlaps the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) claims of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
Competing claims include:
Indonesia, China, and Taiwan over waters northeast of the Natuna Islands
The Philippines, China, and Taiwan over Scarborough Shoal
Vietnam, China, and Taiwan over waters west of the Spratly Islands, some of which are also disputed between Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines
The Paracel Islands are disputed between China, Taiwan, and Vietnam
Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam over areas in the Gulf of Thailand
Singapore and Malaysia along the Strait of Johore and the Strait of Singapore
Territorial claims in the South China Sea, map by Voice of America.
The disputes include the islands, reefs, banks, and other features of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, and various boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. There are further disputes, including the waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands, which many do not regard as part of the South China Sea. Claimaint states are interested in retaining or acquiring the rights to fishing areas, the exploration and potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas in the seabed of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.
Importance of the South China Sea
The area may be rich in oil and natural gas deposits although estimates vary from 7.5 billion to 125 billion barrels of oil and from 190 trillion cubic feet to 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. The once abundant fishing opportunities within the region are another motivation for claims. China believes that the value in fishing and oil from the sea may be as much as a trillion dollars.
According to studies made by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines), this body of water holds one-third of the entire world’s marine biodiversity, making it a very important area for the ecosystem. However, the fish stocks in the area are depleted and countries are using fishing bans to assert their sovereignty claims. Finally, the area is one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. In the 1980s, at least 270 merchant ships used the route each day. Currently, more than half the tonnage of oil transported by sea passes through the South China Sea, a figure rising steadily with the growth of the Chinese consumption of oil. This traffic is three times greater than that passing through the Suez Canal and five times more than the Panama Canal.
Disputes
China and Vietnam have both been vigorous in prosecuting their claims. China (various governments) and South Vietnam each controlled part of the Paracel Islands before 1974. A brief conflict in 1974 resulted in 18 Chinese and 53 Vietnamese deaths and China has controlled the whole of Paracel since then. The Spratly Islands have been the site of a naval clash, in which over 70 Vietnamese sailors were killed in 1988. Disputing claimants regularly report clashes between naval vessels.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in general and Malaysia in particular have been keen to ensure that the territorial disputes within the South China Sea do not escalate into armed conflicts. Joint Development Authorities have been set up in areas of overlapping claims to jointly develop the area and divide the profits equally, without settling the issue of sovereignty. Generally, China has preferred to resolve competing claims bilaterally, while some ASEAN countries prefer multi-lateral talks, believing that they are disadvantaged in bilateral negotiations with China and that because many countries claim the same territory, only multilateral talks could effectively resolve the competing claims. For example,
the International Court of Justice settled the overlapping claims over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Putih, including neighboring Middle Rocks, by Singapore and Malaysia in 2008, awarding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore and Middle Rocks to Malaysia.
In 2011, one of India’s amphibious assault vessels on a friendly visit to Vietnam was reportedly contacted at a distance of 45 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast in the disputed South China Sea on an open radio channel by a vessel identifying itself as the Chinese Navy and stating that the ship was entering Chinese waters. The spokesperson for the Indian Navy clarified that as no ship or aircraft was visible and thus the vessel proceeded on her onward journey as scheduled. The same year, shortly after China and Vietnam had signed an agreement seeking to contain a dispute over the South China Sea, India’s state-run explorer, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) said that its overseas investment arm ONGC Videsh Limited had signed a three-year deal with PetroVietnam for developing long-term cooperation in the oil sector and that it had accepted Vietnam’s offer of exploration in certain specified blocks in the South China Sea. In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu issued a protest.
Vietnam and Japan reached an agreement early in 1978 on the development of oil in the South China Sea. By 2012,Vietnam had concluded some 60 oil and gas exploration and production contracts with various foreign companies. In 2011, Vietnam was the sixth-largest oil producer in the Asia-Pacific region, although the country is a net oil importer.
China’s first independently designed and constructed oil drilling platform in the South China Sea is the Ocean Oil 981. It began operation in 2012, 320 kilometers (200 mi) southeast of Hong Kong, employing 160 people. In 2014, the platform was moved near to the Paracel Islands, which propelled Vietnam to state that the move violated their territorial claims. Chinese officials said it was legal, stating the area lies in waters surrounding the Paracel Islands, which China occupies and militarily controls.
In 2012 and 2013, Vietnam and Taiwan clashed over what Vietnam considered anti-Vietnamese military exercises by Taiwan.
Prior to the dispute around the sea areas, fishermen from involved countries tended to enter on each other’s controlled islands and EEZ, which led to conflicts with the authorities that controlled the areas as they were unaware of the exact borders. Due to the depletion of the fishing resources in their maritime areas, fishermen felt compelled to fish in the neighboring country’s areas. After Joko Widodo became President of Indonesia in 2014, he imposed a policy threatening any foreign fishermen caught illegally fishing in Indonesian waters to destroy their vessels. Since then, many neighboring countries’ fishing vessels have been blown up by Indonesian authorities. On May 21, 2015, around 41 fishing vessels from China, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines were blown up. On March 19, 2016, China Coast Guard prevented its fishermen from being detained by Indonesian authorities when the Chinese fishermen were caught fishing near the waters around Natuna, leading to a protest by Indonesian authorities. Further Indonesian campaigns against foreign fishermen resulted in 23 fishing boats from Malaysia and Vietnam being blown up on April 5, 2016. The South China Sea had also become known for Indonesian pirates, with frequent attacks on Malaysian, Singaporean, and Vietnamese vessels and for Filipino pirates attacking Vietnamese fishermen.
A map of South China Sea claims and boundary agreements, U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report on China to Congress, 2012.
An estimated US$5 trillion worth of global trade passes through the South China Sea and there are many non-claimant states that want the South China Sea to remain as international waters. Several states (e.g. the United States of America) are conducting “freedom of navigation” operations to promote this situation.
U.S. Position
The United States and China are currently in disagreement over the South China Sea, exacerbated by the fact that the US is not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the United States recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law but has not ratified it). Nevertheless, the U.S. has stood by its claim that “peaceful surveillance activities and other military activities without permission in a country’s exclusive economic zone” are allowed under the convention. In relation to the dispute, former U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton voiced her support for fair access by reiterating that freedom of navigation and respect of international law is a matter of national interest to the United States. China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated that the stand was “in effect an attack on China” and warned the United States against making the South China Sea an international or multilateral issue. Clinton testified in support of congressional approval of the Law of the Sea Convention, which would strengthen U.S. ability to support countries that oppose Chinese claims to certain islands in the area. Clinton also called for China to resolve the territorial dispute but China responded by demanding the U.S. stay out of the issue. This came at a time when both countries were engaging in naval exercises in a show of force to the opposing side, which increased tensions in the region. The U.S. Department of Defense released a statement in which it opposed the use of force to resolve the dispute and accused China of assertive behavior.
In 2014, the United States responded to China’s claims over the fishing grounds of other nations by stating that “China has not offered any explanation or basis under international law for these extensive maritime claims.” While the US pledged American support for the Philippines in its territorial conflicts with the PRC, the Chinese Foreign Ministry asked the United States to maintain a neutral position on the issue. In 2014 and 2015, the United States continued freedom of navigation operations, including in the South China Sea. In 2015, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter warned China to halt its rapid island-building. In November 2015, two US B-52 strategic bombers flew near artificial Chinese-built islands in the area of the Spratly Islands and were contacted by Chinese ground controllers but continued their mission undeterred.
In response to Rex Tillerson’s comments on blocking access to man-made islands in the South China Sea, in January 2017, the Communist Party-controlled Global Times warned of a “large-scale war” between the U.S. and China, noting, “Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish.”
Independent Analysis
The position of China on its maritime claims based on UNCLOS and history has been ambiguous, particularly with the nine-dash line map. For example, in 2011, China stated that it has undisputed sovereignty over the islands and the adjacent waters, suggesting it is claiming sovereignty over its territorial waters, a position consistent with UNCLOS. However, it also stated that China enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters along with the seabed and subsoil contained in this region, suggesting that China is claiming sovereignty over all of the maritime space (includes all the geographic features and the waters within the nine-dash line). China has also repeatedly indicated that the Chinese claims are drawn on a historical basis.
The vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China’s claims based on historical claims are invalid. For example, in 2013,
the Republic of the Philippines brought an arbitration case against the People’s Republic of China under Annex VII to UNCLOS, concerning certain issues in the South China Sea including the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim (Philippines v. China, known also as the South China Sea Arbitration). China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration but in 2015, the arbitral tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case, taking up seven of the 15 submissions made by the Philippines. In 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines. It clarified that it would not “…rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and would not delimit any maritime boundary between the Parties.” The tribunal also confirmed that China has “no historical rights” based on the “nine-dash line” map. China has rejected the ruling, as has Taiwan.
38.3.3: The Koreas in the Modern Day
Tensions between South Korea and North Korea continue to escalate as the countries never signed a peace treaty after the Korean War and thus formally remain at war, with each incident potentially triggering a military conflict.
Learning Objective
Summarize the remaining tensions between North and South Korea and how the two countries have developed
Key Points
In 1998,
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung announced the so-called Sunshine Policy
towards North Korea. The main aim of the policy was to soften North Korea’s
attitudes towards the South by encouraging interaction and economic assistance.
In 2000, the first Inter-Korean Summit between Kim Dae-jung and
Kim Jong-il took place. As a result, Kim Dae-jung was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize.
The June 15 North–South
Joint Declaration the two leaders signed during the first South-North
summit stated that they would hold the second summit at an appropriate time. It
was originally envisaged that the second summit would be held in South Korea,
but that did not materialize. In 2007, South Korean President
Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il signed the peace declaration.
The document called for international talks to replace the Armistice that ended the Korean War with a permanent peace treaty.
In 2008, the new
president of the South Lee Myung-bak and his Grand National Party took a
different stance to North Korea, and the South Korean government stated that any
expansion of the economic cooperation at the Kaesong Industrial Region would
only happen if the North resolved the international standoff over its nuclear
weapons. In 2010, the
South Korean Unification Ministry officially declared the Sunshine Policy a
failure, thus bringing it to an end.
In
2011, the supreme leader of North Korea Kim Jong-il died from a heart attack.
His youngest son Kim Jong-un was announced as his successor. Under Kim Jong-un, North
Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons. In 2016,
Kim Jong-un stated that North Korea would “not use nuclear weapons first
unless aggressive hostile forces use nuclear weapons to invade on our
sovereignty.” However, on other occasions, North Korea has threatened
“preemptive” nuclear attacks against a U.S.-led attack. Under Kim Jong-in, extreme human rights abuses and food insecurity remain major issues in North Korea.
Over the last years,
several incidents have contributed to the growing tensions between South Korea
and North Korea, including sinking of a South Korean ship caused by a North Korean torpedo, North Korea launching a scientific and technological satellite that reached
orbit, and North Korea planting planting a mine that went off at
the Korean Demilitarized Zone, wounding two South Korean soldiers.
In 2016, North Korea
carried out its fifth nuclear test as part of the state’s 68th anniversary
since its founding. South Korea responded with a plan to assassinate Kim
Jong-un. In February 2017, Kim
Jong-nam, the eldest son of Kim Jong-il and half-brother of Kim Jong-un who
from 1994 to 2001 was considered the heir apparent to his father, died after
being attacked with a chemical weapon at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Kim Myung-yeon, a spokesperson for
South Korea’s ruling party, described the killing as a “naked example of
Kim Jong-un’s reign of terror.”
Key Terms
June 15th North–South Joint Declaration
An agreement adopted between leaders of North and South Korea in June 2000 after various diplomatic meetings between the North and the South. As a result of the talks, numerous separated families and relatives from the North and the South had meetings with their family members in Pyongyang and Seoul. Ministerial talks and North-South military working-level talks also followed in the second half of the year. North-South Red Cross talks and the working-level contacts for the North and South economic cooperation also took place.
North Korean famine
A famine that killed somewhere between 240,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans between 1994 and 1998. It stemmed from a variety of factors. Economic mismanagement and the loss of Soviet support caused food production and imports to decline rapidly. A series of floods and droughts exacerbated the crisis. The North Korean government and its centrally planned system proved too inflexible to effectively curtail the disaster.
Korean Demilitarized Zone
A highly militarized strip of land running across the Korean Peninsula. It was established at the end of the Korean War to serve as a buffer zone between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). It is a de facto border barrier that divides the Korean Peninsula roughly in half. It was created by agreement between North Korea, China, and the United Nations in 1953.
Sunshine Policy
The foreign policy of South Korea towards North Korea from 1998 to 2008. Since its articulation by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, the policy resulted in greater political contact between the two states and some historic moments in inter-Korean relations.
Sunshine Policy
In 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung announced the so-called Sunshine Policy towards North Korea.
The main aim of the policy was to soften North Korea’s attitudes towards the South by encouraging interaction and economic assistance. The national security policy had three basic principles: no armed provocation by the North will be tolerated, the South will not attempt to absorb the North in any way, and the South actively seeks cooperation. Despite a naval clash in 1999, in 2000, the first Inter-Korean Summit between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il took place. As a result, Kim Dae-jung was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The summit was followed by the reunion of families divided by the Korean War. The same year, the North and South Korean teams marched together at the Sydney Olympics. Trade increased to the point where South Korea became North Korea’s largest trading partner. In 2003, the Kaesong Industrial Region was established to allow South Korean businesses to invest in the North. U.S. President George W. Bush, however, did not support the Sunshine Policy and in 2002 branded North Korea as a member of an Axis of Evil.
The June 15 North-South Joint Declaration
that the two leaders signed during the first South-North summit stated that they would hold the second summit at an appropriate time. It was originally envisaged that the second summit would be held in South Korea, but that did not materialize. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun walked across the Korean Demilitarized Zone in 2007 and traveled on to Pyongyang for talks with Kim Jong-il. The two sides reaffirmed the spirit of the June 15 Joint Declaration and had discussions on various issues related to realizing the advancement of South-North relations, peace on the Korean Peninsula, common prosperity of the people, and the unification of Korea. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il signed the peace declaration. The document called for international talks to replace the Armistice which ended the Korean War with a permanent peace treaty.
The first and last page of the June 15 Declaration on display at the Unification Observatory in Paju, South Korea
The declarations states, “In accordance with the noble will of the entire people who yearn for the peaceful reunification of the nation, President Kim Dae-jung of the Republic of Korea and National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-il of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held a historic meeting and summit talks in Pyongyang from June 13 to 15, 2000.”
In 2008, however, the new president of the South, Lee Myung-bak and his Grand National Party took a different stance to North Korea, and the South Korean government stated that any expansion of the economic cooperation at the Kaesong Industrial Region would only happen if the North resolved the international standoff over its nuclear weapons. Relations again chilled, with North Korea making military moves such as a series of short range ship-to-ship missile tests. South Korea’s response to the nuclear test included signing the Proliferation Security Initiative to prevent the shipment of nuclear materials to North Korea. In November 2010, the South Korean Unification Ministry officially declared the Sunshine Policy a failure, thus bringing the policy to an end.
Kim Jong-un’s Rule
In 2011, the supreme leader of North Korea Kim Jong-il died from a heart attack. His youngest son Kim Jong-un was announced as his successor.
In December 2011, the leading North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun announced that Kim Jong-un had been acting as chairman of the Central Military Commission and supreme leader of the country. In 2012, a large rally was held by Korean People’s Army in front of Kumsusan Memorial Palace to honor Kim Jong-un and demonstrate loyalty.
North Korea’s cult of personality around Kim Jong-un was stepped up following his father’s death.
Under Kim Jong-un, North Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons. In 2013, Kim Jong-un announced that North Korea will adopt “a new strategic line on carrying out economic construction and building nuclear armed forces simultaneously.” According to several analysts, North Korea sees the nuclear arsenal as vital to deter an attack, but it is unlikely that the country would launch a nuclear war. In 2016, Kim Jong-un stated that North Korea would “not use nuclear weapons first unless aggressive hostile forces use nuclear weapons to invade on our sovereignty.” However, on other occasions, North Korea has threatened “preemptive” nuclear attacks against a U.S.-led attack. As of 2016, the United Nations has enacted five cumulative rounds of sanctions against North Korea for its nuclear program and missile tests.
Human rights violations under the leadership of Kim Jong-il were condemned by the UN General Assembly. Press reports indicate that they are continuing under Kim Jong-un. The 2013 report on the situation of human rights in North Korea by United Nations Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman proposed a United Nations commission of inquiry to document the accountability of Kim Jong-un and other individuals in the North Korean government for alleged crimes against humanity. The report of the commission of inquiry was published in 2014 and recommends making him accountable for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.
A 2013 study reported that communicable diseases and malnutrition are responsible for 29% of the total deaths in North Korea. This figure is higher than that of high-income countries and South Korea, but half of the average 57% of all deaths in other low-income countries. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and hepatitis B are considered endemic as a result of the North Korean famine (1994-1998).
The famine had a significant impact on the population growth rate, which declined to 0.9% annually in 2002 and 0.53% in 2014.
In 2006, the World Food Program (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated a requirement of 5.3 to 6.5 million tons of grain in aid when domestic production fulfilled only 3.8 million tons. The country also faces land degradation after forests stripped for agriculture resulted in soil erosion. In 2008, a decade after the worst years of the famine, total production was 3.3 million tons (grain equivalent) compared with a need of 6 million tons. 37 percent of the population was deemed to be insecure in food access. Weather continued to pose challenges every year, but overall food production has grown gradually. In 2014, North Korea had an exceptionally good harvest, 5.08 million tonnes of cereal equivalent, almost sufficient to feed the entire population. While food production has recovered significantly since the hardest years of 1996 and 1997, the recovery is fragile, subject to adverse weather and year-to-year economic shortages.
North Korea’s GDP per capita has been less than $2,000 in the late 1990s and early 21st century.
Inter-Korean Relations Today
In recent years, several incidents have contributed to the growing tensions between South Korea and North Korea. In 2010, a South Korean ship with a crew of 104 sank in the Yellow Sea. Forty-six individuals died and 58 were rescued. A team of international researchers investigating the incident concluded that the sinking was caused by a North Korean torpedo. North Korea rejected the findings. South Korea agreed with the findings and President Lee Myung-bak declared that Seoul would cut all trade with North Korea as part of measures primarily aimed at striking back at North Korea diplomatically and financially. North Korea denied all such allegations and responded by severing ties between the countries and announced it abrogated the previous non-aggression agreement. The same year, North Korea’s artillery fired at South Korea’s Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. The town was evacuated and South Korea warned of stern retaliation, with President Lee Myung-bak ordering the destruction of a nearby North Korea missile base if further provocation should occur.
Just two months later, North Korea launched a scientific and technological satellite and it reached orbit. The United States moved warships to the region. In 2013, tensions between North Korea and South Korea, the United States, and Japan escalated following the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2087, which condemned North Korea for the launch of the satellite. The crisis was marked by extreme escalation of rhetoric by the new North Korean administration under Kim Jong-un and actions suggesting imminent nuclear attacks against South Korea, Japan, and the United States.
In 2015, Kim Jong-un, in his New Year’s address to the country, stated that he was willing to resume higher-level talks with the South. However, in August 2015, a mine went off at the Korean Demilitarized Zone, wounding two South Korean soldiers. The South Korean government accused the North of planting the mine, which the North denied. Since then South Korea started propaganda broadcasts to the North. The same month, North Korea fired a shell on the city of Yeoncheon. South Korea launched several artillery rounds in response. Although there were no casualties, it caused the evacuation of an area of the west coast of South Korea and forced others to head for bunkers. The shelling caused both countries to adopt pre-war status, and a talk that was held by high-level officials in the Panmunjeom to relieve tensions. While talks were going on, North Korea deployed over 70 percent of their submarines. Talks, however, concluded when both parties reached an agreement and military tensions were eased.
The Conference Row in the Joint Security Area of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, looking into South Korea from North Korea
When the Korean War ended, the country was devastated, but the division remained. North and South Korea continued a military standoff with periodic clashes. The conflict survived the collapse of the Eastern Bloc of 1989 to 1991. The U.S. maintains a military presence in the South to deter an attack from the North. In 1997, US President Bill Clinton described the division of Korea as the “Cold War’s last divide.”
In 2016, North Korea carried out its fifth nuclear test as part of the state’s 68th anniversary since its founding. South Korea responded with a plan to assassinate Kim Jong-un.
In February 2017, Kim Jong-nam, the eldest son of Kim Jong-il and half-brother of Kim Jong-un who from 1994 to 2001 was considered the heir apparent to his father, died after being attacked by two women in Malaysia with VX nerve agent (a chemical weapon) during his return trip to Macau, where he lived in exile, at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Kim Myung-yeon, a spokesperson for South Korea’s ruling party, described the killing as a “naked example of Kim Jong-un’s reign of terror.” The South Korean government accused the North Korean government of being responsible for Kim Jong-nam’s assassination and drew a parallel with the execution of Kim Jong-un’s own uncle and others. The government later held an emergency security council meeting where they condemned the murder of Kim Jong-nam. The acting President of South Korea, Hwang Kyo-ahn said that if the murder of Kim Jong-nam was confirmed to be masterminded by North Korea, it would clearly depict the brutality and inhumanity of the Kim Jong-un regime.
38.3.4: India under Modi
India under Modi, its right-wing, nationalistic Prime Minister, has gone through numerous neoliberal reforms that contribute to its impressive economic growth, pleasing businesspeople and industrialists but widening inequalities between the wealthy and the poor and highlighting the ongoing challenges of poverty, corruption, and gender violence.
Learning Objective
Explain who Narendra Modi is and the status of India in the 21st century
Key Points
Narendra
Modi is current Prime Minister of India (March 2017). He is a member of the
Bharatiya Janata Party and of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer
organization. Modi
was appointed chief minister of Gujarat in 2001. His administration has been
considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots. In 2012, Modi was cleared of
complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by
the Supreme Court of India, but the question remains controversial.
Modi
led the BJP in the 2014 general election, which gave the party a majority in
the parliament. The
economic policies of Modi’s government focused on privatization and liberalization
of the economy based on a neoliberal framework. Modi updated India’s
foreign direct investment policies to allow more foreign investment in several
industries, including defense and the railways. Other reforms included
removal of many of the country’s labor laws to make it harder for workers to form
unions and easier for employers to hire and fire them. These reforms met with
support from institutions such as the World Bank, but opposition from scholars and unions.
In
2014, Modi introduced the Make in India initiative to encourage foreign
companies to manufacture products in India with the goal of turning the
country into a global manufacturing hub. In 2015, he launched a program intended to develop 100 smart cities and the
Housing for All By 2022 project, which intends to eliminate slums in India by
building about 20 million affordable homes for India’s urban poor.
Modi’s
government reduced the amount of money spent by the government on healthcare
and launched a New Health Policy, which emphasizes the role of private
healthcare.
He also launched the Clean India campaign
(2014) to eliminate open defecation
and manual scavenging. As part of the program, the Indian government began
constructing millions of toilets in rural areas and encouraging people to use
them.
In naming his cabinet, Modi renamed the Ministry
of Environment and Forests the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate
Change. In the first budget of the government, the money allotted to this
ministry was reduced by more than 50%. The new ministry also removed or diluted
a number of laws related to environmental protection.
Massive corruption, widespread poverty, and violence against girls and women constitute some of the greatest challenges in 21st-century India.
According to the 2014 revised World Bank
methodology, India had 179.6 million people below the poverty line, which means
that with 17.5% of total world’s population, India had 20.6% share of
world’s poor. Findings
from the World Economic Forum have repeatedly indicated that India is one of
the worst countries in the world in terms of gender inequality.
Key Terms
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
A right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization in India widely regarded as the parent organization of the ruling party of India, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Founded in 1925, it is the world’s largest non-governmental organization that claims commitment to selfless service to India.
Bharatiya Janata Party
One of the two major political parties in India, along with the Indian National Congress. As of 2017, it is the country’s largest political party in terms of representation in the national parliament and state assemblies and the world’s largest party in terms of primary membership. It is a right-wing party with close ideological and organizational links to the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
2002 Gujarat riots
A three-day period of inter-communal violence in the western Indian state of Gujarat in 2002. Following the initial incident, there were further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabad for three weeks. Statewide, there were further outbreaks of communal riots against the minority Muslim population for three months.
The Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time, Narendra Modi, has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave them lists of Muslim-owned properties.
Narendra Modi
Narendra Modi (b. 1950) is current Prime Minister of India (March 2017), in office since May 2014. He was the Chief Minister of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014. He is the Member of Parliament for the Varanasi district (Utter Pradesh), a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP; one of the two major political parties in India, along with the Indian National Congress), and member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization in India widely regarded as the parent organization of the BJP.
Born to a Gujarati family in Vadnagar, Modi helped his father sell tea as a child and later ran his own stall. He was introduced to the RSS at age eight, beginning a long association with the organization. He left home after graduating from school, partly because of an arranged marriage, which he did not accept. Modi traveled around India for two years and visited a number of religious centers. In 1971 he became a full-time worker for the RSS. During the state of emergency imposed across the country in 1975, Modi was forced to go into hiding. The RSS assigned him to the BJP in 1985 and he held several positions within the party hierarchy until 2001, rising to the rank of general secretary.
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015
Modi was also declared winner of the Time magazine reader’s poll for Person of the Year in 2014, a feat which he repeated again in 2016. Forbes Magazine ranked him the 15th Most Powerful Person in the World in 2014 and the 9th Most Powerful Person in the World in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, Modi was one of Time‘s “30 Most Influential People on the Internet” as the second most-followed politician on Twitter and Facebook. In the same year he was ranked fifth on Fortune Magazine‘s first annual list of “World’s Greatest Leaders.”
Modi was appointed chief minister of Gujarat in 2001. His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, a three-day period of inter-communal violence. Following the initial incident, there were further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabad for three weeks. Statewide, communal riots against the minority Muslim population occurred for three months. According to official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. 2,500 people were injured non-fatally and 223 more were reported missing. There were instances of rape, children being burned alive, and widespread looting and destruction of property. Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave them lists of Muslim-owned properties. In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court of India. The SIT also rejected claims that the state government had not done enough to prevent the riots. The Muslim community reacted with anger and disbelief. In 2013, allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence, but the Supreme Court expressed satisfaction over the SIT’s investigations. While officially classified as a communalist riot, the events have been described as a pogrom by many scholars. Other observers have stated that these events met the legal definition of genocide and called it an instance of state terrorism or ethnic cleansing.
India Under Modi
Modi led the BJP in the 2014 general election, which gave the party a majority in the parliament, the first time a single party had achieved this since 1984. Credited with engineering a political realignment towards right-wing politics, Modi remains a figure of controversy domestically and internationally over his Hindu nationalist beliefs and his role during the 2002 Gujarat riots, cited as evidence of an exclusionary social agenda.
The economic policies of Modi’s government focused on privatization and liberalization of the economy based on a neoliberal framework. Modi updated India’s foreign direct investment policies to allow more foreign investment in several industries, including defense and the railways. Other reforms included removing many of the country’s labor laws to make it harder for workers to form unions and easier for employers to hire and fire them. These reforms met with support from institutions such as the World Bank, but opposition from scholars within the country. The labor laws also drew strong opposition from unions. The funds dedicated to poverty reduction programs and social welfare measures were greatly decreased by the Modi administration. The government also lowered corporate taxes, abolished the wealth tax, reduced customs duties on gold and jewelry, and increased sales taxes.
In 2014, Modi introduced the Make in India initiative to encourage foreign companies to manufacture products in India, with the goal of turning the country into a global manufacturing hub. Supporters of economic liberalization supported the initiative, while critics argued it would allow foreign corporations to capture a greater share of the Indian market. To enable the construction of private industrial corridors, the Modi administration passed a land-reform bill that allowed it to acquire private agricultural land without conducting social impact assessment and without the consent of the farmers who owned it. The bill was passed via an executive order after it faced opposition in parliament, but was eventually allowed to lapse. In 2015, Modi launched a program intended to develop 100 smart cities, which is expected to bring information technology companies an extra benefit of ₹20 billion (US$300 million). Modi also launched the Housing for All By 2022 project, which intends to eliminate slums in India by building about 20 million affordable homes for India’s urban poor.
Modi’s government reduced the amount of money spent by the government on healthcare and launched a New Health Policy, which emphasizes the role of private healthcare. This represented a shift away from the policy of the previous Congress government, which had supported programs to assist public health goals, including reducing child and maternal mortality rates. Modi also launched the Clean India campaign (2014) to eliminate open defecation and manual scavenging. As part of the program, the Indian government began constructing millions of toilets in rural areas and encouraging people to use them. The government also announced plans to build new sewage treatment plants.
India Exports by Product (2014) from Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity
Modi’s reformist approach has made him very popular with the public.
At the end of his first year in office, he received an overall approval rating of 87% in a Pew Research poll, with 68% of people rating him “very favorably” and 93% approving of his government. At the end of his second year in office, an updated Pew Research poll showed Modi continued to receive high overall approval ratings of 81%, with 57% of those polled rating him “very favorably.”
Notable Indian exports include refined petroleum oils, diamonds, gold, jewelry of precious metal, rice, and cars.
In naming his cabinet, Modi renamed the Ministry of Environment and Forests the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change. In the first budget of the government, the money allotted to this ministry was reduced by more than 50%. The new ministry also removed or diluted a number of laws related to environmental protection. These included no longer requiring clearance from the National Board for Wildlife for projects close to protected areas and allowing certain projects to proceed before environmental clearance was received. Modi also relaxed or abolished a number of other environmental regulations, particularly those related to industrial activity. A government committee stated that the existing system only created corruption and that the government should instead rely on the owners of industries to voluntarily inform the government about the pollution they were creating. In addition, Modi lifted a moratorium on new industrial activity in the most polluted areas. The changes were welcomed by businesspeople, but criticized by environmentalists.
Challenges in 21st-Century India
Corruption
has been one of the pervasive problems affecting India.
In 2015, India was ranked 76th out of 168 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. The largest contributors to the corruption are social welfare programs and social spending schemes enacted by the Indian government. The media have widely published allegations of corrupt Indian citizens stashing millions of rupees in Swiss banks. Swiss authorities, however, denied these allegations, which were subsequently proven in 2015-2016. The Indian media is mainly owned by corrupt politicians and industrialists who also play a major role in most of these scams, misleading public with wrong information and using media for mud-slinging their political and business opponents. The causes of corruption in India include excessive regulations; complicated tax and licensing systems; numerous government departments, each with opaque bureaucracy and discretionary powers; a monopoly of government-controlled institutions on certain goods and services, and the lack of transparent laws and processes.
Poverty in India continues to be a critical issue, despite having one of the fastest growing economies in the world. According to Global Wealth Report 2016 compiled by Credit Suisse Research Institute, India is the second most unequal country in the world with the top one percent of the population owning nearly 60% of the total wealth. Another urgent problem facing India’s economy is the sharp and growing regional variations among its different states and territories in terms of poverty, availability of infrastructure, and socio-economic development. Six low-income states – Assam, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and Uttar Pradesh – are home to more than one-third of India’s population. Severe disparities exist among states in terms of income, literacy rates, life expectancy, and living conditions. Following Modi’s liberalization, the more advanced states have been better placed to benefit from reforms, with well-developed infrastructure and an educated and skilled workforce that attract the manufacturing and service sectors. There is a continuing debate on whether India’s economic expansion has been pro-poor or anti-poor. Studies suggest that the economic growth has been pro-poor and has reduced poverty in India although the statistics continue to paint a dire picture.
According to the 2014 revised World Bank methodology, India had 179.6 million people below the poverty line, which means that with 17.5% of total world’s population, India had 20.6% share of world’s poor.
Women in India continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through rape, acid throwing, dowry killings, marital rape, and the forced prostitution of young girls. In 2012, the Thomson Reuters Foundation ranked India as the worst G20 country in which to be a woman.
Although this report has faced criticism for inaccuracy,
findings from the World Economic Forum have repeatedly indicated that India is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of gender inequality.
38.4: Africa in the 21st Century
38.4.1: Sudan and the Conflict in Darfur
A major armed conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement rebel groups accused the government of Sudan of oppressing Darfur’s non-Arab population, leading to the massive humanitarian crisis in a country ravaged by civil wars for decades.
Learning Objective
Discuss the controversy over the events in Darfur
Key Points
The
War in Darfur is a major armed conflict in the Darfur region of
Sudan that began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement rebel
groups began fighting the government of Sudan, which they accused of oppressing
Darfur’s non-Arab population. Other factors at the roots of the event were conflicts between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice
sedentary agriculture, water access, and the Second Sudanese Civil War.
In
response, the government mounted a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting
ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The government-supported
Janjaweed were accused of committing major human rights violations, including
mass killing, looting, and systematic rape of the non-Arab population of
Darfur. They have frequently burned down whole villages, driving the surviving
inhabitants to flee to refugee camps, mainly in Darfur and Chad.
The Government of
Sudan and the SLM of Minni Minnawi signed a Darfur Peace
Agreement in 2006, but since only one rebel group subscribed to the
agreement, the conflict continued. The 2011 Darfur Peace Agreement, also known as the Doha Agreement, was
signed between the government of Sudan and the Liberation and Justice Movement. Although the conflict is considered resolved, civil conflicts in Sudan continue.
Immediately after the
Janjaweed entered the conflict, rapes of women and young girls were reported at a
staggering rate. Multiple
casualty estimates have been published since the war began, ranging from
roughly 10,000 civilians (Sudan government) to hundreds of thousands.
In
2004, United States
Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the Darfur conflict to be genocide although experts continue to disagree over whether the war crimes committed during the conflict fall into that category.
International
attention to the Darfur conflict largely began with reports of war crimes by
Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group in 2003. However,
widespread media coverage did not start until the outgoing United Nations
Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, called Darfur
the “world’s greatest humanitarian crisis” in 2004. In
2008, the International Criminal Court filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir.
In
2011, a referendum was held to determine whether South Sudan should become an
independent country and separate from Sudan. South Sudan, with the majority of the population adhering either to
indigenous religions or Christianity, formally became independent from Sudan
(predominantly Muslim). The country continues to be ravaged by civil wars, is the least developed country in the world, and faces a massive humanitarian crisis.
Key Terms
War in Darfur
A major armed conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan that began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement rebel groups began fighting the government of Sudan, which they accused of oppressing Darfur’s non-Arab population. As of 2017, the war is nominally resolved.
Second Sudanese Civil War
A conflict from 1983 to 2005 between the central Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Although it originated in southern Sudan, the civil war spread to the Nuba mountains and Blue Nile. It lasted for 22 years and is one of the longest civil wars on record. The war resulted in the independence of South Sudan six years after it ended.
South Sudanese Civil War
A conflict in South Sudan between forces of the government and opposition forces. In 2013, President Kiir accused his former deputy Riek Machar and ten others of attempting a coup d’état. Machar denied trying to start a coup and fled. Fighting broke out, igniting the civil war. Ugandan troops were deployed to fight alongside South Sudanese government. The United Nations has peacekeepers in the country as part of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan.
Janjaweed
A militia that operate in western Sudan and eastern Chad. Using the United Nations definition, it comprised Sudanese Arab tribes, the core of whom are from the Abbala (camel herder) background with significant recruitment from the Baggara (cattle herder) people. This UN definition may not necessarily be accurate, as instances of members from other tribes have been noted.
War in Darfur
The War in Darfur is a major armed conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan that began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM or Sudan Liberation Army – SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups began fighting the government of Sudan, which they accused of oppressing Darfur’s non-Arab population.
Several other factors have been identified at the roots of the present conflict. One involves the land disputes between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice sedentary agriculture. Water access has also been a major source of the conflict. The Darfur crisis is also related to the Second Sudanese Civil War, raged in southern Sudan for decades between the northern, Arab-dominated government and Christian and animist black southerners.
The region became the scene of a rebellion in 2003 when the JEM and the SLM accused the government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs. The government was also accused of neglecting the Darfur region. In response, it mounted a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The government-supported Janjaweed were accused of committing major human rights violations, including mass killing, looting, and systematic rape of the non-Arab population of Darfur. They have frequently burned down whole villages, driving the surviving inhabitants to flee to refugee camps, mainly in Darfur and Chad. By mid-2004, 50,000 to 80,000 people had been killed and at least a million driven from their homes, causing a major humanitarian crisis in the region.
The Government of Sudan and the SLM of Minni Minnawi signed a Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006. Only one rebel group, the SLM, subscribed to the agreement. The JEM rejected it, resulting in a continuation of the conflict. The agreement included provisions for wealth sharing and power sharing and established a Transitional Darfur Regional Authority to help administer Darfur until a referendum could take place on the future of the region. The leader of the SLM, Minni Minnawi, was appointed Senior Assistant to the President of Sudan and Chairman of the transitional authority in 2007.
In 2010, representatives of the Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM), an umbrella organization of ten rebel groups formed that year, started a fresh round of talks with the Sudanese Government in Doha, Qatar. A new rebel group, the Sudanese Alliance Resistance Forces in Darfur, was formed and the JEM planned further talks. These talks ended without a new peace agreement, but participants agreed on basic principles, including a regional authority and a referendum on autonomy for Darfur. In 2011, the leader of the LJM, Tijani Sese, stated that the movement had accepted the core proposals of the Darfur peace document proposed by the joint-mediators in Doha.
The 2011 Darfur Peace Agreement, also known as the Doha Agreement, was signed between the government of Sudan and the LJM. This agreement established a compensation fund for victims of the Darfur conflict, allowed the President of Sudan to appoint a vice president from Darfur, and established a new Darfur Regional Authority to oversee the region until a referendum can determine its permanent status within the Republic of Sudan. The agreement also provided for power sharing at the national level.
Map of Sudan (Darfur on the left), 2011
One side of the conflict is composed mainly of Sudanese military and police and the Janjaweed, a Sudanese militia group recruited among Arabized indigenous Africans and a small number of Bedouin of the northern Rizeigat. The majority of other Arab groups in Darfur remained uninvolved. The other side is made up of rebel groups.
Social Impact of War
Immediately after the Janjaweed entered the conflict, the rape of women and young girls, often by multiple militiamen and throughout entire nights, was reported at a staggering rate. Children as young as 2 years old were victims, while mothers were assaulted in front of their children. Young women were attacked so violently that they were unable to walk following the attack. Non-Arab individuals were reportedly raped by Janjaweed militiamen as a result of the Sudanese government’s goal to completely eliminate black Africans and non-Arabs from Darfur.
Multiple casualty estimates have been published since the war began, ranging from roughly 10,000 civilians (Sudan government) to hundreds of thousands. In 2005, the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland estimated that 10,000 were dying each month, excluding deaths due to ethnic violence. An estimated 2.7 million people had been displaced from their homes, mostly seeking refuge in camps in Darfur’s major towns. In 2010, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters published an article in a special issue of The Lancet. The article, entitled Patterns of mortality rates in Darfur conflict, estimated with 95% confidence that the excess number of deaths is between 178,258 and 461,520 (with a mean of 298,271), with 80% of these due to disease.
In 2004, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the Darfur conflict to be genocide. However, in 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report stating that “the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide.” Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned, “The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.” In 2007, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against the former Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmad Harun, and a Janjaweed militia leader, Ali Kushayb, for crimes against humanity and war crimes. In 2008, the ICC filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity, and two of murder. Prosecutors claimed that al-Bashir “masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part” three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. In 2009, the ICC issued a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest for crimes against humanity and war crimes, but not genocide. This is the first warrant issued by the ICC against a sitting head of state.
Internally displaced persons’ camp providing shelters to the victims of the Darfur conflict.
Estimates of the number of human casualties range up to several hundred thousand dead, from either combat or starvation and disease. Mass displacements and coercive migrations forced millions into refugee camps or across the border, creating a humanitarian crisis.
International Response
International attention to the Darfur conflict largely began with reports of war crimes by Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group in 2003. However, widespread media coverage did not start until the outgoing United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, called Darfur the “world’s greatest humanitarian crisis” in 2004. Organizations such as STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition, later under the umbrella of Genocide Intervention Network, and the Save Darfur Coalition emerged and became particularly active in the areas of engaging the United States Congress and President.
It is expected that al-Bashir will not face trial until he is apprehended in a nation which accepts ICC jurisdiction, as Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, which it signed but did not ratify. The Sudanese government has announced that the Presidential plane would be accompanied by jet fighters. However, the Arab League announced solidarity with al-Bashir. Since the warrant, he has visited Qatar and Egypt. The African Union also condemned the charges. Some analysts argue that the ICC indictment is counterproductive and harms the peace process. Only days after the ICC indictment, al-Bashir expelled 13 international aid organizations from Darfur and disbanded three domestic aid organizations. In the aftermath of the expulsions, conditions in the displaced camps deteriorated.
South Sudan
The Second Sudanese Civil War was a conflict from 1983 to 2005 between the central Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. It was largely a continuation of the First Sudanese Civil War of 1955 to 1972. It is one of the longest civil wars on record (22 years). A peace agreement was signed in 2005 and one of its promises was the autonomy of the south within the next six years, followed by a referendum on independence.
In 2011, a referendum was held to determine whether South Sudan should become an independent country and separate from Sudan. 98.83% of the population voted for independence. South Sudan, with the majority of population adhering either to indigenous religions or Christianity, formally became independent from Sudan (predominantly Muslim), although certain disputes still remained, including the division of oil revenues, as 75% of all the former Sudan’s oil reserves are in South Sudan. South Sudan continues to be ravaged by civil wars, with tens of thousands displaced. The fighters accuse the government of plotting to stay in power indefinitely, not fairly representing and supporting all tribal groups while neglecting development in rural areas. Inter-ethnic warfare that in some cases predates the war of independence is widespread.
In 2013, a political power struggle broke out between President Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar, as the president accused Machar and ten others of attempting a coup d’état. Fighting broke out, igniting the South Sudanese Civil War. Up to 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed in the war, including in massacres. Although both men have supporters from across South Sudan’s ethnic divides, subsequent fighting has been communal, with rebels targeting members of Kiir’s Dinka ethnic group and government soldiers attacking Nuers. About 3 million people have been displaced in a country of 12 million, with about 2 million internally displaced and about 1 million fleeing to neighboring countries, especially Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda.
Ravaged by conflicts, South Sudan has the least developed economy in the world and
is acknowledged to have some of the worst health indicators in the world. About half the population does not have access to an improved water source, defined as a protected well, standpipe, or a handpump within 1 km. In 2017, South Sudan and the United Nations declared a famine in parts of the country, with the warning that it could spread rapidly without further action. The UN World Food Program notes that 40% of the population of South Sudan, 4.9 million people, need food urgently.
38.4.2: Nigeria and Boko Haram
Boko Haram is an Islamic extremist group based in northeastern Nigeria, which pledged its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Since 2009 it has been trying to overthrow the Nigerian government to establish an Islamic state.
Learning Objective
Account for the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria
Key Points
Boko Haram is an Islamic extremist group
based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger, and northern
Cameroon. Mohammed Yusuf founded it in
2002 when he
established a religious complex and school that attracted poor Muslim families
from across Nigeria and neighboring countries. The center had the political
goal of creating an Islamic state and became a recruiting ground for jihadists.
By denouncing the police and state corruption, Yusuf attracted followers from
unemployed youths.
The
government repeatedly ignored warnings about the increasingly militant
character of the organization. Yusuf’s arrest elevated him to hero status. Stephen Davis, a former Anglican clergyman who has negotiated with Boko
Haram many times, blames local Nigerian politicians who support local bandits
to make life difficult for their political opponents. In
particular, Davis has blamed the former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu
Sheriff, who initially supported Boko Haram.
Boko
Haram seeks the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria. It opposes the
Westernization of Nigerian society and the concentration of the wealth of the
country among members of a small political elite. The
sharia law imposed by local authorities may have promoted links between
Boko Haram and political leaders. The group had alleged links to al-Qaeda, but
in March 2015, it announced its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant.
Boko Haram conducted its operations more or less
peacefully during the first seven years of its existence. That changed in 2009
when the Nigerian government launched an investigation into the group’s
activities following reports that its members were arming themselves. Since then, Boko Haram has been attempting to overthrow the Nigerian government through various militant, including terrorist, strategies.
Boko
Haram began to target schools in 2010, killing hundreds of students by 2014. A
spokesperson for the group said such attacks would continue as long as the
Nigerian government continued to interfere with traditional Islamic education.
Boko Haram has also been known to kidnap girls, who it believes should not be
educated, and use them as cooks or sex slaves. In
2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 female students from the Government Secondary
School in the town of Chibok in Borno. As of January 2017, 195 of the 276 girls were still in
captivity.
The Nigerian government’s response has revealed the political and military weaknesses of the state apparatus and as of March 2017, Boko Haram continues its terrorist activities. While human rights abuses committed by Boko Haram are widely known, the conflict has also seen numerous human rights
abuses conducted by the Nigerian security forces in an effort to control the
violence, as well as their encouragement of the formation of numerous vigilante
groups.
Key Terms
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
A Salafi jihadist extremist militant groups led by and
mainly composed of Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq. In 2014, the group
proclaimed itself a caliphate, with religious, political, and military
authority over all Muslims worldwide. As of March 2015, it had control over
territory occupied by ten million people in Syria and Iraq and nominal
control over small areas of Libya, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. It also operates
or has affiliates in other parts of the world, including North Africa and South
Asia.
al-Qaeda
A militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded
in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other
Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in the 1980s. It has been widely designated as a terrorist
group.
Boko Haram
An Islamic extremist group based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger and northern Cameroon. The group had alleged links to al-Qaeda, but in March 2015, it announced its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It was ranked as the world’s deadliest terror group by the Global Terrorism Index in 2015.
sharia
The religious law forming part of the
Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of
Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term refers
to God’s divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its
scholarly interpretations. Its application in modern times
has been a subject of dispute between Muslim traditionalists and reformists.
Origins of Boko Haram
Boko Haram is an Islamic extremist group based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger, and northern Cameroon.
Mohammed Yusuf founded the sect that became known as Boko Haram in 2002 in Maiduguri, the capital of the northeastern state of Borno. He established a religious complex and school that attracted poor Muslim families from across Nigeria and neighboring countries. The center had the political goal of creating an Islamic state and became a recruiting ground for jihadists. By denouncing the police and state corruption, Yusuf attracted followers from unemployed youths. It has been speculated that Yusuf founded Boko Haram because he saw an opportunity to exploit public outrage at government corruption by linking it to Western influence.
The government repeatedly ignored warnings about the increasingly militant character of the organization. The Council of Ulama advised the government and the Nigerian Television Authority not to broadcast Yusuf’s preaching, but their warnings were ignored. Yusuf’s arrest elevated him to hero status. Borno’s Deputy Governor Alhaji Dibal has reportedly claimed that al-Qaeda had ties with Boko Haram, but broke them when they decided that Yusuf was an unreliable person. Stephen Davis, a former Anglican clergyman who has negotiated with Boko Haram many times, blames local Nigerian politicians who support local bandits to make life difficult for their political opponents. In particular, Davis has blamed the former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff, who initially supported Boko Haram but no longer needed them after the 2007 elections, when the group became much more powerful.
Boko Haram seeks the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria. It opposes the Westernization of Nigerian society and the concentration of the wealth of the country among members of a small political elite, mainly in the Christian south of the country. Nigeria is Africa’s biggest economy, but 60% of its population of 173 million (2013) live in dire poverty. The sharia law imposed by local authorities, beginning with Zamfara in 2000 and covering 12 northern states by late 2002, may have promoted links between Boko Haram and political leaders.
The group had alleged links to al-Qaeda, but in March 2015, announced its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) and since then
publicly uses the name “ISIL-West Africa Province” or its variants.
Boko Haram Insurgency
Boko Haram conducted its operations more or less peacefully during the first seven years of its existence. That changed in 2009 when the Nigerian government launched an investigation into the group’s activities following reports that its members were arming themselves. Prior to that, the government reportedly repeatedly ignored warnings about the increasingly militant character of the organization, including those from a military officer. When the government came into action, several members of the group were arrested in Bauchi, sparking deadly clashes with Nigerian security forces that led to the deaths of an estimated 700 people. During the conflict with the security forces, Boko Haram fighters reportedly “used fuel-laden motorcycles” and “bows with poison arrows” to attack a police station. The group’s founder and then-leader Mohammed Yusuf was killed during this time while still in police custody. After Yusuf’s killing, Abubakar Shekau became the leader and held this
position until August 2016, when he was succeeded by Abu Musab al-Barnawi, the first surviving son of Mohammed Yusuf.
The group suffered a split in 2016 and Shekau and his supporters continued to operate independently.
Wounded people following a bomb attack by Boko Haram in Nyanya, in April 2014
After its founding in 2002, Boko Haram’s increasing radicalization led to a violent uprising in 2009. Its unexpected resurgence following a mass prison break in 2010 was accompanied by increasingly sophisticated attacks, initially against soft targets, and progressed in 2011 to include suicide bombings. The government’s establishment of a state of emergency in 2012, extended in the following year to cover the entire northeast of Nigeria, led to an increase in both security force abuses and militant attacks.
The photograph shows two bleeding wounded men on the ground.
After the killing of Yusuf, the group carried out its first terrorist attack in Borno in 2010, which resulted in the killing of four people. Since then, the violence has only escalated in terms of both frequency and intensity. In 2010, a Bauchi prison break freed more than 700 Boko Haram militants, replenishing their force. In 2011, a few hours after Goodluck Jonathan was sworn in as President of Nigeria, several bombings purportedly by Boko Haram killed 15 and injured 55. The same year, Boko Haram claimed to have conducted the Abuja police headquarters bombing, the first known suicide attack in Nigeria. Two months later the United Nations building in Abuja was bombed, signifying the first time that Boko Haram attacked an international organization. By early 2012, the group was responsible for over 900 deaths. In 2013, Nigerian government forces launched an offensive in the Borno region in an attempt to dislodge Boko Haram fighters after a state of emergency was called. The offensive was initially successful but eventually failed.
Chibok Schoolgirls Kidnapping
Boko Haram began to target schools in 2010, killing hundreds of students by 2014. A spokesperson for the group said such attacks would continue as long as the Nigerian government continued to interfere with traditional Islamic education. Boko Haram has also been known to kidnap girls, who it believes should not be educated, and use them as cooks or sex slaves.
In 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 female students from the Government Secondary School in the town of Chibok in Borno. Fifty-seven of the schoolgirls managed to escape over the next few months and some have described their capture in appearances at international human rights conferences. A child born to one of the girls and believed by medical personnel to be about 20 months old also was released, according to the Nigerian president’s office. Newspaper reports have suggested that Boko Haram was hoping to use the girls as a negotiating pawns in exchange for some of their commanders in jail. In 2016, one of the missing girls, Amina Ali, was found. She claimed that the remaining girls were still there, but that six had died.
As of January 2017, 195 of the 276 girls were still in captivity. Furthermore, thousands of other children have disappeared in the nearby regions. Despite the high-profile campaign #BringBackOurGirls, international efforts to free the kidnapped girls have failed.
Parents of some of the victims of the 2014 Chibok kidnapping mourn their losses
Parents and others took to social media to complain about the government’s perceived slow and inadequate response. The news caused international outrage against Boko Haram and the Nigerian government. On April 30 and May 1, 2014 protests demanding greater government action were held in several Nigerian cities. Most parents, however, were afraid to speak publicly for fear their daughters would be targeted for reprisal.
The photograph shows three men in a crowd crying and praying.
Government’s Response
The Nigerian military is, in the words of a former British military attaché speaking in 2014, “a shadow of what it’s reputed to have once been.” They are short of basic equipment, morale is said to be low, and senior officers are alleged to be skimming military procurement budget funds intended to pay for the standard issue equipment of soldiers. In 2013, the Nigerian military shut down mobile phone coverage in the three northeastern states to disrupt the Boko Haram’s communication and ability to detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The shutdown was successful from a military-tactical point of view but it angered citizens in the region and engendered negative opinions toward the state and new emergency policies. While citizens and organizations developed various coping and circumventing strategies, Boko Haram evolved from an open network model of insurgency to a closed centralized system, shifting the center of its operations to the Sambisa Forest. This fundamentally changed the dynamics of the conflict.
In mid-2014, Nigeria was estimated to have had the highest number of terrorist killings in the world over the past year, 3477 killed in 146 attacks. The governor of Borno, Kashim Shettima noted in 2014: “Boko Haram are better armed and are better motivated than our own troops. Given the present state of affairs, it is absolutely impossible for us to defeat Boko Haram.”
In 2015, it was reported that Nigeria had employed hundreds of mercenaries from South Africa and the former Soviet Union to assist in making gains against Boko Haram. U.S. efforts to train and share intelligence with regional military forces is credited with helping to push back against Boko Haram, but officials warn that the group remains a grave threat. As of March 2017, Boko Haram continues suicide bombings and other terrorist strategies.
The conflict has also seen numerous human rights abuses conducted by the Nigerian security forces in an effort to control the violence as well as their encouragement of the formation of numerous vigilante groups. Amnesty International accused the Nigerian government of human rights abuses after 950 suspected Boko Haram militants died in detention facilities run by Nigeria’s military Joint Task Force in 2013. Furthermore, the Nigerian government has been accused of incompetence and supplying misinformation about events in more remote areas.
Human Rights Watch has also reported that Boko Haram uses child soldiers, including 12-year-olds. According to an anonymous source working on peace talks with the group, up to 40 percent of the fighters in the group are underage. The group has forcibly converted non-Muslims to Islam.
38.4.3: Somalia’s Challenges
Somalia has been ravaged by the ongoing civil war, political instability, and droughts and famines. This has made it one of the least developed and most fragile states in the world, where most residents—particularly girls and women—are constantly at a risk of losing health or life.
Learning Objective
Analyze why Somalia is often considered a failed state
Key Points
Somalia
is a country located in the Horn of Africa, with an estimated population of
12.3 million. The
Supreme Revolutionary Council seized power in 1969 and established the Somali
Democratic Republic. Led by Mohamed Siad Barre, the government collapsed in
1991 as the Somali Civil War broke out. During this period, due to the absence of a
central government, Somalia was a failed state. This term refers to a political
body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and
responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly.
The
early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations. The
Transitional National Government (TNG) was established in 2000, followed by the
formation of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004, which
reestablished national institutions such as the military. In 2006, the TFG,
assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation’s southern
conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU) . This Islamist organization assumed control of much of the southern
part of the country and promptly imposed sharia law.
Following
this defeat, the ICU splintered into several different factions. Some of the
more radical elements, including Al-Shabaab, regrouped to continue their
insurgency against the TFG and oppose the Ethiopian military’s presence in
Somalia. By
mid-2012, the insurgents lost most of the territory that they had seized.
In 2011–2012, a political process providing benchmarks for the establishment of
permanent democratic institutions was launched. Within this administrative
framework a new provisional constitution was passed in 2012, reforming Somalia as a federation. Following the end of the TFG’s interim mandate, the
Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the
country since the start of the civil war, was formed and a period of
reconstruction began.
By
2014, international stakeholders and analysts
have begun to describe Somalia as a fragile state making some
progress towards stability. A fragile state is a low-income country
characterized by weak state capacity and/or weak state legitimacy, leaving
citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks.
As
the war continues, the country is facing a plethora of challenges
caused not only by the decades of fighting but also by hostile environmental conditions.
According
to the Central Bank of Somalia, about 80% of the population is nomadic or
semi-nomadic pastoralists. The UN notes
that extreme “inequalities across different social groups” are
widening and continue to be “a major driver of conflict.” Droughts
and resulting famines continue to ravage the country. Somalia is also consistently ranked as one of the worst places in the world to live for a woman.
Key Terms
Transitional Federal Government
The internationally recognized government of the Republic of Somalia until August 2012, when its tenure officially ended and the Federal Government of Somalia was inaugurated. It was established as one of the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) of government as defined in the Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) adopted in 2004 by the Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP).
Al-Shabaab
A Salafist jihadist fundamentalist group based in East Africa. In 2012, it pledged allegiance to the militant Islamist organization Al-Qaeda. In February of the year, some of the group’s leaders quarreled with Al-Qaeda over the union and quickly lost ground.
The group describes itself as waging jihad against “enemies of Islam,” and is engaged in combat against the Federal Government of Somalia and the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM).
Somali Civil War
An ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia that grew out of resistance to the Siad Barre regime during the 1980s. By 1988–90, the Somali Armed Forces began engaging various armed rebel groups, including the Somali Salvation Democratic Front in the northeast, the Somali National Movement in the northwest, and the United Somali Congress in the south. The clan-based armed opposition groups eventually managed to overthrow the Barre government in 1991, but the war continues.
failed state
A political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly. The Fund for Peace notes the following characteristics: loss of control of its territory or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein; erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions; inability to provide public services; and inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
Islamic Courts Union
A group of sharia courts that united themselves to form a rival administration to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia, with Sharif Sheikh Ahmed as their head. Western media often refer to the group as Somali Islamists.
fragile state
A low-income country characterized by weak state capacity and/or weak state legitimacy, leaving citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks.
Somalia: Background
Somalia is a country located in the Horn of Africa, with an estimated population of 12.3 million. Around 85% of its residents are ethnic Somalis and the majority are Muslim. In antiquity, Somalia was an important commercial center and during the Middle Ages, several powerful Somali empires dominated the regional trade. In the late 19th century, the British and Italian empires gained control of parts of the coast and established the colonies of British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland. Italy acquired full control of the northeastern, central, and southern parts of the area. Italian occupation lasted until 1941, yielding to British military administration. British Somaliland would remain a protectorate, while Italian Somaliland became a United Nations Trusteeship under Italian administration in 1949. In 1960, the two regions united to form the independent Somali Republic under a civilian government.
The Supreme Revolutionary Council seized power in 1969 and established the Somali Democratic Republic. Led by Mohamed Siad Barre, the government collapsed in 1991 as the Somali Civil War broke out. Various armed factions began competing for influence in the power vacuum. During this period, due to the absence of a central government, Somalia was a failed state. The term
refers to a political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly.
Common characteristics of a failed state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it is unable to raise taxes or other support and has little practical control over much of its territory (hence there is a non-provision of public services). As a result, widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of non-state actors, the involuntary movement of populations, and sharp economic decline can occur. In the 1990s, Somalis returned to customary and religious law in most regions. Some autonomous regions, including the Somaliland and Puntland, emerged.
Path to Central Government
The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations. The Transitional National Government (TNG) was established in 2000, followed by the formation of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004, which reestablished national institutions such as the military. In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation’s southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which subsequently splintered into more radical groups.
The ICU is an Islamist organization, which assumed control of much of the southern part of the country and promptly imposed sharia law.
Following this defeat, the ICU splintered into several different factions. Some of the more radical elements, including Al-Shabaab, regrouped to continue their insurgency against the TFG and oppose the Ethiopian military’s presence in Somalia. Throughout 2007 and 2008, Al-Shabaab scored military victories, seizing control of key towns and ports in both central and southern Somalia. By 2009, Al-Shabaab and other militias managed to force the Ethiopian troops to retreat, leaving behind an under-equipped African Union peacekeeping force to assist the TFG’s troops.
Due to a lack of funding and human resources, an arms embargo that made it difficult to reestablish a national security force, and general indifference on the part of the international community, Somali President
Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed found himself obliged to deploy thousands of troops from Puntland to Mogadishu to sustain the battle against insurgent elements in the southern part of the country. In 2008, Ahmed announced his resignation, expressing regret at failing to end the country’s 17-year conflict as his government had been mandated to do. He also blamed the international community for its failure to support the government.
By mid-2012, the insurgents lost most of the territory that they had seized. In 2011–2012, a political process providing benchmarks for the establishment of permanent democratic institutions was launched. Within this administrative framework a new provisional constitution was passed in 2012, which reformed Somalia as a federation. Following the end of the TFG’s interim mandate, the Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war, was formed and a period of reconstruction began.
A Somali woman and child at a relief center in Dollow on the Somalia-Ethiopia border
In combination with the ongoing civil war, the 2011-2012 drought and famine resulted in a refugee crisis.
By September 2011, more than 920,000 refugees from Somalia had reportedly fled to neighboring countries, particularly Kenya and Ethiopia. At the height of the crisis, the UNHCR base in Dadaab, Kenya hosted at least 440,000 people in three refugee camps, although the maximum capacity was 90,000. More than 1,500 refugees continued to arrive every day from southern Somalia, 80 percent of whom were women and children. UN High Commissioner for Refugees spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said that many people had died en route.
Fragile State
By 2014, Somalia was no longer at the top of the fragile states index, dropping to second place behind South Sudan. International stakeholders and analysts have begun to describe Somalia as a fragile state making some progress towards stability.
A fragile state is a low-income country characterized by weak state capacity and/or weak state legitimacy leaving citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks. As the war continues as of March 2017, the country is facing a plethora of challenges caused not only by the decades of fighting, mismanagement, and political chaos, but also by hostile environmental conditions.
Despite the civil war, Somalia has maintained an informal economy based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfers from abroad, and telecommunications. Due to a dearth of formal government statistics, it is difficult to determine the actual condition of the Somali economy. Unlike the pre-civil war period when most services and the industrial sector were government-run, there has been substantial, albeit unmeasured, private investment in commercial activities. This has been largely financed by the Somali diaspora and includes trade and marketing, money transfer services, transportation, communications, fishery equipment, airlines, telecommunications, education, health, construction, and hotels. Somalia has some of the lowest development indicators in the world. According to the Central Bank of Somalia, about 80% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists who keep goats, sheep, camels, and cattle. The nomads also gather resins and gums to supplement their income. The UN notes that extreme “inequalities across different social groups” are widening and continue to be “a major driver of conflict.”
Droughts and resulting famines continue to ravage the country. Between mid-2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa region, causing a severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya that threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people. Many refugees from southern Somalia fled to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia, where crowded, unsanitary conditions together with severe malnutrition led to a large number of deaths. The food crisis in Somalia primarily affected farmers in the south rather than the northern pastoralists. Human Rights Watch (HRW) consequently noted that most of the displaced persons belonged to the agro-pastoral Rahanweyn clan and the agricultural Bantu ethnic minority group. The United Nations officially declared famine in two regions in the southern part of the country, the first time a famine had been declared in the region by the UN in nearly thirty years. Tens of thousands of people are believed to have died in southern Somalia before famine was declared. This was mainly a result of Western governments preventing aid from reaching affected areas to weaken the Al-Shabaab militant group against whom they were engaged. The food crisis in southern Somalia was no longer at emergency levels by the beginning of 2012.
In 2011, Maryan Qasim, a medical doctor, former minister for women’s development and family affairs, and an adviser in the TFG, wrote a column for The Guardian titled “The women of Somalia are living in hell.” In it, she professed to be “shocked” that Somalia was ranked 5th worst place in the world to be a woman, arguing that the country is “the worst [place] in the world” for women. She notes that it is not the war but being pregnant that constitutes the greatest risk for women’s life. The lack of medical care and infrastructure puts pregnant women at risk of death, the rate of which is higher only in Afghanistan. She concludes, “Add to this the constant risk of getting shot or raped, as well as the ubiquitous practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) – something 95% of girls aged 4 to 11 face – make women’s lives in Somalia almost unlivable.”
Young Somali women at a community event in Hargeisa
According to a 2005 World Health Organization estimate, about 97.9% of Somalia’s women and girls underwent female genital mutilation, a premarital custom mainly endemic to Northeast Africa and parts of the Near East. Encouraged by women in the community, it is primarily intended to protect chastity, deter promiscuity, and offer protection from assault.
As of March 2017, a new wave of drought ravages Somalia. It has left more than 6 million people, or half the country’s population, facing food shortages with several water supplies becoming undrinkable due to the possibility of infection. In February 2017, a senior United Nations humanitarian official in Somalia warned of a famine in some of the worst drought-affected areas without massive and urgent humanitarian assistance. He also stated that the omission of such an immediate response “will cost lives, further destroy livelihoods, and could undermine the pursuit of key state-building and peacebuilding initiatives.” In March 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged a massive scale-up in international support to avert a famine.
38.4.4: South Africa’s Economic Growth
The South African economy has recorded impressive growth, which in 2011 enabled the country to join the prestigious BRIC group. However, the country continues to struggle with many challenges, including high unemployment, a public health crisis, and one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world.
Learning Objective
Explain why South Africa was added to the BRIC bloc of countries.
Key Points
BRICS
is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies:
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Originally the
first four were grouped as BRIC.
The BRICS members are developing or newly industrialized countries,
distinguished by their large, sometimes fast-growing economies and
significant influence on regional affairs. In
2010, South Africa joined the BRIC
grouping, after
being formally invited by the BRIC countries. The group was
renamed BRICS – with the “S” standing for South Africa – to reflect
the expanded membership.
The
economy of South Africa is the largest in Africa. South Africa accounts
for 24 percent of Africa’s gross domestic product and is ranked as an
upper-middle-income economy by the World Bank – one of only four such countries
in Africa. Since 1996, at the end of over 12 years of international
sanctions, South Africa’s GDP has almost tripled to $400 billion and foreign
exchange reserves have increased from $3 billion to nearly $50 billion,
creating a diversified economy with a growing and sizable middle class within
two decades of establishing democracy and ending apartheid.
After
1994, government policy brought down inflation, stabilized
public finances, and attracted foreign capital. However, economic growth was
still subpar until 2004, when it picked up significantly. Both
employment and capital formation increased. During the presidency of Jacob Zuma, the government has begun to increase
the role of state-owned enterprises.
Unlike most of the world’s formerly poor and now
developing countries, South Africa does not have a thriving informal economy.
Only 15% of South African jobs are in the informal sector. Mining
has been the main driving force behind the history and development of Africa’s
most advanced economy. South Africa is one of
the world’s leading mining and mineral-processing countries.
The
agricultural industry contributes around 10% of formal employment, relatively
low compared to other parts of Africa, contributing around 2.6% of GDP.
The
manufacturing industry’s contribution to the economy is relatively small,
providing just 13.3% of jobs and 15% of GDP. Labor costs are low, but not
nearly as low as in most other emerging markets, and the cost of the transport,
communications, and general living is much higher. Over the last
few decades, South Africa and particularly the Cape Town region has established
itself as a successful call center and business process outsourcing
destination. Tourism also creates a substantial percentage of jobs in the country.
High
levels of unemployment, income inequality, growing public debt, political
mismanagement, low levels of education, no reliable access to electricity, and
crime are serious problems that have negatively impacted the South African
economy. In 2016, the top five challenges to doing business in the country were
inefficient government bureaucracy, restrictive labor regulations, a shortage
of educated workers, political instability, and corruption. South Africa continues to have a relatively high rate of poverty and
is ranked in the top 10 countries in the world for income inequality.
Key Terms
apartheid
A system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa between 1948 and 1991, when it was abolished. The country’s first multiracial elections under a universal franchise were held three years later in 1994. Broadly speaking, the system was delineated into petty, which entailed the segregation of public facilities and social events, and grand, which dictated housing and employment opportunities by race.
G-20
An international forum for the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies. It was founded in 1999 with the aim of studying, reviewing, and promoting high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability. It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization.
BRICS
The acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies. Its members are leading developing or newly industrialized countries, distinguished by their large, sometimes fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional affairs. All five are G-20 members.
BRICS
BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Originally the first four were grouped as BRIC, before the induction of South Africa in 2010. The BRICS members are leading developing or newly industrialized countries, distinguished by their large, sometimes fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional affairs. All five are G-20 members. Since 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at formal summits. In 2015, the five BRICS countries represented over 3.6 billion people, or half of the world population. All five members are in the top 25 of the world by population and four are in the top 10. The World bank expects BRICS growth to pick up to 5.3% in 2017. Bilateral relations among BRICS nations have mainly been conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality, and mutual benefit.
In 2010, South Africa began the formal process of admission to join the BRIC grouping, becoming a member at the end of that year and joining officially in 2011 after being formally invited by the BRIC countries. The group was renamed BRICS – with the “S” standing for South Africa – to reflect the expanded membership.
Leaders of the BRICS nations at the G-20 summit in Brisbane, 2014
In April 2011, South Africa formally joined the Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRICS) grouping of countries, identified by President Zuma (first right) as the country’s largest trading partners and also the largest trading partners with Africa as a whole. Zuma asserted that BRICS member countries would also work with each other through the UN, the Group of Twenty (G20) and the India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA) forum.
South African Economy in the 21st Century
The economy of South Africa is the largest in Africa. South Africa accounts for 24 percent of Africa’s gross domestic product and is ranked as an upper-middle-income economy by the World Bank – one of only four such countries in Africa. Since 1996, at the end of over 12 years of international sanctions, South Africa’s GDP has almost tripled to $400 billion and foreign exchange reserves have increased from $3 billion to nearly $50 billion, creating a diversified economy with a growing and sizable middle class within two decades of establishing democracy and ending apartheid. The nation is the only African member of the G-20.
After 1994, three years after apartheid was abolished and the year of first interracial elections, government policy brought down inflation, stabilized public finances, and some foreign capital was attracted. However, growth was still subpar, but increased significantly in 2004 when both employment and capital formation increased. During the presidency of Jacob Zuma (elected in 2009 and reelected in 2014), the government has begun to increase the role of state-owned enterprises. Some of the biggest state-owned companies are Eskom, the electric power monopoly, South African Airways (SAA), and Transnet, the railroad and ports monopoly. Some of these state-owned companies have not been profitable, which has required bailouts totaling 30 billion rand ($2.3 billion) over 20 years.
South Africa has a mixed economy (consisting of a mixture of markets and economic interventionism). Unlike most of the world’s formerly poor and now developing countries, South Africa does not have a thriving informal economy. Only 15% of South African jobs are in the informal sector, compared with around half in Brazil and India and nearly three-quarters in Indonesia. The OECD attributes this difference to South Africa’s widespread welfare system.
Mining has been the main driving force behind the history and development of Africa’s most advanced economy. Large-scale and profitable mining started with the discovery of a diamond in 1867 and in the 21st century, South Africa is one of the world’s leading mining and mineral-processing countries. Although mining’s contribution to the national GDP has fallen from 21% in 1970 to 6% in 2011, it still represents almost 60% of exports. The mining sector has a mix of privately owned and state-controlled mines.
The agricultural industry contributes around 10% of formal employment, relatively low compared to other parts of Africa, contributing around 2.6% of GDP. Due to the aridity of the land, only 13.5% can be used for crop production and only 3% is considered high potential land. The sector continues to face problems, with increased foreign competition and crime being two of the major challenges. The government has been accused of either putting in too much effort or not enough effort to tackle the problem of farm attacks as opposed to other forms of violent crime.
The manufacturing industry’s contribution to the economy is relatively small, providing just 13.3% of jobs and 15% of GDP. Labor costs are low, but not nearly as low as in most other emerging markets, and the cost of the transport, communications, and general living is much higher. The South African automotive industry accounts for about 10% of South Africa’s manufacturing exports, contributing 7.5% to the country’s GDP. BMW, Ford, Volkswagen, Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors, Nissan, and Toyota all have production plants in South Africa. There are also about 200 automotive component manufacturers in South Africa and more than 150 others that supply the industry on a non-exclusive basis.
The domestic telecommunications infrastructure provides modern and efficient service to urban areas, including cellular and internet services. Over the last few decades, South Africa and particularly the Cape Town region has established itself as a successful call center and business process outsourcing destination. With a highly talented pool of productive labor and with Cape Town sharing cultural affinity with Britain, large overseas firms such as Lufthansa, Amazon.com, ASDA, the Carphone Warehouse, Delta Airlines, and many more have established inbound call centers within Cape Town.
South Africa is also a popular tourist destination. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, travel and tourism support around 10% of jobs in the country.
Canal Walk shopping center in Cape Town
While this modern shopping mall serves as evidence that South Africa is becoming economically prosperous, the high levels of unemployment and inequality are considered by the government and most South Africans to be the most salient economic problems facing the country. These issues, and others linked to them such as crime, have in turn hurt investment and growth, consequently having a negative feedback effect on employment.
Challenges
South Africa has an extreme and persistent high unemployment rate of over 25%, which interacts with other economic and social problems such as inadequate education, poor health outcomes, and crime. The poor have limited access to economic opportunities and basic services. The official unemployment rate, although very high by international standards, still understates the magnitude of the problem because it includes only adults who are actively looking for work, excluding those who have given up looking for jobs. Only 41% of the population of working age has any kind of job (formal or informal). This rate is 30% lower than that of China and about 25% lower than that of Brazil or Indonesia.
There has been substantial human capital flight from South Africa in recent years. South Africa’s Bureau of Statistics estimates that between 1 million and 1.6 million people in skilled, professional, and managerial occupations have emigrated since 1994 and that for every emigrant, 10 unskilled people lose their jobs. Among the reasons cited for wishing to leave the country were declining quality of life and high levels of crime. Furthermore, the government’s affirmative action policy was identified as a factor influencing the emigration of skilled white South Africans. The results of a 1998 survey indicate that skilled white South Africans are strongly opposed to this policy and the arguments advanced in support of it.
Refugees and immigrants from poorer neighboring countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and others, represent a large portion of the informal sector. With high unemployment levels among poorer South Africans, xenophobia is prevalent and many South Africans feel resentful of immigrants who are seen as depriving the native population of jobs. Although many South African employers have employed migrants from other countries for lower pay than South African citizens, especially in the construction, tourism, agriculture, and domestic service industries, many immigrants continue to live in poor conditions.
According to a 2015 UNAIDS Report, South Africa has an estimated 7 million people living with HIV, more than any other country in the world. A 2008 study revealed that HIV/AIDS infection in South Africa is distinctly divided along racial lines: 13.6% of black South Africans are HIV-positive, whereas only 0.3% of white South Africans have the disease. Most casualties have been economically active individuals, resulting in AIDS orphans who in many cases depend on the state for care and financial support. It is estimated that there are 1,200,000 orphans in South Africa.
High levels of unemployment, income inequality, growing public debt, political mismanagement, low levels of education, no reliable access to electricity, and crime are serious problems that have negatively impacted the South African economy. In 2016, the top five challenges to doing business in the country were inefficient government bureaucracy, restrictive labor regulations, a shortage of educated workers, political instability, and corruption, while the country’s strong banking sector was rated as a strongly positive feature of the economy. South Africa continues to have a relatively high rate of poverty and is ranked in the top 10 countries in the world for income inequality.
38.4.5: Health Crises
Health crises in Africa have stemmed from outbreaks of deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and Ebola, but have also been caused and intensified by poverty, malnutrition, ongoing civil wars, and environmental disasters linked to famines.
Learning Objective
Analyze some of the health crises that have ravaged Africa
Key Points
A
public health crisis is a difficult situation or complex
health system that affects humans in one or more geographic areas, from a
particular locality tompass the entire planet. Health crises generally
have significant impacts on community health, loss of life, and the economy.
They may result from disease, industrial processes, environmental disasters, or
poor policy. Africa continues to be ravaged by multiple health crises.
HIV/AIDS
is a major public health concern in many parts of Africa.
Although the continent is home to about 15% of the world’s population,
over 67% of the infected in 2015, more than 25.5 million individuals, were Africans. Out of
this number, nearly 19 million lived in eastern and southern Africa, while 6.5
million lived in western and central Africa.
High-risk
behavior patterns have been cited as being largely responsible for the
significantly greater spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa than in other
parts of the world.
In
2015, UN reported that the leading cause of death among HIV-positive persons is
tuberculosis.
In 2015, there were 296 million cases of malaria
worldwide resulting in an estimated 731,000 deaths. Approximately 90% of
both cases and deaths occurred in Africa. In Africa, malaria is estimated
to result in losses of US$12 billion a year due to increased healthcare costs,
lost ability to work, and negative effects on tourism. Although malaria is presently endemic not
only in sub-Saharan Africa but also in a broad band around the equator, which
includes many parts of the Americas and Asia, 85–90% of malaria fatalities
occur in sub-Saharan Africa.
The
West African Ebola virus epidemic (2013–2016) was the most widespread outbreak
of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in history—causing major loss of life and
socioeconomic disruption in the region, mainly in Guinea,
Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with minor outbreaks occurring elsewhere. It caused
significant mortality, with the fatality rate reported at slightly
above 70% although the rate among hospitalized patients was 57–59%.
A number of regions in Africa have experienced environmental disasters
that led to food crises and famines.
A major culprit continent is drought, which in combination with ongoing civil
wars may produce disastrous results. An acute shortage of food or famine affected Niger (2006), the countries in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, and
Ethiopia), asnortheastern Kenya (2006), Africa’s Sahel region and many
parts of the neighboring Senegal River Area (2010), and entire East Africa (2011-2012). As of March 2017, Somalia and South Sudan
are experiencing severe droughts and experts estimate famines will affect
millions of people in both regions.
In
addition to recurrent food crises, malnutrition and poverty are endemic problems that
affect the health of massive numbers of Africans across the continent, with particularly tragic impact on children and women. Children’s health and maternal health indicators are particularly alarming in sub-Saharan Africa.
Key Term
health crisis
A difficult situation or complex health system that affects humans in one or more geographic areas, from a particular locality to the entire planet. It generally has significant impacts on community health, loss of life, and the economy. It may result from disease, industrial processes, environmental disasters, or poor policy.
Health Crises in Africa
A public health crisis is a difficult situation or complex health system that affects humans in one or more geographic areas, from a particular locality to the entire planet. Health crises generally have significant impacts on community health, loss of life, and the economy. They may result from disease, industrial processes, environmental disasters, or poor policy.
Africa continues to be ravaged by multiple health crises, some of which are systemic (e.g., consistently high rates of maternal and infant deaths caused by lack of proper health care or poor nutrition), recurrent (e.g., famines caused by droughts), or caused by an outbreak of a particular diseases (e.g., malaria, Ebola, HIV/AIDS).
HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS is a major public health concern and cause of death in many parts of Africa. Although the continent is home to about 15% of the world’s population, over 67% of the infected, more than 25.5 million individuals, were Africans according to data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS in 2015. Out of this number, nearly 19 million lived in eastern and southern Africa, while 6.5 million lived in western and central Africa (North Africa, grouped with the Middle East, recorded 230 thousand infected). In the most affected countries of sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS has raised death rates and lowered life expectancy among adults between the ages of 20 and 49 by about 20 years. In fact, the life expectancy in many parts of Africa is declining, largely as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with life expectancy in some countries as low as 34 years.
High-risk behavioral patterns have been cited as largely responsible for the significantly greater spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa than in other parts of the world. Chief among these are traditionally liberal attitudes espoused by many communities toward multiple sexual partners and sexual activity before or outside marriage. HIV transmission is most likely in the first few weeks after infection and the risk is increased when people have more than one sexual partner in the same time period. Within the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, it is relatively common for both men and women to have concurrent sexual relations with more than one person. In addition, lack of AIDS-awareness education provided to youth and no access to proper health care contribute to the high rates of infections and deaths. Even if medical facilities are available, patents on many drugs have hindered the ability to make low-cost alternatives.
In 2015, UN reported that the leading cause of death among HIV-positive persons is tuberculosis; synergy between HIV and tuberculosis, termed a co-epidemic, is deadly. One in three HIV-infected individuals die of tuberculosis. “Tuberculosis and HIV co-infections are associated with special diagnostic and therapeutic challenges and constitute an immense burden on healthcare systems of heavily infected countries.” In many countries without adequate resources, the tuberculosis case rate has increased five to ten-fold since the identification of HIV. Without proper treatment, an estimated 90% of persons living with HIV die within months after contracting tuberculosis.
An HIV/AIDS educational outreach session in Angola, photo by USAID Africa Bureau.
One of the greatest problems faced by African countries that have high prevalence rates is “HIV fatigue.” Africans are not interested in hearing more about a disease that has been debated for decades now. To address this, novel approaches are required. Yet lack of awareness and education remain a huge issues, especially among youth.
Malaria
Malaria is a mosquito-borne infectious disease affecting humans and other animals.
The disease is widespread in the tropical and subtropical regions that exist in a broad band around the equator, including much of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In 2015, there were 296 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 731,000 deaths. Approximately 90% of deaths occurred in Africa, where malaria is estimated to result in losses of US$12 billion a year due to increased healthcare costs, lost ability to work, and negative effects on tourism.
The WHO estimates that in 2015 there were 214 million new cases of malaria resulting in 438,000 deaths. Others have estimated the number of cases at between 350 and 550 million. The majority (65%) occur in children younger than age 15. In sub-Saharan Africa, maternal malaria is associated with up to 200,000 estimated infant deaths yearly. Efforts at decreasing the disease in Africa since the turn of millennium have been partially effective, with rates dropping by an estimated 40% on the continent. Although malaria is presently endemic not only in sub-Saharan Africa but also in a broad band around the equator, which includes many parts of the Americas and Asia, 85–90% of malaria fatalities occur in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ebola
The West African Ebola virus epidemic (2013–2016) was the most widespread outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in history—causing major loss of life and socioeconomic disruption in the region, mainly in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with minor outbreaks occurring elsewhere. It caused significant mortality, with a fatality rate reported at slightly above 70% although the rate among hospitalized patients was 57–59%. Small outbreaks occurred in Nigeria and Mali and isolated cases were recorded in Senegal. The number of cases peaked in October 2014 and then began to decline gradually following the commitment of substantial international resources. In March 2016, the WHO terminated the Public Health Emergency of International Concern status of the outbreak. Subsequent flare-ups occurred.
The outbreak left about 17,000 survivors of the disease, many of whom report symptoms termed post-Ebola syndrome, often severe enough to require medical care for months or even years. An additional cause for concern is the apparent ability of the virus to “hide” in a recovered survivor’s body for an extended period of time and then become active months or years later, either in the same individual or in a sexual partner. In December 2016, the WHO announced that a two-year trial of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine appeared to offer protection from the strain of Ebola responsible for the West Africa outbreak. The vaccine has not yet had regulatory approval, but it is considered so effective that 300,000 doses have already been stockpiled.
An Ebola treatment unit in Liberia, photo by CDC Global End.
In June 2014, it was reported that local authorities did not have the resources to contain the disease, with health centers closing and hospitals becoming overwhelmed. There were also reports that adequate personal protection equipment was not provided for medical personnel. The Director-General of MSF said: “Countries affected to date simply do not have the capacity to manage an outbreak of this size and complexity on their own. I urge the international community to provide this support on the most urgent basis possible.”
Food Shortages
Since 2000, a number of regions in Africa have experienced environmental disasters that led to food crises and famines. For example, a severe localized food security crisis occurred in some regions of Niger from 2005 to 2006. It was caused by an early end to the 2004 rains, desert locust damage to some pasture lands, high food prices, and chronic poverty. In the affected area, 2.4 million of 3.6 million people were considered highly vulnerable to food insecurity. An international assessment stated that of these, over 800,000 faced extreme food insecurity and another 800,000 in moderately insecure food situations were in need of aid.
The crisis had long been predicted after swarms of locusts consumed nearly all crops in parts of Niger during the 2004 agricultural season. In other areas, insufficient rainfall resulted in exceptionally poor harvests and dry pastures, affecting both farmers and livestock breeders. The fertility rate in Niger is the highest in the world at 7.6 children per woman. The consequence is that population of Niger is projected to increase tenfold in the 21st century to more than 200 million people in 2100. Experts predict population growth-induced famines in the 21st century, because the agricultural production cannot keep up with the population growth.
A major culprit of food shortages on the continent is drought, which in combination with ongoing civil wars may produce disastrous results.
In 2006, an acute shortage of food affected the countries in the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, and Ethiopia) as well as northeastern Kenya. The United Nations’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that more than 11 million people in these countries were affected by widespread famine, largely attributed to a severe drought and exacerbated by military conflicts in the region. A large-scale, drought-induced famine occurred in Africa’s Sahel region and many parts of the neighboring Senegal River Area from February to August 2010. It is one of many famines to hit the region in recent times. The Sahel is the ecoclimatic and biogeographic zone of transition between the Sahara desert in the north of Africa and the Sudanian savannas in the south. Similarly, between July 2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa region. Said to be “the worst in 60 years,” the drought caused a severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya that threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people. Many refugees from southern Somalia fled to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia, where crowded, unsanitary conditions and severe malnutrition led to a large number of deaths. Other countries in East Africa, including Sudan, South Sudan, and parts of Uganda, were also affected by a food crisis. As of March 2017, Somalia and South Sudan are experiencing severe droughts and experts estimate famines will affect millions of people in both regions.
In addition to recurrent food crises, malnutrition is an endemic problem that affects massive numbers of Africans across the continent, which has had a particularly tragic impact on children.
Globally, more than one third of under-5 deaths are attributable to malnourishment. In Africa, some progress has been registered over the decades but the situation in some regions remains dire. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 3,370,000 deaths of children under 5 in 2011 (WHO, 2012), which corresponds to 9,000 children dying every day and six children dying every minute. Out of 3 million neonatal deaths worldwide, approximately 1.1 million are found in sub-Saharan Africa (WHO, 2012).
Given that vitamin A is critical for proper functioning of the visual system and for maintaining immune defenses, its deficiency remains a public health issue. In Africa, vitamin A deficiency contributes to 23% of child deaths. In 2009, the prevalence of low serum retinol, associated with vitamin A deficiency, was 37.7% in Ethiopia, 49% in the Congo, and 42% in Madagascar. The immediate causes of this deficiency are the low rates of consumption of animal products, the poor bioavailability of vitamin A in cereal-based diets, the consumption of green leaves with low lipid content, and an increased bodily demand for vitamin A owing to the infections that frequently affect African children.
There are equally disturbing levels of zinc deficiencies, which has seriously adverse effects on growth, the risk and severity of infections, and level of immune function. Although the actual prevalence is unclear, zinc deficiency is recognized as one of the main risk factors for morbidity and mortality. It contributes to over 450,000 deaths per year among children under 5 years, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It affected 57% of children under 5 in Senegal, 72% in Burkina Faso, and 41.5% in Nigeria in 2004. The main causes of this deficiency in children are a lack of zinc-rich easily absorbed foods (such as meat, poultry, and seafood) and the over-consumption of foods that inhibit zinc absorption, such as cereals, roots, and tubers, which are among Africa’s staples.
Anemia is quite prevalent in Africa, especially among young children, due mainly to a diet that is low in animal-based foods. In 2006, about 67.6% of children under 5 and overall 83.5 million children were anemic. Through its effects on metabolic processes, iron deficiency retards growth and development. It impairs the immune response and increases susceptibility to infection, delays motor development, and diminishes concentration (impairing cognitive and behavioral capacities). It therefore prevents 40-60% of African children from attaining their full mental capacities. Moreover, of the 26 health risks reported by the WHO Global Burden of Disease project, iron deficiency is ranked ninth in terms of years of life lost.
Maternal Health
According to a UN report,
A woman’s chance of dying or becoming disabled during pregnancy and childbirth is closely connected to her social and economic status, the norms and values of her culture, and the geographic remoteness of her home. Generally speaking, the poorer and more marginalized a woman is, the greater her risk of death. In fact, maternal mortality rates reflect disparities between wealthy and poor countries more than any other measure of health. A woman’s lifetime risk of dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth is 1 in 39 in Sub-Saharan Africa, as compared to 1 in 4,700 in industrialized countries.
The risk for maternal death (during pregnancy or childbirth) in sub-Saharan Africa is 175 times higher than in developed countries and risk for pregnancy-related illnesses and negative consequences after birth is even higher. Poverty, maternal health, and outcomes for the child are all interconnected. Poverty is detrimental to the health of both mother and child.
38.5: The Americas in the 21st Century
38.5.1: Brazil’s Economic Success and Corruption Woes
Brazil, a member of the BRICS group, had one of the world’s fastest growing major economies until 2010, with its economic reforms giving the country new international recognition and influence.
Learning Objective
Connect the allegations of widespread corruption to Brazil’s economic growth in the 2000s
Key Points
In 1985, Brazil entered its contemporary era, ushering in a period of re-democratization after decades of dictatorships and military rule.
The adoption of Brazil’s current Constitution in 1988 completed the process of re-establishment of the democratic institutions. Since then, six presidential terms have elapsed, without rupture to the constitutional order.
In 2002, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the PT (Workers’ Party) won the presidency with more than 60% of the national vote.
His presidency was characterized by major economic growth, increased international prestige, and numerous corruption scandals.
Despite these scandals, Lula’s popularity rose to a record of 80%, the highest for a Brazilian president since the end of the military regime.
One major mark of Lula’s second term were his efforts to expand Brazil’s political influence worldwide, including Brazil’s membership in G20, a global discussion forum of major powers.
On October 31, 2010, Dilma Rousseff, also from the Worker’s Party, was the first woman elected President of Brazil, with her term beginning on January 1, 2011.
Sparked by indignation and frustrations accumulated over decades (against corruption, police brutality, inefficiencies of political establishment, and public service), numerous peaceful protests erupted in Brazil from the middle of first term of Rousseff.
Amidst political and economic crises, evidence that politicians from all main political parties were involved in several bribery and tax evasion schemes, and large street protests for and against her, Rousseff was impeached by the Brazilian Congress in 2016.
She was succeeded by Vice President Michel Temer.
Key Terms
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
A Brazilian politician who served as President of Brazil from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2011. He is a founding member of the Workers’ Party (PT – Partido dos Trabalhadores). He is often regarded as one of the most popular politicians in the history of Brazil and, at the time of his mandate, one of the most popular in the world. Social programs like Bolsa Família and Fome Zero are hallmarks of his time in office. He played a prominent role in recent international relations developments, including the nuclear program of Iran and global warming, and was described as “a man with audacious ambitions to alter the balance of power among nations.”
Dilma Rousseff
A Brazilian economist and politician who was the 36th President of Brazil from 2011 until her impeachment and removal from office on August 31, 2016. She is the first woman to have held the Brazilian presidency and previously served as Chief of Staff to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from 2005 to 2010.
G20
An international forum for the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies. It was founded in 1999 with the aim of studying, reviewing, and promoting high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability. It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization. The participating heads of government or heads of state have periodically conferred at summits since their initial meeting in 2008, and the group also hosts separate meetings of finance ministers and central bank governors.
Background: Re-Democratization of Brazil
Leading up to the 21st century, Brazil saw a return to democratic rule after a period of dictatorship during the Vargas Era (1930–1934 and 1937–1945) and a period of military rule (1964–1985) under Brazilian military government. In January 1985 the process of negotiated transition towards democracy reached its climax with the election of Tancredo Neves of the PMDB party (the party that had always opposed the military regime) as the first civilian president since 1964. He died before being sworn in, and the elected vice president, José Sarney, was sworn in as president in his place.
In 1986 the Sarney government fulfilled Tancredo’s promise of passing in Congress a Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution inherited from the military period, summoning elections for a National Constituent Assembly to draft and adopt a new Constitution for the country. The Constituent Assembly began deliberations in February 1987 and concluded its work on October 5, 1988.
The adoption of Brazil’s current Constitution in 1988 completed the process of re-establishment of the democratic institutions. The new Constitution replaced the authoritarian legislation that still remained in place and that had been inherited from the days of the military regime.
In 1989 the first elections for president by direct popular ballot since the military coup of 1964 were held under the new Constitution, and Fernando Collor was elected. Collor was inaugurated on March 15, 1990. With the inauguration of the first president elected under the 1988 Constitution, the last step in the long process of democratization took place, and the phase of transition was finally over.
Since then, six presidential terms have elapsed, without rupture to the constitutional order: the first term corresponded to the Collor and Franco administrations (Collor was impeached on charges of corruption in 1992 and resigned the presidency. He was succeeded by Franco, his vice president.); the second and third terms corresponded to Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s administration; the fourth and fifth presidential terms corresponded to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration; and the sixth term corresponded to Dilma Rousseff’s first administration. In 2015, Mrs. Rousseff started another term in office, due to end in 2018, but was impeached for violations of budgetary and fiscal responsibility norms in 2016. She was succeeded by Vice President Michel Temer.
Lula Administration
In 2002, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the PT (Workers’ Party) won the presidency with more than 60% of the national vote. In the first months of his mandate, inflation rose perilously, reflecting the markets’ uncertainty about the government’s monetary policy. However, the markets’ confidence in the government was promptly regained as Lula chose to maintain his predecessor’s policies, particularly the continuation of Central Bank’s task of keeping inflation down. After that, the country underwent considerable economic growth and employment expansion. On the other hand, Lula’s mainstream economic policies disappointed his most radical leftist allies, which led to a breakdown of the PT (Workers’ Party) that resulted in the creation of the PSOL (Socialism and Liberty Party).
Several corruption scandals occurred during Lula’s presidency. In 2005, Roberto Jefferson, chairman of the Brazilian Labour Party (PTB), was implicated in a bribery case. As a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was set up, Jefferson testified that the members of parliament were being paid monthly stipends to vote for government-backed legislation. Later, in August of the same year, after further investigation, campaign manager Duda Mendonça admitted that he had used illegal undeclared money to finance the PT electoral victory of 2002. The money in both cases was found to have originated from private sources as well as from the advertising budget of state-owned enterprises headed by political appointees, both laundered through Duda’s Mendonça advertising agency. The collection of these incidents was dubbed the Mensalão scandal. On August 24, 2007, the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) accepted the indictments of 40 individuals relating to the Mensalão scandal, most of whom were former or current federal deputies, and all of whom were still allies of the Brazilian president.
The loss of support resulting from these scandals was outweighed by the president’s popularity among the voters of the lower classes, whose income per capita rose as a consequence of both higher employment, expansion of domestic credit to consumers, and government social welfare programs. The stable and solid economic situation of the country, which Brazil had not experienced in the last 20 years, with fast growth in production both for internal consumers and exportation as well as a soft but noticeable decrease in social inequality, may also partially explain the high popularity of Lula’s administration even after several scandals of corruption involving important politicians connected to Lula and to PT. Hence Lula’s re-election in 2006: After almost winning in the first round, Lula won the run-off against Geraldo Alckmin of the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) by a 20 million vote margin.
Following Lula’s second victory, his approval ratings started to rise again (fueled by the continuity of the economic and social achievements obtained during the first term) to a record of 80%, the highest for a Brazilian president since the end of the military regime. The focus of Lula’s second term was to further stimulate the economy by investments in infrastructure and measures to keep expanding the domestic credit to producers, industry, commerce, and consumers alike.
Another mark of Lula’s second term was his efforts to expand Brazil’s political influence worldwide, specially after G20 (from which Brazil and other emerging economies participate) replaced the G8 as the main world forum of discussions. Lula is an active defender of the Reform of the United Nations Security Council, as Brazil is one of the four nations (the others being Germany, India, and Japan) officially coveting a permanent seat in the council. Lula also helped orchestrate Brazil’s membership in BRICS, the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
Lula is also notorious for seeing himself as a friendly, peacemaker conciliator Head of State, managing to befriend leaders of rival countries from the likes of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from the United States to Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, Cuban former president Fidel Castro, the President of Bolivia Evo Morales, and lastly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fueling protests inside and outside the country due to Ahmadinejad’s polemical anti-Semitic statements. Lula took part in a deal with the governments of Turkey and Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program despite the United States’ desire to strengthen the sanctions against the country, fearing the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
President Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003–2010)
President Lula is often regarded as one of the most popular politicians in the history of Brazil and, at the time of his mandate, one of the most popular in the world. Social programs like Bolsa Família and Fome Zero are hallmarks of his time in office.
Close-up photo of President Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva in front of a Brazilian flag.
Rousseff Administration
On October 31, 2010, Dilma Rousseff, also from the Worker’s Party, was the first woman elected President of Brazil, with her term beginning on January 1, 2011. In her winning speech, Rousseff, who was also a key member in Lula’s administration, made clear that her mission during her term would be to keep enforcing her predecessor’s policies to mitigate poverty and ensure Brazil’s current economic growth.
On June 2011, Rouseff announced a program called “Brasil Sem Miséria” (Brazil Without Poverty). With the ambitious task of drastically reducing absolute poverty in Brazil until the end of her term, which currently afflicts 16 million people in the country or a little less than a tenth of the population. The program involves broadening the reach of the Bolsa Família social welfare program while creating new job opportunities and establishing professional certification programs. In 2012, another program called “Brasil Carinhoso” (Tenderful Brazil) was launched with the objective to provide extra care to all children in the country who live below the poverty threshold.
Although there was criticism from the local and international press regarding the lower-than-expected economic results achieved during her first term ahead of the government and the measures taken to solve it, Rouseff’s approval rates reached levels higher than any other president since the end of the military regime, until a wave of protests struck the country in mid 2013 reflecting dissatisfaction from the people with the current transport, healthcare, and education policies, among other issues that affected the popularity not only of the president, but several other governors and mayors from key areas in the country as well.
In 2014, Rousseff won a second term by a narrow margin, but was unable to to prevent her popularity from falling. In June 2015, her approval dropped to less than 10% after another wave of protests, this time organized by opposition who wanted her ousted from power, amid revelations that numerous politicians, including those from her party, were being investigated for accepting bribes from the state-owned energy company Petrobras from 2003 to 2010, during which time she was on the company’s board of directors. In 2015, a process of impeachment was opened against Rousseff that culminated with her temporarily removal from power in May 12, 2016 with Vice President Michel Temer assuming power temporarily until the final trial was concluded in August 31, 2016, when Rousseff was officially impeached and Temer was sworn in as president for the remainder of the term. During the impeachment process, Brazil hosted the 2016 Summer Olympics.
President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016)
Dilma Rousseff is a Brazilian economist and politician who was the 36th President of Brazil from 2011 until her impeachment and removal from office on August 31, 2016. She is the first woman to have held the Brazilian presidency.
Photo of President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016).
38.5.2: Venezuela and Chavismo
Under the presidency of Hugo Chávez from 1999 to 2013, Venezuela saw sweeping and radical shifts in social policy, marked by a move away from the government officially embracing a free market economy and neoliberal reform principles and a move towards the government embracing socialist income redistribution and social welfare programs.
Learning Objective
Summarize the defining characteristics of Chavismo
Key Points
With many Venezuelans tired of politics in the country, the 1998 elections had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuelan history, with Hugo Chávez winning the presidency on December 6, 1998 with 56.4% of the popular vote.
Following the adoption of a new constitution in 1999, Chávez focused on enacting social reforms as part of his “Bolivarian Revolution.”
Using record-high oil revenues of the 2000s, his government nationalized key industries, created participatory democratic Communal Councils, and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian Missions to expand access to food, housing, healthcare, and education.
Venezuela received high oil profits in the mid-2000s and there were improvements in areas such as poverty, literacy, income equality, and quality of life occurring primarily between 2003 and 2007.
At the end of Chávez’s presidency in the early 2010s, economic actions performed by his government during the preceding decade such as deficit spending and price controls proved to be unsustainable, with Venezuela’s economy faltering while poverty, inflation, and supply shortages in Venezuela increased.
Chávez died of cancer on March 5, 2013 at the age of 58, and was was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro (initially as interim president before he narrowly won the 2013 presidential election).
Maduro continued many of the policies of Chávez, leading to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans protesting over high levels of criminal violence, corruption, hyperinflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods due to policies of the federal government.
Key Terms
Hugo Chávez
A Venezuelan politician who served as the 64th President of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. He was also leader of the Fifth Republic Movement from its foundation in 1997 until 2007, when it merged with several other parties to form the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which he led until 2012. Following the adoption of a new constitution in 1999, he focused on enacting social reforms as part of the Bolivarian Revolution, which is a type of socialist revolution. Using record-high oil revenues of the 2000s, his government nationalized key industries, created participatory democratic Communal Councils, and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian Missions to expand access to food, housing, healthcare, and education.
Nicolás Maduro
A Venezuelan politician who has been the 65th President of Venezuela since 2013. Previously he served under President Hugo Chávez as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2006 to 2013 and as Vice President of Venezuela from 2012 to 2013.
Chavismo
A left-wing political ideology that is based on the ideas, programs, and government style associated with the former president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. It combines elements of socialism, left-wing populism, patriotism, internationalism, bolivarianism, post-democracy, feminism, green politics, and Caribbean and Latin American integration.
Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela
The Bolivarian Revolution is a leftist social movement and political process in Venezuela that was led by late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, the founder of the Fifth Republic Movement and later the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The “Bolivarian Revolution” is named after Simón Bolívar, an early 19th-century Venezuelan and Latin American revolutionary leader, prominent in the Spanish American wars of independence in achieving the independence of most of northern South America from Spanish rule. According to Chávez and other supporters, the “Bolivarian Revolution” seeks to build a mass movement to implement Bolivarianism, popular democracy, economic independence, equitable distribution of revenues, and an end to political corruption in Venezuela. They interpret Bolívar’s ideas from a socialist perspective.
Hugo Chávez
Hugo Chávez, a former paratroop lieutenant-colonel who led an unsuccessful coup d’état in 1992, was elected President in December 1998 on a platform that called for the creation of a “Fifth Republic,” a new constitution, a new name (“the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”), and a new set of relations between socioeconomic classes. In 1999, voters approved a referendum on a new constitution and in 2000, re-elected Chávez, also placing many members of his Fifth Republic Movement party in the National Assembly. Supporters of Chávez called the process symbolized by him the Bolivarian Revolution and were organized into different government-funded groups, including the Bolivarian Circles. Chávez’s first few months in office were dedicated primarily to constitutional reform, while his secondary focus was on immediately allocating more government funds to new social programs.
However, as a recession triggered by historically low oil prices and soaring international interest rates rocked Venezuela, the shrunken federal treasury provided very little of the resources Chávez required for his promised massive populist programs. The economy, which was still staggering, shrunk by 10% and the unemployment rate increased to 20%, the highest level in since the 1980s.
Chávez sharply diverged from previous administrations’ economic policies, terminating their practice of extensively privatizing Venezuela’s state-owned holdings, such as the national social security system, holdings in the aluminum industry, and the oil sector. Chávez worked to reduce Venezuelan oil extraction in the hopes of garnering elevated oil prices and, at least theoretically, elevated total oil revenues, thereby boosting Venezuela’s severely deflated foreign exchange reserves. He extensively lobbied other OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries to cut their production rates as well. As a result of these actions, Chávez became known as a “price hawk” in his dealings with the oil industry and OPEC. Chávez also attempted a comprehensive renegotiation of 60- year-old royalty payment agreements with oil giants Philips Petroleum and ExxonMobil. These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from their extraction of Venezuelan oil. Afterwards, Chávez stated his intention to complete the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil resources.
In April 2002, Chávez was briefly ousted from power in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état attempt following popular demonstrations by his opponents, but he was returned to power after two days as a result of demonstrations by poor Chávez supporters in Caracas, as well as actions by the military.
Chávez also remained in power after an all-out national strike that lasted from December 2002 to February 2003, including a strike/lockout in the state oil company PDVSA. The strike produced severe economic dislocation, with the country’s GDP falling 27% during the first four months of 2003, and costing the oil industry $13.3 billion. In the subsequent decade, the government was forced into several currency devaluations. These devaluations have done little to improve the situation of the Venezuelan people who rely on imported products or locally produced products that depend on imported inputs, while dollar-denominated oil sales account for the vast majority of Venezuela’s exports. The profits of the oil industry have been lost to “social engineering” and corruption, instead of investments needed to maintain oil production.
Chávez survived several further political tests, including an August 2004 recall referendum. He was elected for another term in December 2006 and re-elected for a third term in October 2012. However, he was never sworn in for his third term due to medical complications. Chávez died on March 5, 2013 after a nearly two-year fight with cancer. The presidential election that took place on April 14, 2013, was the first since Chávez took office in 1999 in which his name did not appear on the ballot.
Chavez’s ideas, programs, and style form the basis of “Chavismo,” a political ideology closely associated with Bolivarianism and socialism of the 21st century, which continued but declined after his death. Internationally, Chávez aligned himself with the Marxist–Leninist governments of Fidel and then Raúl Castro in Cuba, and the socialist governments of Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), and Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua). His presidency was seen as a part of the socialist “pink tide” sweeping Latin America. Chávez described his policies as anti-imperialist, being a prominent adversary of the United States’s foreign policy as well as a vocal critic of U.S.-supported neoliberalism and laissez-faire capitalism. He described himself as a Marxist. He supported Latin American and Caribbean cooperation and was instrumental in setting up the pan-regional Union of South American Nations, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Bank of the South, and the regional television network TeleSUR.
Hugo Chávez
Chávez holds up a miniature copy of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution at the 2005 World Social Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Chávez holds up a miniature copy of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution at the 2005 World Social Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Nicolás Maduro
Nicolás Maduro has been the President of Venezuela since April 14, 2013, after winning the second presidential election after Chávez’s death with 50.61% of the votes against the opposition’s candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski, who had 49.12% of the votes. The Democratic Unity Roundtable contested his election as fraudulent, and as a violation of the constitution. However, the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled that under Venezuela’s Constitution, Nicolás Maduro is the legitimate president and was invested as such by the Venezuelan National Assembly.
Beginning in February 2014, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have protested over high levels of criminal violence, corruption, hyperinflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods due to policies of the federal government. Demonstrations and riots have left over 40 fatalities in the unrest between both Chavistas and opposition protesters, and has led to the arrest of opposition leaders such as Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma. Human rights groups have strongly condemned the arrest of Leopoldo López.
In the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, the opposition gained a majority.
The following year, in a July 2016 decree, President Maduro used his executive power to declare a state of economic emergency. The decree could force citizens to work in agricultural fields and farms for 60-day (or longer) periods to supply food to the country. Colombian border crossings have been temporarily opened to allow Venezuelans to purchase food and basic household and health items in Colombia in mid-2016. In September 2016, a study published in the Spanish-language Diario Las Américas indicated that 15% of Venezuelans are eating “food waste discarded by commercial establishments.”
38.5.3: Democracy in Chile and Argentina
Chile and Argentina both transitioned from military dictatorships to democratic regimes in the 1980s, leading to relative political stability in both countries in the 21st century.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the democratic systems currently in place in Chile and Argentina
Key Points
Chileans elected a new president and the majority of members of a two-chamber congress on December 14, 1989, thus ending the rule of the oppressive military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin, the candidate of a coalition of 17 political parties called the Concertación, received an absolute majority of votes (55%).
The Concertación coalition has continued to dominate Chilean politics for the last two decades: Aylwin was succeeded by another Christian Democrat, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle (son of Frei-Montalva), leading the same coalition for a 6-year term.
Center-right investor and businessman Sebastián Piñera of the National Renewal assumed the presidency on March 11, 2010, after Bachelet’s term expired, with Bachelet returning to office once again after his term limits ended.
On October 30, 1983, Argentines went to the polls to choose a president; vice-president; and national, provincial, and local officials in elections deemed by international observers to be fair and honest, thus beginning the country’s transition to a democratic government.
Since then, Argentina had seen several democratically elected presidents, including Carlos Menem, who embraced neo-liberal policies, and De la Rúa, who kept Menem’s economic plan despite economic crisis, which led to growing social discontent.
Néstor Kirchner was elected as the new president in 2002, boosting neo-Keynesian economic policies and ending the economic crisis, attaining significant fiscal and trade surpluses, and steep GDP growth.
He did not run for reelection, promoting instead the candidacy of his wife, senator Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was elected in 2007 and reelected in 2011.
On 22 November 2015, after a tie in the first round of presidential elections on 25 October, Mauricio Macri became the first democratically elected non-radical or peronist president since 1916.
Key Terms
Trial of the Juntas
The judicial trial of the members of the de facto military government that ruled Argentina during the dictatorship of the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional (el proceso), which lasted from 1976 to 1983.
Peronist
A person who follows the Argentinian political movement based on the ideology and legacy of former President Juan Domingo Perón and his second wife, Eva Perón. The Justicialist Party derives its name from the concept of social justice. Since its inception in 1946, candidates from his party have won 9 of the 12 presidential elections from which they have not been banned. As of 2016, Perón was the only Argentine to have been elected president three times.
Concertación
A coalition of center-left political parties in Chile, founded in 1988. Presidential candidates under its banner won every election from when military rule ended in 1990 until the conservative candidate Sebastián Piñera won the Chilean presidential election in 2010. In 2013 it was replaced by the New Majority coalition.
“disappearances”
In international human rights law, this occurs when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law.
Chile’s Transition to Democracy
The Chilean transition to democracy began when a constitution establishing a transition itinerary was approved in a vote. From March 11, 1981 to March 1990, several organic constitutional laws were approved leading to the final restoration of democracy. After the 1988 plebiscite, the 1980 Constitution, still in force today, was amended to ease provisions for future amendments to the constitution, create more seats in the senate, diminish the role of the National Security Council, and equalize the number of civilian and military members (four members each).
Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin served from 1990 to 1994 and was succeeded by another Christian Democrat, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle (son of Frei-Montalva), leading the same coalition for a 6-year term. Ricardo Lagos Escobar of the Socialist Party and the Party for Democracy led the Concertación (a coalition of center-left political parties in Chile, founded in 1988) to a narrower victory in the 2000 presidential elections. His term ended on March 11, 2006 when Michelle Bachelet of the Socialist Party took office. Center-right investor and businessman Sebastián Piñera, of the National Renewal, assumed the presidency on March 11, 2010 after Bachelet’s term expired.
Part of the transition from the military dictatorship to democracy entailed investigating the human right’s abuses under the previous regimes. In February 1991 Aylwin created the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, which released in February 1991 the Rettig Report on human rights violations committed during the military rule. This report counted 2,279 cases of “disappearances” that could be proved and registered. Of course, the very nature of “disappearances” made such investigations very difficult. The same issue arose several years later with the Valech Report released in 2004, which counted almost 30,000 victims of torture, among testimonies from 35,000 persons.
Chile in the 21st Century
The Concertación has continued to dominate Chilean politics for last two decades. Frei Ruiz-Tagle was succeeded in 2000 by Socialist Ricardo Lagos, who won the presidency in an unprecedented runoff election against Joaquín Lavín of the rightist Alliance for Chile.
In January 2006 Chileans elected their first female president, Michelle Bachelet, of the Socialist Party. She was sworn in on March 11, 2006, extending the Concertación coalition governance for another four years.
Chile signed an association agreement with the European Union in 2002; signed an extensive free trade agreement with the United States in 2003, and signed an extensive free trade agreement with South Korea in 2004, expecting a boom in the import and export of local produce and expecting to become a regional trade-hub. Continuing the coalition’s free-trade strategy, in August 2006 President Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In October 2006, Bachelet promulgated a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4), also signed under Lagos’ presidency. Regionally, she has signed bilateral free-trade agreements with Panama, Peru, and Colombia.
After 20 years, Chile went in a new direction marked by the win of center-right Sebastián Piñera in the Chilean presidential election of 2009–2010. On February 27, 2010, Chile was struck by an 8.8 MW earthquake, the fifth largest ever recorded at the time. More than 500 people died (most from the ensuing tsunami) and over a million people lost their homes. The earthquake was also followed by multiple aftershocks. Initial damage estimates were in the range of US$15–30 billion, around 10 to 15 percent of Chile’s real gross domestic product.
Chile achieved global recognition for the successful rescue of 33 trapped miners in 2010. On August 5, 2010 the access tunnel collapsed at the San José copper and gold mine in the Atacama Desert near Copiapó in northern Chile, trapping 33 men 2,300 feet below ground. A rescue effort organized by the Chilean government located the miners 17 days later. All 33 men were brought to the surface two months later on October 13, 2010 over a period of almost 24 hours, an effort that was carried on live television around the world.
Good macroeconomic indicators failed to halt the social dissatisfaction claiming for a better and fairer education, which was traced to massive protests demanding more democratic and equitable institutions and a permanent disapproval of Piñera’s administration.
Due to term limits, Sebastián Piñera did not stand for re-election in 2013, and his term expired in March 2014 resulting in Michelle Bachelet returning to office. In 2015 a series of corruption scandals became public, threatening the credibility of the political and business class.
Presidents of Chile
Five presidents of Chile since Transition to democracy (1990–2018), celebrating the Bicentennial of Chile.
Photo of the five most recent presidents on Chile standing side by side, waving Chilean flags.
Contemporary Era in Argentina
Argentina also experienced a transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy in the 1980s. Raúl Alfonsín won the 1983 elections campaigning for the prosecution of those responsible for human rights violations during the military dictatorship. The Trial of the Juntas and other martial courts sentenced all the coup’s leaders but, under military pressure, Alfonsín also enacted the Full Stop and Due Obedience laws, which halted prosecutions further down the chain of command. The worsening economic crisis and hyperinflation reduced his popular support and the Peronist Carlos Menem won the 1989 election. Soon after, riots forced Alfonsín to an early resignation.
Menem embraced neo-liberal policies: a fixed exchange rate, business deregulation, privatizations ,and dismantling of protectionist barriers normalized the economy for a while. He pardoned the officers who had been sentenced during Alfonsín’s government. The 1994 Constitutional Amendment allowed Menem to be elected for a second term. The economy began to decline in 1995, with increasing unemployment and recession; led by Fernando de la Rúa, the UCR (Radical Civic Union, a centrist social-liberal political party) returned to the presidency in the 1999 elections.
De la Rúa kept Menem’s economic plan despite the worsening crisis, which led to growing social discontent. A massive capital flight was responded to with a freezing of bank accounts, generating further turmoil. The December 2001 riots forced him to resign. Congress appointed Eduardo Duhalde as acting president, who repealed the fixed exchange rate established by Menem. By the late 2002 the economic crisis began to recess, but the assassination of two protestors by the police caused political commotion, prompting Duhalde to move elections forward. Néstor Kirchner was elected as the new president.
Boosting the neo-Keynesian economic policies laid by Duhalde, Kirchner ended the economic crisis attaining significant fiscal and trade surpluses, and steep GDP growth. Under his administration Argentina restructured its defaulted debt with an unprecedented discount of about 70% on most bonds, paid off debts with the International Monetary Fund, purged the military of officers with doubtful human rights records, nullified and voided the Full Stop and Due Obedience laws, ruled them as unconstitutional, and resumed legal prosecution of the Juntas’ crimes. He did not run for reelection, promoting instead the candidacy of his wife, senator Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was elected in 2007 and reelected in 2011.
On November 22, 2015, after a tie in the first round of presidential elections on October 25, Mauricio Macri won the first ballotage in Argentina’s history, beating Front for Victory candidate Daniel Scioli and becoming president-elect. Macri is the first democratically elected non-radical or peronist president since 1916, although he had the support of the first mentioned. He took office on December 10, 2015. In April 2016, the Macri Government introduced austerity measures intended to tackle inflation and public deficits.
Cristina Fernández and Néstor Kirchner
Cristina Fernández and Néstor Kirchner during the bicentennial of Chile. The couple has occupied the presidency of Argentina for 12 years, he from 2003 to 2007 and she from 2007 to 2015.
Photo of Cristina Fernández and Néstor Kirchner during the Bicentenario. She is standing on the left, holding her hand to her chest, he is standing next to her, hands folded in front of him.
38.5.4: Mexico’s Transition to True Democracy
The Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), the political party that controlled national and state politics in Mexico since 1929, was finally voted out of power in 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox Quesada, the candidate of the National Action Party (PAN).
Learning Objective
Determine to what extent Mexico has achieved a democratic political system
Key Points
A new era began in Mexico following the fraudulent 1988 presidential elections.
The Institutional Revolutionary Party barely won the presidential election, and President Carlos Salinas de Gortari began implementing sweeping neoliberal reforms in Mexico.
These reforms required the amendment of the Constitution, especially curtailing the power of the Mexican state to regulate foreign business enterprises, but also lifted the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico.
Mexico’s economy was further integrated with that of United States and Canada after the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA agreement began lowering trade barriers in 1994.
Seven decades of PRI rule ended in 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN).
His successor, Felipe Calderón, also of the PAN, embarked on a war against drug mafias in Mexico, one which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
In the face of extremely violent drug wars, the PRI returned to power in 2012, promising that it had reformed itself.
Key Terms
North American Free Trade Agreement
An agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the Canada and the United States. The goal of the agreement was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The implementation of the agreement on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico’s exports to the United States and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico.
Zapatista Army of National Liberation
A revolutionary leftist political and militant group based in Chiapas, the southernmost state of Mexico. Since 1994 the group has been in a declared war “against the Mexican state” and against military, paramilitary, and corporate incursions into Chiapas. This war has been primarily defensive. In recent years, it has focused on a strategy of civil resistance. The group’s main body is made up of mostly rural indigenous people, but includes some supporters in urban areas and internationally.
Institutional Revolutionary Party
A Mexican political party founded in 1929 that held power uninterruptedly in the country for 71 years from 1929 to 2000.
Background: Decline of the PRI
A phenomenon of the 1980s in Mexico was the growth of organized political opposition to de facto one-party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Spanish: Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI), which held power uninterruptedly in the country for 71 years from 1929 to 2000. The National Action Party (PAN), founded in 1939 and until the 1980s a marginal political party and not a serious contender for power, began to gain voters, particularly in Mexico’s north. They made gains in local elections initially, but in 1986 the PAN candidate for the governorship of Chihuahua had a good chance of winning.
The 1988 Mexican general election was pivotal in Mexican history. The PRI’s candidate was Carlos Salinas de Gortari, an economist who was educated at Harvard and who had never held an elected office. Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas, the son of former President Lázaro Cárdenas, broke with the PRI and ran as a candidate of the Democratic Current, later forming into the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD). The PAN candidate Manuel Clouthier ran a clean campaign in long-standing pattern of the party.
The election was marked by irregularities on a massive scale. The Ministry of the Interior administered the electoral process, which meant in practice that the PRI controlled it. During the vote count, the government computers were said to have crashed, something the government called “a breakdown of the system.” One observer said, “For the ordinary citizen, it was not the computer network but the Mexican political system that had crashed.” When the computers were said to be running again after a considerable delay, the election results they recorded were an extremely narrow victory for Salinas (50.7%), Cárdenas (31.1%), and Clouthier (16.8%). Cárdenas was widely seen to have won the election, but Salinas was declared the winner. There might have been violence in the wake of such fraudulent results, but Cárdenas did not call for it, “sparing the country a possible civil war.” Years later, former Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid (1982–88) was quoted in the New York Times stating that the results were indeed fraudulent.
Salinas embarked on a program of neoliberal reforms that fixed the exchange rate, controlled inflation, and culminated with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into effect on January 1, 1994. The same day, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) started a two-week-long armed rebellion against the federal government, and has continued as a non-violent opposition movement against neoliberalism and globalization.
In 1994, Salinas was succeeded by Ernesto Zedillo, followed by the Mexican peso crisis and a $50 billion bailout by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Major macroeconomic reforms were initiated by President Zedillo, and the economy rapidly recovered and growth peaked at almost 7% by the end of 1999.
President Vicente Fox Quesada (2000–2006)
Emphasizing the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize the tax system and labor laws, integrate with the U.S. economy, and allow private investment in the energy sector, Vicente Fox Quesada, the candidate of the National Action Party (PAN), was elected the 69th president of Mexico on July 2, 2000, ending PRI’s 71-year-long control of the office. Though Fox’s victory was due in part to popular discontent with decades of unchallenged PRI hegemony, Fox’s opponent, president Zedillo, conceded defeat on the night of the election—a first in Mexican history. A further sign of the quickening of Mexican democracy was the fact that PAN failed to win a majority in both chambers of Congress—a situation that prevented Fox from implementing his reform pledges. Nonetheless, the transfer of power in 2000 was quick and peaceful.
Fox was a very strong candidate, but an ineffective president who was weakened by PAN’s minority status in Congress. Historian Philip Russell summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of Fox as president:
Marketed on television, Fox made a far better candidate than he did president. He failed to take charge and provide cabinet leadership, failed to set priorities, and turned a blind eye to alliance building….By 2006, as political scientist Soledad Loaeza noted, ‘the eager candidate became a reluctant president who avoided tough choices and appeared hesitant and unable to hide the weariness caused by the responsibilities and constraints of the office. …’ He had little success in fighting crime. Even though he maintained the macroeconomic stability inherited from his predecessor, economic growth barely exceeded the rate of population increase. Similarly, the lack of fiscal reform left tax collection at a rate similar to that of Haiti….Finally, during Fox’s administration, only 1.4 million formal-sector jobs were created, leading to massive immigration to the United States and an explosive increase in informal employment.
President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (2006–2012)
President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (PAN) took office after one of the most hotly contested elections in recent Mexican history; Calderón won by such a small margin (.56% or 233,831 votes) that the runner-up, Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), contested the results.
Despite imposing a cap on salaries of high-ranking public servants, Calderón ordered a raise on the salaries of the Federal Police and the Mexican armed forces on his first day as president.
Calderón’s government also ordered massive raids on drug cartels upon assuming office in December 2006 in response to an increasingly deadly spate of violence in his home state of Michoacán. The decision to intensify drug enforcement operations led to an ongoing conflict between the federal government and the Mexican drug cartels.
President Enrique Peña Nieto (2006-Present)
On July 1, 2012, Enrique Peña Nieto was elected president of Mexico with 38% of the vote. He is a former governor of the state of Mexico and a member of the PRI. His election returned the PRI to power after 12 years of PAN rule. He was officially sworn into office on December 1, 2012.
The Pacto por México was a cross party alliance that called for the accomplishment of 95 goals. It was signed on December 2, 2012 by the leaders of the three main political parties in Chapultepec Castle. The Pact has been lauded by international pundits as an example for solving political gridlock and for effectively passing institutional reforms. Among other legislation, it called for education reform, banking reform, fiscal reform, and telecommunications reform, all of which were eventually passed. Most importantly, the Pact wanted a revaluation of PEMEX. This ultimately resulted in the dissolution of the agreement when in December 2013 the center-left PRD refused to collaborate with the legislation penned by the center-right PAN and PRI that ended PEMEX’s monopoly and allowed for foreign investment in Mexico’s oil industry.
Enrique Peña Nieto
Current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto with President of China Xi Jinping
Photo of President Enrique Peña Nieto with President of China Xi Jinping, standing, looking at each other with smiles, toasting with a glass of white wine.
38.5.5: Drug Cartels
Drug cartels have been a major force in contemporary Latin America, sometimes rivaling the power of some nations’ governments and military, and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths through violence between competing cartels and between cartels and governments.
Learning Objective
Examine the powerful role drug cartels play across Latin America
Key Points
A drug cartel is any criminal organization with the intention of supplying drug trafficking operations, and can range from loosely managed agreements among various drug traffickers to formalized commercial enterprises with billions of dollars in annual profits.
Drug cartels came to power in the 1970s and 80s, controlling the vast majority of illegal drug trafficking throughout Latin America and the United States.
Pablo Escobar with his Medellín Cartel supplied an estimated 80% of the cocaine smuggled into the United States at the height of his career, turning over US $21.9 billion a year in personal income.
Each year from 1982 to 1992 Forbes magazine ranked Escobar as one of the top ten most powerful people in the World and he was considered by the Colombian Government and the U.S. Government to be “The unofficial dictator of Colombia.”
The Mexican drug cartels began with Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (“The Godfather”), who founded the Guadalajara Cartel in 1980 and controlled most of the illegal drug trade in Mexico and the trafficking corridors across the Mexico–U.S. border throughout the 80s.
Since then there have numerous cartels, often violently vying for power, with one of the largest in recent years being the Gulf Cartel.
The Mexican Drug War is an ongoing war between the Mexican Government and various drug trafficking syndicates, started in 2006 when the Mexican military began to intervene in drug trafficking violence.
Estimates set the death toll of the Mexican Drug War above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.
Key Terms
Pablo Escobar
A Colombian drug lord, drug trafficker, and narco-terrorist. His cartel supplied an estimated 80% of the cocaine smuggled into the United States at the height of his career, turning over US $21.9 billion a year in personal income. He was often called “The King of Cocaine” and was the wealthiest criminal in history, with an estimated known net worth of US $30 billion by the early 1990s (equivalent to about $55 billion as of 2016), making him one of the richest men in the world at his prime.
Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo
A convicted Mexican drug lord who formed the Guadalajara Cartel in the 1980s, and controlled almost all of the drug trafficking in Mexico and the corridors along the Mexico–U.S. border.
drug cartel
Any criminal organization with the intention of supplying drug trafficking operations. They range from loosely managed agreements among various drug traffickers to formalized commercial enterprises.
Drug Cartels
A drug cartel is any criminal organization with the intention of supplying drug trafficking operations. They range from loosely managed agreements among various drug traffickers to formalized commercial enterprises. The term was applied when the largest trafficking organizations reached an agreement to coordinate the production and distribution of cocaine. Since that agreement was broken up, drug cartels are no longer actually cartels, but the term stuck and it is now popularly used to refer to any criminal narcotics related organization.
The basic structure of a drug cartel is as follows:
Falcons (Spanish: Halcones): Considered the “eyes and ears” of the streets, the “falcons” are the lowest rank in any drug cartel. They are responsible for supervising and reporting the activities of the police, the military, and rival groups.
Hitmen (Spanish: Sicarios): The armed group within the drug cartel, responsible for carrying out assassinations, kidnappings, thefts, extortions, operating protection rackets, and defending their plaza (turf) from rival groups and the military.
Lieutenants (Spanish: Lugartenientes): The second highest position in the drug cartel organization, responsible for supervising the hitmen and falcons within their own territory. They are allowed to carry out low-profile executions without permission from their bosses.
Drug lords (Spanish: Capos): The highest position in any drug cartel, responsible for supervising the entire drug industry, appointing territorial leaders, making alliances, and planning high-profile executions.
It is worth noting that there are other operating groups within the drug cartels. For example, the drug producers and suppliers, although not considered in the basic structure, are critical operators of any drug cartel, along with the financiers and money launderers. In addition, the arms suppliers operate in a completely different circle, and are technically not considered part of the cartel’s logistics.
Mexican Drug Cartels
Origins
The birth of most Mexican drug cartels is traced to former Mexican Judicial Federal Police agent Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (“The Godfather”), who founded the Guadalajara Cartel in 1980 and controlled most of the illegal drug trade in Mexico and the trafficking corridors across the Mexico–U.S. border along with Juan Garcia Abrego throughout the 1980s. He started off by smuggling marijuana and opium into the United States and was the first Mexican drug chief to link up with Colombia’s cocaine cartels in the 1980s. Through his connections, Félix Gallardo became the point man for the Medellín Cartel, which was run by Pablo Escobar. This was easily accomplished because Félix Gallardo had already established an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers.
There were no cartels at that time in Mexico. Félix Gallardo oversaw all operations; there was just him, his cronies, and the politicians who sold him protection. However, the Guadalajara Cartel suffered a major blow in 1985 when the group’s co-founder Rafael Caro Quintero was captured and later convicted for the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena. Félix Gallardo afterwards kept a low profile and in 1987 he moved with his family to Guadalajara.
“The Godfather” then decided to divide up the trade he controlled, as it would be more efficient and less likely to be brought down in one law enforcement swoop. In a way, he was privatizing the Mexican drug business while sending it back underground, to be run by bosses who were less well known or not yet known by the DEA. Gallardo convened the nation’s top drug traffickers at a house in the resort of Acapulco where he designated the plazas or territories.
The Tijuana route would go to the Arellano Felix brothers. The Ciudad Juárez route would go to the Carrillo Fuentes family. Miguel Caro Quintero would run the Sonora corridor. The control of the Matamoros, Tamaulipas corridor—then becoming the Gulf Cartel—would be left undisturbed to its founder Juan García Ábrego. Meanwhile, Joaquín Guzmán Loera and Ismael Zambada García would take over Pacific coast operations, becoming the Sinaloa Cartel. Guzmán and Zambada brought veteran Héctor Luis Palma Salazar back into the fold. Félix Gallardo still planned to oversee national operations, as he maintained important connections, but he would no longer control all details of the business.
Félix Gallardo was arrested on 8 April 1989.
Gulf Cartel
The Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo or CDG), based in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, has been one of Mexico’s two dominant cartels in recent years. In the late 1990s, it hired a private mercenary army (an enforcer group now called Los Zetas), which in 2006 stepped up as a partner but, in February 2010, their partnership was dissolved and both groups engaged in widespread violence across several border cities of Tamaulipas state, turning several border towns into “ghost towns.”
The CDG was strong at the beginning of 2011, holding off several Zetas incursions into its territory. However, as the year progressed, internal divisions led to intra-cartel battles in Matamoros and Reynosa, Tamaulipas state. The infighting resulted in several arrests and deaths in Mexico and in the United States. The CDG has since broken apart, and it appears that one faction, known as Los Metros, has overpowered its rival Los Rojos faction and is now asserting its control over CDG operations.
Mexican Drug War
The Mexican Drug War is the Mexican theater of the United States’ War on Drugs, involving an ongoing war between the Mexican Government and various drug trafficking syndicates. Since 2006, when the Mexican military began to intervene, the government’s principal goal has been to reduce the drug-related violence. Additionally, the Mexican government has claimed that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on preventing drug trafficking, which is left to U.S. functionaries.
Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for several decades, their influence has increased since the demise of the Colombian Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market and in 2007 controlled 90% of the cocaine entering the United States. Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, has led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.
Although violence between drug cartels had been occurring long before the war began, the government held a generally passive stance regarding cartel violence in the 1990s and early 2000s. That changed on December 11, 2006, when newly elected President Felipe Calderón sent 6,500 federal troops to the state of Michoacán to end drug violence there (Operation Michoacán). This action is regarded as the first major operation against organized crime, and is generally viewed as the starting point of the war between the government and the drug cartels. As time progressed, Calderón continued to escalate his anti-drug campaign, in which there are now about 45,000 troops involved in addition to state and federal police forces. In 2010 Calderón said that the cartels seek “to replace the government” and “are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws.”
As of 2011, Mexico’s military captured 11,544 people who were believed to have been involved with the cartels and organized crime. In the year prior, 28,000 individuals were arrested on drug-related charges. The decrease in eradication and drug seizures, as shown in statistics calculated by federal authorities, poorly reflects Calderón’s security agenda. Since the war began, over forty thousand people have been killed as a result of cartel violence. During Calderón’s presidential term, the murder rate of Mexico increased dramatically.
Medellín Cartel
The Medellín Cartel was a Colombian drug cartel originating in the city of Medellín. The drug cartel operated from the mid-1970s until the early-1990s in Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Peru, and the United States, as well as in Canada and Europe. It was founded and run by Ochoa Vázquez brothers Jorge Luis, Juan David, and Fabio, together with Pablo Escobar, Carlos Lehder, and José Gonzalo Rodríguez Gacha. By 1993, the resistance group, Los Pepes (or PEPES), controlled by the Cali Cartel, and the Colombian government, in collaboration with the Cali Cartel, right-wing paramilitary groups, and the U.S. government, had dismantled the Medellín Cartel by imprisoning or assassinating its members.
At the height of Pablo Escobar’s reign of the Medellín Cartel, and for 20 years, Pablo Escobar was the most powerful and richest drug lord in the world. And for 25 years, Escobar was also the most violent, ruthless, deadliest, dangerous, and feared drug lord in the World. From 1981-1993, Pablo Escobar was the 7th richest person in the World, Escobar had an astronomical and amazing net worth of $30-$42 Billion (which is equivalent to $107 Billion as of 2017). Escobar became Colombia’s top drug kingpin in 1976, but he became the world’s top drug kingpin in 1981, around that time Pablo Escobar became the most powerful and dangerous man in Colombia, and during Pablo Escobar’s regime, the Medellín Cartel became bigger and more powerful than the Colombian Government.
Escobar had more power, man power, weapons, influences, resources, and reach than the Colombian government and the Colombian military. For almost 2 decades, Escobar was responsible for ordering hundreds of atrocities, such as 1,300 bombings all over Colombia. Escobar’s most notorious bombings were the Avianca Flight 203 bombing, which killed 110 people; the DAS Building bombing, which killed 75 people and severely injured over 1,800 people; a truck bomb that killed a total of 489 people and severely injured 3,000 people; a bus bomb that killed a total of 260 people and wounded around 1,000 people; a series of 7 car bombs in the same day, which killed a total of 194 people and injured nearly 800 people; and a car bomb that killed 137 adults, 112 children, and severely injured 600 more people. Over a 20 year period, Escobar ordered the murders of at least 110,000 people.
Pablo Escobar
At the height of his reign of the Medellín Cartel, and for 20 years, Pablo Escobar was the most powerful and richest drug lord in the world.
A mugshot of Pablo Escobar, smiling.
38.5.6: The United States in the 21st Century
The beginning of the 21st century saw the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda, subsequent U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and in 2008, the worst U.S. economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Learning Objective
Describe the role of the United States in the 21st century
Key Points
The 21st century in American began with the highly-contested election of Republican George W. Bush.
The September 11 terrorist attacks occurred eight months into Bush’s first term as president, to which he responded with what became known as the Bush Doctrine: launching a “War on Terror,” an international military campaign that included the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq War in 2003.
In 2008, the unpopularity of President Bush and the Iraq war, along with the 2008 financial crisis, led to the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American President of the United States.
Obama’s domestic initiatives included the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which by means of large reforms to the American healthcare system, created a National Health Insurance program.
President Obama eventually withdrew combat troops from Iraq, and shifted the country’s efforts in the War on Terror to Afghanistan, where a troop surge was initiated in 2009.
In 2010, due to continued public discontent with the economic situation, unemployment, and federal spending, Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives and reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate.
On November 8, 2016, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to become the President-elect of the United States, taking office on January 20, 2017.
Key Terms
George W. Bush
An American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009. He was also the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. The September 11 terrorist attacks occurred eight months into his first term as president. He responded with what became known as the Bush Doctrine: launching a “War on Terror,” an international military campaign that included the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq War in 2003. He also promoted policies on the economy, health care, education, Social Security reform, and amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
Barack Obama
An American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He is the first African American to have served as president, as well as the first born outside the contiguous United States. During his first two years in office, he signed many landmark bills. Main reforms were the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
Great Recession
A period of general economic decline observed in world markets during the late 2000s and early 2010s. The scale and timing of the recession varied from country to country. In terms of overall impact, the International Monetary Fund concluded that it was the worst global recession since World War II.
9/11
A series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage and $3 trillion in total costs.
George W. Bush
In 2000, Republican George W. Bush was elected president in one of the closest and most controversial elections in U.S. history. Early in his term, his administration approved education reform and a large across-the-board tax cut aimed at stimulating the economy. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States embarked on the Global War on Terrorism, starting with the 2001 war in Afghanistan. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, which deposed the controversial regime of Saddam Hussein, but also resulted in a prolonged conflict that would continue over the course of the decade. The Homeland Security Department was formed and the controversial Patriot Act was passed to bolster domestic efforts against terrorism. In 2006, criticism over the handling of the disastrous Hurricane Katrina (which struck the Gulf Coast region in 2005), political scandals, and the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War helped the Democrats gain control of Congress. Saddam Hussein was later tried, charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and executed by hanging. In 2007, President Bush ordered a troop surge in Iraq, which ultimately led to reduced casualties.
9/11 and the Iraq War
On September 11, 2001 (“9/11”), the United States was struck by a terrorist attack when 19 al-Qaeda hijackers commandeered four airliners to be used in suicide attacks. They intentionally crashed two into both twin towers of the World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon, killing 2,937 victims—206 aboard the three airliners, 2,606 who were in the World Trade Center and on the ground, and 125 who were in the Pentagon. The fourth plane was re-taken by the passengers and crew of the aircraft. While they were not able to land the plane safely, they were able to re-take control of the aircraft and crash it into an empty field in Pennsylvania, killing all 44 people including the four terrorists on board, thereby saving whatever target the terrorists were aiming for. All in all, a total of 2,977 people perished in the attacks. In response, President George W. Bush on September 20 announced a “War on Terror.” On October 7, 2001, the United States and NATO then invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime, which had provided safe haven to al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden.
9/11
The former World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan during September 11 attacks in 2001 before their collapse.
The former World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan during September 11 attacks in 2001. Both are on fire and smoking heavily.
The federal government established new domestic efforts to prevent future attacks. The controversial USA PATRIOT Act increased the government’s power to monitor communications and removed legal restrictions on information sharing between federal law enforcement and intelligence services. A cabinet-level agency called the Department of Homeland Security was created to lead and coordinate federal counter-terrorism activities. Some of these anti-terrorism efforts, particularly the U.S. government’s handling of detainees at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, led to allegations against the U.S. government of human rights violations.
In 2003, from March 19 to May 1, the United States launched an invasion of Iraq, which led to the collapse of the Iraq government and the eventual capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, with whom the United States had long-standing tense relations. The reasons for the invasion cited by the Bush administration included the spreading of democracy, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and the liberation of the Iraqi people. Despite some initial successes early in the invasion, the continued Iraq War fueled international protests and gradually saw domestic support decline as many people began to question whether or not the invasion was worth the cost.
In 2008, the unpopularity of President Bush and the Iraq War, along with the 2008 financial crisis, led to the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American President of the United States. After his election, Obama reluctantly continued the war effort in Iraq until August 31, 2010, when he declared that combat operations had ended. However, 50,000 American soldiers and military personnel were kept in Iraq to assist Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces, and work on counter-terrorism until December 15, 2011, when the war was declared formally over and the last troops left the country.
Great Recession
In September 2008, the United States, and most of Europe, entered the longest post-World War II recession, often called the “Great Recession.” Multiple overlapping crises were involved, especially the housing market crisis, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices, an automotive industry crisis, rising unemployment, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The financial crisis threatened the stability of the entire economy in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers failed and other giant banks were in grave danger. Starting in October, the federal government lent $245 billion to financial institutions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was passed by bipartisan majorities and signed by Bush.
Following his election victory by a wide electoral margin in November 2008, Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was a $787 billion economic stimulus aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening recession. Obama, like Bush, took steps to rescue the auto industry and prevent future economic meltdowns. These included a bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, putting ownership temporarily in the hands of the government, and the “cash for clunkers” program, which temporarily boosted new car sales.
The recession officially ended in June 2009, and the economy slowly began to expand once again. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.1% in October 2009 after surging from 4.7% in November 2007, and returned to 5.0% as of October 2015. However, overall economic growth has remained weaker in the 2010s compared to expansions in previous decades.
Recent Events
From 2009 to 2010, the 111th Congress passed major legislation such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act, which were signed into law by President Obama. Following the 2010 midterm elections, which resulted in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratic-controlled Senate, Congress presided over a period of elevated gridlock and heated debates over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, extend tax cuts for citizens making over $250,000 annually, and many other key issues. In the fall of 2012, Mitt Romney challenged Barack Obama for the presidency. Congressional gridlock continued as Congressional Republicans’ call for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—popularly known as “Obamacare”—along with other various demands, resulted in the first government shutdown since the Clinton administration and almost led to the first default on U.S. debt since the 19th century. As a result of growing public frustration with both parties in Congress since the beginning of the decade, Congressional approval ratings fell to record lows, with only 11% of Americans approving as of October 2013.
Obamacare
President Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) in 2010.
Several men and women standing around President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act sitting at a desk.
Other major events that have occurred during the 2010s include the rise of new political movements, such as the conservative Tea Party movement and the liberal Occupy movement. There was also unusually severe weather during the early part of the decade. In 2012, over half the country experienced record drought and Hurricane Sandy caused massive damage to coastal areas of New York and New Jersey.
The ongoing debate over the issue of rights for the LGBT community, most notably that of same-sex marriage, began to shift in favor of same-sex couples, and has been reflected in dozens of polls released in the early part of the decade. In 2012, President Obama became the first president to openly support same-sex marriage, and the 2013 Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Windsor provided for federal recognition of same-sex unions. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationally in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Political debate has continued over issues such as tax reform, immigration reform, income inequality and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly with regards to global terrorism, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and an accompanying climate of Islamophobia.
After unprecedented media coverage and a hostile presidential campaign, businessman Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, leading to Republicans gaining control of all branches of government. His first weeks in office have largely been characterized by a series of executive orders restricting abortion rights and the effects of the Affordable Care Act, the construction of the pipelines in North Dakota and a wall along the Mexican-American border, and the refusal to admit citizens of several Muslim majority countries.
38.6: Global Concerns
38.6.1: The International Framework in the 21st Century
Although international relations in the 21st
century are increasingly characterized by the formation of international and
regional institutions, their effectiveness alongside the sovereign actions of
states has been questioned.
Learning Objective
Characterize the international system as it
stands today
Key Points
The beginning of
the 21st century has thus far been marked by the rise of a global economy and
Third World consumerism, mistrust in government, deepening global concern over
terrorism, and an increase in the power of private enterprise.
The United
States emerged as the sole superpower after the Cold War, but China simultaneously
began its rise and the BRICS countries aimed to create more balance in the
global political and economic spectrum.
After the Cold
War, the UN saw a radical expansion in its peacekeeping duties, taking on more
missions in ten years than it had in the previous four decades.
Though the UN
Charter had been written primarily to prevent aggression by one nation against
another, in the early 1990s the UN faced a number of simultaneous, serious
crises within nations such as Somalia, Haiti, Mozambique, and the former
Yugoslavia that tested its founding principles and institutional effectiveness.
The World Trade
Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization that regulates
international trade. Due to an impasse in negotiations within the WTO between
developed and developing countries, there have been an increasing number of
bilateral free trade agreements between governments.
The renewed academic interest in regionalism, the emergence of new
regional formations, and international trade agreements like NAFTA and the
development of a European Single Market demonstrate the upgraded importance of regional
political cooperation and economic competitiveness.
Key Terms
confidence- and security-building measures
Actions taken to reduce fear of attack by two or more parties in a situation of tension with or without physical conflict.
Confidence- and security-building measures emerged from attempts by the Cold
War superpowers and their military alliances (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
and the Warsaw Pact) to avoid nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.
However, these measures also exist at other levels of conflict and in different
regions of the world.
Short Twentieth Century
Originally proposed by Ivan Berend of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences but defined by Eric Hobsbawm, a British Marxist
historian and author, this term refers to the period between 1914 and
1991, the beginning of World War I and the fall of the Soviet
Union.
BRICS
The acronym used to refer to an association of five
major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The beginning of the 21st
century has thus far been marked by the rise of a global economy and Third
World consumerism, mistrust in government, deepening global concern over
terrorism, and an increase in the power of private enterprise. The long-term
effects of increased globalization are unknown, but there are many who are
concerned about its implications. The Arab Spring of the early 2010s led to
mixed outcomes in the Arab world. The Digital Revolution, which began around
the 1980s, continues into the present. Millennials and Generation Z are
coming of age and rising to prominence during this century as well.
In contemporary history, the
21st century essentially began in 1991 (the end of the Short Twentieth Century)
with the United States as the sole superpower in the absence of the Soviet
Union, while China began its rise and the BRICS countries aimed to create more
balance in the global political and economic spectrum.
BRICS Countries
Countries highlighted in green include all BRICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, People’s Republic of China, and South Africa.
United Nations
After the Cold War, the UN
saw a radical expansion in its peacekeeping duties, taking on more missions in
ten years than it had in the previous four decades. Between 1988 and 2000, the
number of adopted Security Council resolutions more than doubled, and the
peacekeeping budget increased more than tenfold. The UN negotiated an end to
the Salvadoran Civil War, launched a successful peacekeeping mission in
Namibia, and oversaw democratic elections in post-apartheid South Africa and
post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia. In 1991, the UN authorized a U.S.-led coalition that
repulsed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Brian Urquhart, Under-Secretary-General
from 1971 to 1985, later described the hopes raised by these successes as a
“false renaissance” for the organization given the more troubled
missions that followed.
Though the UN Charter was written primarily to prevent aggression by one nation against another, in
the early 1990s the UN faced a number of simultaneous, serious crises within
nations such as Somalia, Haiti, Mozambique, and the former Yugoslavia. The UN
mission in Somalia was widely viewed as a failure after the U.S. withdrawal
following casualties in the Battle of Mogadishu, and the UN mission to Bosnia
faced “worldwide ridicule” for its indecisive and confused mission in
the face of ethnic cleansing. In 1994, the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda
failed to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide amid indecision in the Security
Council.
Beginning in the last decades
of the Cold War, American and European critics of the UN condemned the
organization for perceived mismanagement and corruption. In 1984, U.S. President
Ronald Reagan withdrew his nation’s funding from UNESCO (the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, founded 1946) over
allegations of mismanagement, followed by Britain and Singapore. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General from 1992 to 1996, initiated a reform of
the Secretariat, reducing the size of the organization. His successor,
Kofi Annan (1997–2006), initiated further management reforms in the face of
threats from the United States to withhold its UN dues.
In the late 1990s and 2000s,
international interventions authorized by the UN took a wider variety of forms.
The UN mission in the Sierra Leone Civil War of 1991–2002 was supplemented by
British Royal Marines, and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was overseen by
NATO. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq despite failing to pass a UN
Security Council resolution for authorization, prompting a new round of
questioning of the organization’s effectiveness. Under the eighth
Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, the UN has intervened with peacekeepers in crises
including the War in Darfur in Sudan and the Kivu conflict in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. During this time, the UN has also sent observers and
chemical weapons inspectors to Syria during its civil war. In 2013, an internal
review of UN actions in the final battles of the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009
concluded that the organization had suffered “systemic failure.”
Additionally, 101 UN personnel died in the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the worst loss
of life in the organization’s history.
The Millennium Summit was
held in 2000 to discuss the UN’s role in the 21st century. The three-day meeting was the largest gathering of world leaders in history and
culminated in the adoption by all member states of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), a commitment to achieve international development in areas such
as poverty reduction, gender equality, and public health. Progress towards
these goals, which were to be met by 2015, was ultimately uneven. The 2005
World Summit reaffirmed the UN’s focus on promoting development, peacekeeping,
human rights, and global security. The Sustainable Development Goals were
launched in 2015 to succeed the Millennium Development Goals.
In addition to addressing
global challenges, the UN has sought to improve its accountability and democratic
legitimacy by engaging more with civil society and fostering a global
constituency. To enhance transparency, the UN held its first
public debate between candidates for Secretary-General in 2016. On January 1,
2017, Portuguese diplomat António Guterres, who previously served as UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, became the ninth secretary-general. Guterres has
highlighted several key goals for his administration, including an emphasis on
diplomacy for preventing conflicts, more effective peacekeeping efforts, and
streamlining the organization to be more responsive and versatile to global
needs.
World Trade Organization
WTO members and observers
Green countries are members, blue countries are members that are dually represented by the European Union, yellow countries are observers, and red countries are non-members.
The World Trade Organization
(WTO) is an intergovernmental organization that regulates international trade.
The WTO officially commenced on January 1, 1995, under the Marrakesh Agreement
signed by 123 nations on April 15, 1994, replacing the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which commenced in 1948. The WTO deals with
regulation of trade between participating countries by providing a framework
for negotiating trade agreements and a dispute resolution process aimed at
enforcing participants’ adherence to WTO agreements, which are signed by
representatives of member governments and ratified by their legislatures. Most
of the issues that the WTO focuses on derive from previous trade negotiations,
especially from the Uruguay Round (1986–1994).
The WTO is attempting to
complete negotiations on the Doha Development Round, which was launched in 2001
to lower trade barriers around the world with an explicit focus on facilitating
the spread of global trade benefits to developing countries. The conflict
between free trade on industrial goods and services but retention of
protectionism on farm subsidies for developed countries’ domestic agricultural
sector and the substantiation of fair trade on agricultural products (requested
by developing countries) remain the major obstacles. This impasse has made it
impossible to launch new WTO negotiations beyond the Doha Development Round. As
a result, there have been an increasing number of bilateral free trade
agreements between governments. Adoption of the Bali Ministerial Declaration,
which for the first time successfully addressed bureaucratic barriers to
commerce, passed on December 7, 2013, advancing a small part of the Doha Round
agenda. However, as of January 2014, the future of the Doha Round remains
uncertain.
Regional Integration
Regional integration is a
process by which neighboring states enter into agreements to upgrade
cooperation through common institutions and rules. The objectives of the
agreement could range from economic to political to environmental, although it
has typically taken the form of a political economy initiative where commercial
interests are the focus for achieving broader sociopolitical and security
objectives as defined by national governments. Regional integration has been
organized either via supranational institutional structures, intergovernmental decision-making, or a combination of both.
Past efforts at regional
integration have often focused on removing barriers to free trade within regions,
increasing the free movement of people, labor, goods, and capital across
national borders, reducing the possibility of regional armed conflict (for
example, through confidence- and security-building measures), and adopting
cohesive regional stances on policy issues, such as the environment, climate
change, and migration.
Since the 1980s,
globalization has changed the international economic environment for
regionalism. The renewed academic interest in regionalism, the emergence of new
regional formations, and international trade agreements like the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the development of a European Single Market
demonstrate the upgraded importance of regional political cooperation and
economic competitiveness. The African Union was launched on July 9, 2002, and a
proposal for a North American region was made in 2005 by the Council on Foreign
Relations’ Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. In Latin
America, however, the proposal to extend NAFTA into a Free Trade Area of the
Americas that would stretch from Alaska to Argentina was ultimately rejected by
nations such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. It has been superseded by the
Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which was constituted in 2008.
Regionalism contrasts with
regionalization, which is, according to the New Regionalism Approach, the
expression of increased commercial and human transactions in a defined
geographical region. Regionalism refers to an intentional political process,
typically led by governments with similar goals and values in pursuit of the
overall development within a region. Regionalization, however, is simply the
natural tendency to form regions, or the process of forming regions, due to
similarities between states in a given geographical space.
38.6.2: The Environment
The international community’s efforts to combat
climate change have often been frustrated by the economic concerns of member
states.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the efforts made by the global
community to combat climate change
Key Points
Global warming
and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average
temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects.
Most countries
participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
based on the premise that global warming exists and human-made CO2 emissions
have caused it.
The current
state of global warming politics is frustration over a perceived
lack of progress within the UNFCCC, which has existed for 18 years but has
been unable to curb global GHG emissions.
The Kyoto
Protocol is an international treaty that extends the 1992 UNFCCC based on the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, placing the obligation
to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are
historically responsible for the current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Of the 192
parties to the Kyoto Protocol, only 37 countries have binding targets within
the framework of the Protocol, and only seven of the 37 countries have ratified
their obligations within this framework.
The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the UNFCCC dealing with GHG
emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance to be implemented starting in the
year 2020. It is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement and has been
described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.
Key Terms
fossil fuel
divestment
The removal of investment assets, including
stocks, bonds, and investment funds, from companies involved in extracting
fossil fuels in an attempt to reduce climate change by tackling its ultimate
causes.
greenhouse gas
A gas in the atmosphere that
absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is
the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect, which warms the planet’s
surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere.
Global warming and climate
change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature
of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of
evidence show that the climate system is warming. Many of the observed changes
since the 1950s are unprecedented over tens to thousands of years.
Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly
Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth, i.e. a non-parametric regression analysis that relies on a k-nearest-neighbor model. The function is evaluated using a fraction of data corresponding to a ten-year window of data, giving an effective smoothing of approximately five years. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. The graph shows an overall long-term warming trend.
UNFCCC
Most countries participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
based on the premise that (a) global warming exists and (b) human-made CO2
emissions have caused it. The ultimate objective of the Convention is to
prevent dangerous human interference of the climate system. As stated in the
Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the
atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change,
food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a
sustainable fashion. The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since
then, global emissions have risen.
The current state of global
warming politics is frustration over a perceived lack of progress
within the UNFCCC, which has existed for 18 years but has been unable to
curb global GHG emissions. Todd Stern—the U.S. climate change envoy—has expressed
the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows, “Climate change is not
a conventional environmental issue … It implicates virtually every aspect of
a state’s economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth and development.
This is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental one.” He
went on to explain that the UNFCCC as a multilateral body can be an inefficient
system for enacting international policy. Because the framework includes
over 190 countries and negotiations are governed by consensus, small
groups of countries can often block progress. As a result, some have argued
that perhaps the consensus-driven model could be replaced with a majority vote
model. However, that would likely drive disagreement at the country level
by countries who do not wish to ratify any global agreement that might be
governed via majority vote.
Annual GHG emissions by sector, 2010
AFOLU stands for “agriculture, forestry, and other land use.” Emissions are given as a percentage share of total emissions measured in carbon dioxide-equivalents, using global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2nd Assessment Report.
The graph shows that 25% of direct emissions can be attributed to electricity and heat; 24% to agriculture, forestry, and other land use; 6.4% to buildings; 14% to transport; 21% to industry; and 9.6% to other energy. It also shows that, of the electricity and heat production, 12% of indirect carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to buildings; 11% can be attributed to industry; and 2.6 can be attributed to other.
Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an
international treaty that extends the 1992 UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol was
adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997, and entered into force on
February 16, 2005. There are currently 192 parties to the Protocol. The
Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on
developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the
current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. This is justified on the basis that
the developed world’s emissions have contributed most to the accumulation of GHGs
in the atmosphere, per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of
population) were still relatively low in developing countries, and the
emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.
The Protocol’s first
commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. A second commitment period
was agreed on in 2012, known as the Doha Amendment to the protocol, in which 37
countries have binding targets: Australia, the European Union (and its 28
member states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway,
Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine have stated that
they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment
with second-round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in
Kyoto’s first round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment
period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada
(which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which
has not ratified the Protocol). As of July 2016, 66 states have accepted the
Doha Amendment, while entry into force requires the acceptance of 144 states.
Of the 37 countries with binding commitments, seven have ratified.
Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement is an
agreement within the UNFCCC dealing with GHG emissions mitigation, adaptation,
and finance to be implemented starting in the year 2020. The language of the
agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st
Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on
December 12, 2015. It was opened for signature on April 22, 2016, (Earth Day) at
a ceremony in New York. As of December 2016, 194 UNFCCC members have signed the
treaty, 136 of which have ratified it. After several European Union states ratified
the agreement in October 2016, enough countries had ratified
the agreement that produce enough of the world’s GHGs for it to
enter into force. The agreement went into effect on November 4, 2016.
The aim of the convention is
described in Article 2. It outlines a goal of “enhancing the implementation” of
the UNFCCC via the following means:
Holding increases in global
average temperatures to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing
efforts to limit these increases to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels
Increasing adaptability to
the adverse impacts of climate change while fostering climate resilience and
low GHG emissions in a manner that does not endanger food production
Encouraging finance flows
that are consistent with low GHG emissions and climate-resilient development.
The Paris Agreement is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement
and has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel
divestment.
38.6.3: Nuclear Proliferation
Five countries are recognized as nuclear weapons states and four other countries have acquired or are presumed to have
acquired nuclear weapons after the passage of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
Learning Objective
List the countries that currently control
nuclear weapons
Key Points
Nuclear
proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and
weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized
as “Nuclear Weapon States” by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Four countries
besides the five recognized nuclear weapons states have acquired or are
presumed to have acquired nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and
Israel.
The United
States was the first and is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in
war, deploying two bombs against Japan in August 1945.
Early efforts to
prevent nuclear proliferation involved intense government secrecy, the wartime
acquisition of known uranium stores (the Combined Development Trust), and at
times even outright sabotage.
Earnest
international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation began soon after
World War II when the Truman Administration proposed the Baruch Plan of 1946,
which proposed the verifiable dismantlement and destruction of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal, the only nuclear arsenal in the world at that time.
In 1968,
governments represented at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC)
finished negotiations on the text of the NPT, which entered into force in March
1970.
Since the
mid-1970s, the primary focus of non-proliferation efforts has been to maintain
and even increase international control over the fissile material and
specialized technologies necessary to build such devices as these are the
most difficult and expensive parts of a nuclear weapons program.
Key Term
Nuclear proliferation
The spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable
material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information.
Nuclear proliferation is the
spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear
technology and information to nations not recognized as “Nuclear Weapon States”
by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Proliferation has been opposed by many
nations with and without nuclear weapons, the governments of which fear that as
more countries obtain nuclear weapons, the possibility of nuclear war (up to
and including the so-called “countervalue” targeting of civilians with nuclear
weapons) will also increase, leading to the destabilization of international or
regional relations and potential infringements upon the national sovereignty of
states.
Four countries besides the
five recognized nuclear weapons states have acquired, or are presumed to have
acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. None of
these four is a party to the NPT, although North Korea acceded to the NPT in
1985 and then withdrew in 2003, then proceeded to conduct
announced nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, and 2016. One critique of the NPT
is that it is discriminatory in recognizing as nuclear weapon states only those
countries that tested nuclear weapons before 1968 and requiring all other
states joining the treaty to forswear nuclear weapons.
Research into the
development of nuclear weapons was undertaken during World War II by the United
States (in cooperation with the United Kingdom and Canada), Germany, Japan, and
the USSR. The United States was the first and is the only country to have used
a nuclear weapon in war, deploying two bombs against Japan in August 1945. Following
their WWII losses, Germany and Japan ceased involvement in any nuclear
weapon research. In August 1949, the USSR tested a nuclear weapon. The United
Kingdom tested a nuclear weapon in October 1952. France developed a nuclear
weapon in 1960. The People’s Republic of China detonated a nuclear weapon in
1964. India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, and Pakistan conducted a series
of nuclear weapon tests in May 1998, following tests by India earlier that
month. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test.
Fat Man
A mock-up of the Fat Man nuclear device. Source: US Department of Defense.
Non-proliferation Efforts
Early efforts to prevent
nuclear proliferation involved intense government secrecy, the wartime
acquisition of known uranium stores (the Combined Development Trust), and at
times even outright sabotage—such as the bombing of a heavy-water facility
thought to be used for a German nuclear program. None of these efforts were
explicitly public because the weapon developments themselves were kept secret until
the bombing of Hiroshima. Earnest international efforts to promote nuclear
non-proliferation began soon after World War II when the Truman Administration
proposed the Baruch Plan of 1946, named after Bernard Baruch, America’s first
representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC). The
Baruch Plan, which drew heavily from the Acheson–Lilienthal Report of 1946,
proposed the verifiable dismantlement and destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal after all
governments had cooperated successfully to accomplish two things:
the establishment of an international
atomic development authority, which would actually own and control all
military-applicable nuclear materials and activities, and
the creation of a system
of automatic sanctions, which not even the UN Security Council could veto, and
which would proportionately punish states attempting to acquire the capability
to make nuclear weapons or fissile material.
Baruch’s plea for the destruction
of nuclear weapons invoked basic moral and religious intuitions. In one part of
his address to the UN, Baruch said, “Behind the black portent of the new
atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out our
salvation. If we fail, then we have damned every man to be the slave of Fear.
Let us not deceive ourselves. We must elect World Peace or World
Destruction…. We must answer the world’s longing for peace and
security.” With this remark, Baruch helped launch the field of nuclear
ethics, to which many policy experts and scholars have contributed.
Although the Baruch Plan
enjoyed wide international support, it failed to emerge from the UNAEC because
the Soviet Union planned to veto it in the Security Council. Still, it remained
official American policy until 1953, when President Eisenhower made his Atoms for
Peace proposal before the UN General Assembly. Eisenhower’s proposal led
eventually to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
1957. Under the Atoms for Peace program thousands of scientists from around the
world were educated in nuclear science and then dispatched home, where many
later pursued secret weapons programs in their own countries. Since its founding
by the United Nations in 1957, the IAEA has promoted two sometimes
contradictory missions: on the one hand, the Agency seeks to promote and spread
internationally the use of civilian nuclear energy; on the other hand, it seeks
to prevent, or at least detect, the diversion of civilian nuclear energy to
nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices, or purposes unknown. The IAEA now
operates a safeguards system as specified under Article III of the NPT, which
aims to ensure that civil stocks of uranium and plutonium, as well as facilities
and technologies associated with these nuclear materials, are used only for
peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear
weapons programs. It is often argued that proliferation of nuclear weapons has been prevented by the extension of assurances and mutual
defense treaties to these states by nuclear powers, but other factors such as
national prestige or specific historical experiences also play a part in
hastening or stopping nuclear proliferation.
Flag of the IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency was created in 1957 to encourage peaceful development of nuclear technology while providing international safeguards against nuclear proliferation.
Efforts to conclude an
international agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons did not begin
until the early 1960s, after four nations (the United States, the Soviet Union,
the United Kingdom, and France) had acquired nuclear weapons. Although these
efforts stalled in the early 1960s, they renewed once again in 1964 after
China detonated a nuclear weapon. In 1968, governments represented at the
Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee finished negotiations on the text of
the NPT. In June 1968, the UN General Assembly endorsed the NPT with General
Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII), and in July 1968, the NPT opened for signature
in Washington, D.C., London, and Moscow. The NPT entered into force in March
1970.
Since the mid-1970s, the primary focus of non-proliferation efforts has
been to maintain and even increase international control over the fissile
material and specialized technologies necessary to build such devices, because
these are the most difficult and expensive parts of a nuclear weapons program.
The main materials whose generation and distribution is controlled are highly
enriched uranium and plutonium. Other than the acquisition of these special
materials, the scientific and technical means for weapons construction to
develop rudimentary but working nuclear explosive devices are considered within the reach of most if not all industrialized nations.
38.6.4: The Developing World
Although developing countries’ economies have tended
to demonstrate higher growth rates than those of developed countries, they tend
to lag behind in terms of social welfare targets.
Learning Objective
Describe some of the challenges faced by
developing countries
Key Points
A developing
country is
a nation or a sovereign state with a less developed industrial base and low
Human Development Index (HDI) compared to other countries.
Economic
development originated as a global concern in the post-World War II period of
reconstruction. It is related to the concept of international aid, but distinct
from disaster relief and humanitarian aid.
International
development projects may consist of a single transformative project to address
a specific problem or a series of projects targeted at several aspects of
society.
The launch of
the Marshall Plan was an important step in setting the agenda for international
development, combining humanitarian goals with the creation of a political and
economic bloc in Europe allied with the U.S.
In terms of
international development practice on the ground, the concept of community
development has been influential since the 1950s.
By the late
1960s, dependency theory arose, analyzing the evolving relationship between the
West and the Third World.
In the 1970s and
early 1980s, the modernists at the World Bank and IMF adopted neo-liberal ideas
of economists such as Milton Friedman or Bela Balassa, implemented
in the form of structural adjustment programs, while their opponents were
promoting various bottom-up approaches.
By the 1990s,
some writers and academics felt an impasse had been reached within development
theory, with some imagining a post-development era.
While some
critics have been debating the end of development, others have
predicted a development revival as part of the War on Terrorism.
Key Terms
modernization theory
A theory used to explain the process of
modernization within societies using a model of progressive transition from
pre-modern or traditional societies to modern society. The theory
assumes that with assistance, so-called traditional societies can be developed
in the same manner as currently developed countries.
appropriate technology
An ideological movement and its manifestations
encompassing technological choice and application that is small-scale,
decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and
locally autonomous.
dependency theory
The notion that resources flow from periphery
or poor underdeveloped, states to a core of wealthy states, enriching
the latter at the expense of the former.
A developing country is a nation or a
sovereign state with a less developed industrial base and low Human Development
Index (HDI) relative to other countries. There are no universally agreed-upon
criteria for what makes a country developing versus developed and which
countries fit these two categories, although there are general reference points
such as a nation’s GDP per capita compared to other nations. In general, the
term “developing” describes a currently observed situation and not a
dynamic or expected direction of progress. Since the late 1990s, developing
countries have tended to demonstrate higher growth rates than the developed
ones.
2014 UN Human Development Report Quartiles
Dark blue countries are considered very highly developed. Medium blue countries are considered highly developed. Light blue countries are in the process of developing. Powder/near white countries are undeveloped. There is not enough data for countries that are colored gray.
History and Theory
Economic development
originated as a global concern in the post-World War II period of
reconstruction. In President Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural speech, the
development of undeveloped areas was characterized as a priority for the West. The
origins of this priorities can be attributed to:
the need for reconstruction
in the immediate aftermath of World War II;
the legacy of colonialism in
the context of the establishment of a number of free trade policies and a
rapidly globalizing world;
the start of the Cold War
and the desire of the U.S. and its allies to prevent satellite states from
drifting towards communism.
The launch of the Marshall
Plan was an important step in setting the agenda for international development,
combining humanitarian goals with the creation of a political and economic bloc
in Europe allied to the U.S. This agenda was given conceptual support
during the 1950s in the form of modernization theory as espoused by Walt Rostow
and other American economists. Changes in the developed world’s approach to
international development were further necessitated by the gradual collapse of
Western Europe’s empires over the following decades because newly independent
ex-colonies no longer received support in return for their subordinate role to
an imperial power.
By the late 1960s,
dependency theory arose, analyzing the evolving relationship between the West
and the Third World. Dependency theorists argue that poor countries have
sometimes experienced economic growth with little or no economic development
initiatives, such as in cases where they have functioned mainly as
resource-providers to wealthy industrialized countries. As such, international
development at its core has been geared towards colonies that gained
independence with the understanding that newly independent states should be
constructed so that the inhabitants enjoy freedom from poverty, hunger, and
insecurity.
In the 1970s and early
1980s, the modernists at the World Bank and IMF adopted the neo-liberal ideas of
economists such as Milton Friedman or Bela Balassa, implemented in
the form of structural adjustment programs, while their opponents promoted various bottom-up approaches ranging from civil disobedience and critical
consciousness to appropriate technology and participatory rural appraisal.
By the 1990s, some writers
and academics felt an impasse had been reached within development theory, with
some imagining a post-development era. The Cold War had ended, capitalism had
become the dominant mode of social organization, and UN statistics showed that
living standards around the world had improved significantly over the previous
40 years. Nevertheless, a large portion of the world’s population was still
living in poverty, their governments were crippled by debt, and concerns about
the environmental impact of globalization were rising. In response to the
impasse, the rhetoric of development has since focused on the issue of poverty,
with the meta-narrative of modernization replaced by shorter term visions
embodied by the Millennium Development Goals and the Human Development approach,
which measures human development in capabilities achieved. At the same time,
some development agencies are exploring opportunities for public-private
partnerships and promoting the idea of corporate social responsibility with the
apparent aim of integrating international development with the process of
economic globalization.
IMF Developing Countries Map, 2014
Dark green countries
represent developing economies according to the IMF; light green countries
are developing economies out of scope of the IMF; red countries have graduated to the status of a developed economy within recent history; blue countries are newly industrialized economies.
Critics have suggested that
such integration has always been part of the underlying agenda of development. They
argue that poverty can be equated with powerlessness, and that the way to
overcome poverty is through emancipatory social movements and civil society,
not paternalistic aid programs or corporate charity. This approach is embraced
by organizations such as the Gamelan Council, which seeks to empower
entrepreneurs through micro-finance initiatives, for example. While some critics
have been debating the end of development, however, others have predicted a
development revival as part of the War on Terrorism. To date, wever, there is
limited evidence to support the notion that aid budgets are being used to
counter Islamic fundamentalism in the same way that they were used 40 years ago
to counter communism.
Policy
International development is
related to the concept of international aid, but distinct from disaster relief
and humanitarian aid. While these two forms of international support seek to
alleviate some of the problems associated with a lack of development, they are
most often short-term fixes — not necessarily long-term solutions.
International development, on the other hand, seeks to implement long-term
solutions to problems by helping developing countries create the necessary
capacity needed to provide such sustainable solutions to their problems. A
truly sustainable development project is able to carry on indefinitely
with no further international involvement or support, whether it be financial
or otherwise.
In its broadest sense,
policies of economic development encompass three major areas:
Governments undertaking broad economic objectives such as price stability, high employment, and
sustainable growth. Such efforts include monetary and fiscal policies,
regulation of financial institutions, trade, and tax policies.
Programs that provide
infrastructure and services such as highways, parks, affordable housing, crime
prevention, and K–12 education.
Job creation and retention
through specific efforts in business finance, marketing, neighborhood
development, workforce development, small business development, business
retention and expansion, technology transfer, and real estate development. This
third category is a primary focus of economic development professionals.
International development
projects may consist of a single transformative project to address a specific
problem or a series of projects targeted at several aspects of society.
Promoted projects involve problem solving reflecting the unique
culture, politics, geography, and economy of a region. More recently, the focus
in this field has been projects that aim towards empowering women, building
local economies, and caring for the environment. In the context of human
development, projects usually encompass themes of foreign aid, governance,
healthcare, education, poverty reduction, gender equality, disaster
preparedness, infrastructure, economics, human rights, the environment, and
issues associated with these.
In terms of international
development practice on the ground, the concept of community development has
been influential since the 1950s. The United Nations defines
community development as “a process where community members come together to
take collective action and generate solutions to common problems”. It is a
broad term given to practices aiming to build stronger and more resilient local
communities. Community development is also a professional discipline and is
defined by the International Association for Community Development (IACD), the
global network of community development practitioners and scholars, as “a
practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes
participative democracy, sustainable development, rights, economic opportunity,
equality and social justice, through the organization, education and
empowerment of people within their communities, whether these be of locality,
identity or interest, in urban and rural settings”. Community development
practitioners, using a myriad of job titles, are employed by governmental and
non-governmental organizations to build the capacity of vulnerable people to
engage in development projects and programs. According to the IACD, there are
national networks of community development practitioners in many countries,
several hundred graduate programs training practitioners, and an extensive
canon of research and scholarship, including the international Community
Development Journal.
The promotion of regional
clusters and a thriving metropolitan economy has grown in importance among
economic development professionals. In today’s global landscape, location is
vitally important and becomes key to obtaining and maintaining competitive
advantage. International trade and exchange rates are also key issues in economic
development. Currencies are often either undervalued or overvalued, resulting
in trade surpluses or deficits.
International Economic
Development Council
With more than 20,000 professional economic developers employed
worldwide in this highly specialized industry, the International Economic
Development Council (IEDC) headquartered in Washington, D.C. is a non-profit
organization dedicated to helping economic developers do their jobs more
effectively while raising the profile of the profession. With over 4,500
members across the U.S. and internationally, IEDC membership represents the
entire range of the profession ranging from regional, state, local, rural,
urban, and international economic development organizations to chambers of commerce, technology development agencies, utility companies,
educational institutions, consultants, and redevelopment authorities. Many
individual states also have associations comprising economic development
professionals who work closely with IEDC.
38.6.5: Reactions against Globalization
The uneven spread of globalization’s
benefits caused an anti-globalization movement to rise at the end of the 20th
century.
Learning Objective
Outline some of the criticisms of globalization
Key Points
The broad
consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net
gain for society. However, some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon
as a promotion of corporate interests.
The global
economic crisis of 2007-2008, the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression, can be credited partially to neo-liberal globalization.
Globalization
has fueled the rise of transnational corporations, and their power has vaulted
to the point where they can now rival many nation states.
Multinational
corporations often benefit from globalization while poor, indigenous locals are
negatively affected.
Globalization sometimes
requires a country to give up some sovereignty for the sake of executing
Western ideals.
International trade in petroleum products has expanded significantly through
globalization and the spread of invasive species has also been facilitated by
improvements in global transport.
Key Term
xenophobia
The fear of that perceived to be foreign or strange.
Reactions to processes
contributing to globalization have varied widely with a history as long as
extraterritorial contact and trade. Proponents of economic growth, expansion,
and development generally view globalizing processes as desirable or
necessary to the well-being of human society. Not everybody affected by
globalization believes there are benefits to its spread, however. Many
individuals within the anti-globalization movement have witnessed unrest within
their home communities and the world at large and questioned the basis for
continuing the trend due to the sustainability of long-term and continuous
economic expansion, the social structural inequality caused by these processes,
and the colonial, imperialistic, or hegemonic ethnocentrism that
underlie such processes. Critics argue that globalization requires nations to
give up their political, economic, and cultural sovereignty and adapt to
Western ways.
Xenophobia can and has
manifested itself in many ways as a result of globalization, involving the
relations and perceptions of an in-group towards an out-group, including a fear
of losing identity, suspicion of activities, aggression, and the desire to
eliminate another group’s presence to secure a presumed purity. While globalization
has eased the flow of international trade and contributed to greater
efficiency within market economies, it has also been partially to blame for
global economic crises. Additionally, globalization is not simply an economic
project–it also heavily influences the world environmentally, politically, and
socially. While the forces of globalization have led to the spread of Western-style
democracy, this has been accompanied by an increase in inter-ethnic tension and
violence as free market economic policies combine with democratic processes of
universal suffrage as well as an escalation in militarization to impose democratic
principles as a means to conflict resolution.
Monument to Multiculturalism
Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Perilli in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, South Africa; Changchun, China; Sarajevo, Bosnia; and Sydney, Australia.
Public Opinion
A 2005 study by Peer Fiss
and Paul Hirsch found a large increase in articles negative towards
globalization in the years prior. In 1998, negative articles outpaced positive
articles by two to one. In 2008, Greg Ip claimed this rise in opposition to
globalization could be explained, at least in part, by economic self-interest. The
number of newspaper articles showing negative framing rose from about 10% of
the total in 1991 to 55% of the total in 1999. This increase occurred during a
period when the total number of articles concerning globalization nearly
doubled.
A number of international
polls have shown that residents of Africa and Asia tend to view globalization
more favorably than residents of Europe or North America. In Africa, a Gallup
poll found that 70% of the population views globalization favorably. The BBC
found that 50% of people believed that economic globalization was proceeding
too rapidly, while 35% believed it was proceeding too slowly. In 2004, Philip
Gordon stated that “a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization
can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take
advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative
effects”. The main opposition within the EU consisted of socialists,
environmental groups, and nationalists. Residents of the EU did not appear to
feel threatened by globalization in 2004. The EU job market was more stable and
workers were less likely to accept wage/benefit cuts. Social spending was much
higher than in the U.S. In a 2007 Danish poll, 76% of respondents said that
globalization was a good thing. Yet a 2016 referendum vote on whether to leave
or stay within the UK saw a majority of British voters opting to withdraw from
the EU.
Fiss and Hirsch also surveyed
U.S. opinion in 1993 and found that more than 40% of
respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of globalization. When the survey
was repeated in 1998, 89% of the respondents had a polarized view of
globalization as being either good or bad. Polarization increased dramatically
after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event and subsequent protests
led to a larger scale anti-globalization movement. Initially, college-educated
workers were likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more
likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended
to be opponents. The situation changed after the financial crisis of 2007.
According to a 1997 poll, 58% of college graduates said globalization had been
good for the U.S. By 2008 only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high
school education also became more opposed.
Economics
The literature analyzing the
economics of free trade is rich with information on its theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers,
the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and
unambiguous net gain for society. However, some opponents of globalization see
the phenomenon as a promotion of corporate interests. Many claim that the
increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political
policies of countries, crowding out the moral claims of poor and working
classes as well as environmental concerns. For example, globalization allows
corporations to outsource manufacturing and service jobs from high-cost
locations, creating economic opportunities with the most competitive wages and
worker benefits, which critics say disadvantages poorer countries.
While it is true that free
trade encourages globalization among countries, some countries try to protect
their domestic suppliers. The main export of poorer countries is usually
agricultural productions. Larger countries often subsidize their farmers (e.g.,
the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy), which lowers the market price for foreign
crops. Thus, globalization can be described as an uneven process due to the
global integration of some groups alongside the marginalization or exclusion of
others.
Additionally, the global
economic crisis of 2007-2008, the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression, can be credited partially to neo-liberal globalization. Although
globalization promised an improved standard of living, it has actually worsened
the financial situation of many homes and has made the financial crisis global
through the influences of international financial institutions such as the
World Bank. Globalization limits development and civilization to a path that
only leads to a Western and capitalistic system. Because of the political and
structural differences in countries, the implementation of globalization has
been detrimental for many countries.
Politics
Globalization has fueled the
rise of transnational corporations, and their power has vaulted to the point
where they can now rival many nation states. Of the world’s 100 largest
economies, 42 of them are corporations. Many of these transnational
corporations now hold sway over many nation states as their fates are
intertwined with the nations where they are located. Transnational
corporations could offer massive influence regarding the Third World and bring
about more pressure to help increase worker salaries and working conditions in
sweatshops. On account of doing business globally, transnational corporations
have a huge influence in many nation states.
In the process of
implementing globalization in developing countries, the creation of winners and
losers is often predetermined. Multinational corporations typically benefit from
globalization while poor, indigenous locals are negatively affected. Globalization
can be seen as a new form of colonization, as economic inequality and the rise
in unemployment have followed its implementation. Globalization has been
criticized for benefiting those who are already large and in power at the risk
and growing vulnerability of the countries’ indigenous population. Furthermore,
globalization is non-democratic, as it is enforced through top-down methods.
Globalization requires a
country to give up some sovereignty for the sake of executing Western ideals. As a result, sovereignty is safest with those whose views and
ideals are being implemented. In the name of free markets and with the promise
of an improved standard of living, countries give up their political and social
powers to international organizations. Thus, globalization carries the
potential to raise the power of international organizations at the expense of
local state institutions, which must in turn diminish in influence.
Environmental Impacts
International trade in
petroleum products has expanded significantly through globalization. There is also a corresponding
increase in activities within the petroleum industry to meet the ever-increasing demand for petroleum products. As a result, it gives rise to further
environmental pollution. Petroleum is toxic to almost all forms of life and its
extraction fuels climate change, including air pollution, water pollution,
noise pollution, land degradation, and erosion. As international commerce
develops new trade routes, markets, and products, the spread of invasive
species is also facilitated. On account of the development of larger and faster
forms of transport, commercial trade propels rising annual and cumulative rates
of invasion.
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was born
from the desire to prevent future European conflicts following the
devastation of World War II.
Learning Objective
Connect the establishment of the ECSC to WWII.
Key Points
The European
Coal and Steel Community was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris,
signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and
Luxembourg.
The ECSC was
first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on May 9, 1950, to prevent further war between France and Germany.
The declared aim
of the ECSC was to make future wars among the European nations unthinkable due
to higher levels of regional integration, with the ECSC as the first step
towards that integration.
The ECSC enjoyed
substantial public support, gaining strong majority votes in all 11 chambers of
the parliaments of the six member states as well as approval among
associations and European public opinion.
The first institutions of the ECSC would ultimately form the blueprint
for today’s European Commission, European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union, and the European Court of Justice.
Key Term
supranationalism
A type of multinational political union where
negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states.
The European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) was an international organization unifying certain continental
European countries after World War II. It was formally established in 1951 by
the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The ECSC was the first international
organization based on the principles of supranationalism, and would
ultimately pave the way for the European Union.
Flag of the European Coal and Steel Community
History
The ECSC was first proposed
by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on May 9, 1950, to prevent
further war between France and Germany. His declared aim was to make future
wars among the European nations unthinkable due to higher levels of regional
integration, with the ECSC as the first step towards that integration. The treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states,
which served to neutralize competition between European nations over natural
resources used for wartime mobilization, particularly in the Ruhr. The Schuman
Declaration that created the ECSC had several distinct aims:
It would mark
the birth of a united Europe.
It would make
war between member states impossible.
It would
encourage world peace.
It would
transform Europe incrementally, leading to the democratic unification of two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain.
It would create
the world’s first supranational institution.
It would create
the world’s first international anti-cartel agency.
It would create
a common market across the Community.
It would,
starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalize the entire European economy
by similar community processes.
It would improve
the world economy as well as the economies of developing countries, such as
those in Africa.
Political Pressures
In West Germany, Schuman
kept close contact with the new generation of democratic politicians. Karl
Arnold, the Minister President of North Rhine-Westphalia, the province that
included the coal and steel producing Ruhr, was initially spokesman for German
foreign affairs. He gave a number of speeches and broadcasts on a supranational
coal and steel community at the same time as Schuman began to propose the
Community in 1948 and 1949. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (German:
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD), in spite of support from unions
and other socialists in Europe, decided it would oppose the Schuman plan. Kurt
Schumacher’s personal distrust of France, capitalism, and Konrad Adenauer
aside, he claimed that a focus on integration would override the SPD’s prime
objective of German reunification and thus empower ultra-nationalist and
Communist movements in democratic countries. He also thought the ECSC would end
any hopes of nationalizing the steel industry and encourage the growth of
cartel activity throughout a newly conservative-leaning Europe. Younger members
of the party like Carlo Schmid were, however, in favor of the Community and
pointed to the long tradition of socialist support for a supranational movement.
In France, Schuman gained strong political and intellectual support from all sectors, including
many non-communist parties. Charles de Gaulle, then out of power, had
been an early supporter of linking European economies on French terms and spoke in 1945 of a “European confederation” that would exploit the
resources of the Ruhr. However, he opposed the ECSC, deriding
it as an unsatisfactory approach to European unity. He also considered the
French government’s approach to integration too weak and feared the ECSC would
be hijacked by other nation’s concerns. De Gaulle felt that the ECSC had
insufficient supranational authority because the Assembly was not ratified by a
European referendum, and he did not accept Raymond Aron’s contention that the
ECSC was intended as a movement away from U.S. domination. Consequently, de
Gaulle and his followers in the Rally of the French People (RPF) voted against
ratification in the lower house of the French Parliament.
Despite these reservations
and attacks from the extreme left, the ECSC found substantial public support. It
gained strong majority votes in all 11 chambers of the parliaments of the six
member states, as well as approval among associations and European public
opinion. The 100-article Treaty of Paris, which established the ECSC, was
signed on April 18, 1951, by “the inner six”: France, West Germany,
Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. On August 11, 1952, the United
States was the first non-ECSC member to recognize the Community and stated it
would now deal with the ECSC on coal and steel matters, establishing its
delegation in Brussels.
First Institutions
The ECSC was run by four
institutions: a High Authority composed of independent appointees, a Common Assembly
composed of national parliamentarians, a Special Council composed of national
ministers, and a Court of Justice. These would ultimately form the blueprint
for today’s European Commission, European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union, and the European Court of Justice.
Luxembourg (City) Main Building of the BCEE
The main building of the BCEE in Luxembourg City was home to the former seat of the ECSC’s High Authority.
The High Authority (now the European Commission) was the first-ever supranational body that served
as the Community’s executive. The President was elected by the eight other
members. The nine members were appointed by member states (two
for the larger three states, one for the smaller three), but represented
the common interest rather than their own states’ concerns. The member states’
governments were represented by the Council of Ministers, the presidency of
which rotated between each state every three months in alphabetical order. The
Council of Ministers’ task was to harmonize the work of national governments
with the acts of the High Authority and issue opinions on the work of
the Authority when needed.
The Common Assembly, now the European Parliament, was composed
of 78 representatives. The Assembly exercised supervisory powers over the
executive. The representatives were to be national MPs elected by their
Parliaments to the Assembly, or directly elected. The Assembly was intended as
a democratic counter-weight and check to the High Authority. It had formal powers
to sack the High Authority following investigations of abuse.
37.1.2: The European Economic Community
The European Economic Community blossomed from
the desire to further regional integration following the successful
establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community.
Learning Objective
Describe the transition from the ECSC to the EEC
Key Points
The European
Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organization that aimed to integrate
its member states economically. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957.
Some important
accomplishments of the EEC included the establishment in 1962 of common price
levels for agricultural products and the removal of internal tariffs between
member nations on certain products in 1968.
Disagreements
arose between member states regarding infringements of sovereignty and financing
of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
On July 1, 1967,
the Merger Treaty came into force, combining the institutions of the ECSC and EURATOM
into the EEC. Collectively, they were known as the European Communities.
The 1960s saw the first attempts at enlargement, which over time led to
a desire to increase areas of cooperation. As a result, the Single European Act
was signed by foreign ministers in February
1986.
Key Terms
sovereignty
The full right and power of a governing body to
govern itself without interference from outside sources or bodies. In
political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme
authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant
Westphalian model of state foundation.
supranationalism
A type of multinational political union in which negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states.
The European Economic
Community (EEC) was a regional organization that aimed to integrate its member
states economically. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the
formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and
renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009, the EC’s institutions were
absorbed into the EU’s wider framework and the community ceased to exist.
Background
In 1951, the Treaty of Paris
was signed, creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This was an
international community based on supranationalism and international law,
designed to facilitate European economic growth and prevent future conflicts by
integrating its members. With the aim of furthering regional integration, two
additional communities were proposed: a European Defence Community and a
European Political Community. While the treaty for the latter was drawn
up by the Common Assembly, the ECSC parliamentary chamber, the proposed defense
community was rejected by the French Parliament. ECSC President Jean Monnet, a
leading figure behind the communities, resigned from the High Authority in
protest and began work on alternative communities based on economic
integration rather than political integration.
After the Messina Conference
in 1955, Paul Henri Spaak was given the task of preparing a report on the idea
of a customs union. Together with the Ohlin Report, the so-called Spaak Report
would provide the basis for the Treaty of Rome. In 1956, Spaak led
the Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom at the Val
Duchesse castle. The conference led to the signature on March 25, 1957, of the
Treaty of Rome, establishing a European Economic Community.
Creation and Early Years
The resulting communities
were the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy
Community (EURATOM, or sometimes EAEC). The EEC created a customs union while
EURATOM promoted cooperation in the sphere of nuclear power. One of the first
important accomplishments of the EEC was the establishment in 1962 of common
price levels for agricultural products. In 1968, internal tariffs between
member nations were removed on certain products. The formation of these
communities was met with protest due to a fear that state sovereignty
would be infringed. Another crisis was triggered in regards to proposals for
the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which came into force in
1962. The transitional period whereby decisions were made by unanimity had come
to an end, and majority voting in the Council had taken effect. Then-French
President Charles de Gaulle’s opposition to supranationalism and fear of the
other members challenging the CAP led to an empty-chair policy in which French
representatives were withdrawn from the European institutions until the French
veto was reinstated. Eventually, the Luxembourg Compromise of January 29, 1966,
instituted a gentlemen’s agreement permitting members to use a veto on issues
of national interest.
Charles De Gaulle
French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership, held back the development of Parliament’s powers, and was at the centre of the empty-chair crisis of 1965.
Photo portrait of Charles de Gaulle
On July 1, 1967, the Merger
Treaty came into force, combining the institutions of the ECSC and EURATOM into
that of the EEC. Collectively, they were known as the European Communities. The
Communities still had independent personalities although they were increasingly
integrated. Future treaties granted the Community new powers beyond simple
economic matters, edging closer to the goal of political integration and a
peaceful, united Europe.
Enlargement and Elections
The 1960s saw the first
attempts at enlargement. In 1961, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and the United
Kingdom applied to join the three Communities. However, President Charles de
Gaulle saw British membership as a Trojan horse for U.S .influence and vetoed
membership, and the applications of all four countries were suspended. The four
countries resubmitted their applications on May 11, 1967, and with Georges
Pompidou succeeding Charles de Gaulle as French president in 1969, the veto was
lifted. Negotiations began in 1970 under the pro-European government of UK
Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, who had to deal with disagreements relating to
the CAP and the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations.
Nevertheless, two years later the accession treaties were signed and Denmark,
Ireland, and the UK joined the Community effective January 1, 1973. The
Norwegian people finally rejected membership in a referendum on September 25, 1972.
Expansion of the European Communities, 1973-1992
Countries colored green
represent founding members of the EEC, and blue countries represent members added later.
The founding members include France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. Members added later include the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, and Greece.
The Treaties of Rome stated that the European Parliament must be directly elected; however, this
required the Council to agree on a common voting system first. The Council
procrastinated on the issue and the Parliament remained appointed. Charles de
Gaulle was particularly active in blocking the development of the Parliament,
with it only being granted budgetary powers following his resignation. Parliament
pressured for agreement and on September 20, 1976, the Council agreed part of
the necessary instruments for election, deferring details on electoral systems that remain varied to this day. In June 1979, during the tenure of President
Jenkins, European Parliamentary elections were held. The new Parliament,
galvanized by a direct election and new powers, started working full-time and
became more active than previous assemblies.
Towards Maastricht
Greece applied to join the Community on June 12, 1975, following the
restoration of its democracy. Greece joined the Community effective January 1,
1981. Similarly, and after their own democratic restorations, Spain and
Portugal applied to the communities in 1977 and joined together on January 1, 1986.
In 1987, Turkey formally applied to join the Community and began the longest
application process for any country. With the prospect of further enlargement
and a desire to increase areas of cooperation, the Single European Act was
signed by foreign ministers in February 1986.
This single document dealt with the reform of institutions, extension of
powers, foreign policy cooperation, and the single European market. It came
into force on July 1, 1987. The act was followed by work on what would become
the Maastricht Treaty, which was agreed to on December 10, 1991, signed the
following year, and came into force on November 1, 1993, establishing the
European Union.
37.1.3: The European Union
Although
the European Union was formed to increase cooperation among member
states, the desire to retain national control over certain policy areas
made some institutions more intergovernmental than supranational
in nature.
Learning Objective
Compare
the European Union to its predecessors
Key Terms
Schengen Area
An area
composed of 26 European states that have officially abolished passport and any
other type of border control at their mutual borders. The area mostly functions
as a single country for international travel purposes with a common visa
policy.
supranational
A
type of multinational political union where negotiated power is delegated to an
authority by governments of member states.
Examples
The European Union (EU) is a politico-economic
union of 28 member states ocated primarily in Europe.
The EU operates through a hybrid system of
supranational and intergovernmental decision-making.
The EU traces its origins from the European Coal
and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by
the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively.
The European Union was formally established when
the Maastricht Treaty came into force on November 1, 1993. The treaty
established the three pillars of the European Union: the European Communities
pillar, which included the European Community (EC), the ECSC, and the EURATOM; the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar; and the Justice and Home
Affairs (JHA) pillar.
The creation of the pillar system was the result
of some member states wanting to extend the EEC while others felt those areas
were too critical to their sovereignty to be managed by a supranational
mechanism.
The Maastricht, or convergence, criteria
established minimum requirements for EU member states to enter the third stage
of European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and adopt the euro as their currency.
The four criteria impose controls over inflation, public debt and the public
deficit, exchange rate stability, and the convergence of interest rates.
On December 1, 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered
into force and reformed many aspects of the EU, including its legal structure.
During the 2010s, the cohesion of the EU has
been tested by several issues, including a debt crisis in some of the Eurozone
countries, increasing migration from the Middle East, and the United Kingdom’s
withdrawal from the EU.
The European Union (EU) is a politico-economic union of 28
member states located primarily in Europe. It has an area of 4,324,782
km2 (1,669,808 sq mi) and an estimated population of over 510 million. The EU
has developed an internal single market through a standardized system of laws
that apply in all member states. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of
people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market, enact
legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade,
agriculture, fisheries, and regional development. Within the Schengen Area,
passport controls have been abolished. A monetary union was established in 1999
and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which
use the euro currency.
The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational and
intergovernmental decision-making. The seven principal decision-making
bodies—known as the institutions of the European Union—are the European
Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the
European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European
Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.
The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by the Inner
Six countries in 1951 and 1958, respectively. The Community and its successors
have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the
addition of policy areas to its remit.
Maastricht Treaty
The European Union was formally established when the
Maastricht Treaty—whose main architects were Helmut Kohl and François
Mitterrand—came into force on November 1, 1993. The treaty established the
three pillars of the European Union: the European Communities pillar, which
included the European Community (EC), the ECSC, and the EURATOM; the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) pillar; and the Justice and Home Affairs
(JHA) pillar. The first pillar handled economic, social, and economic policies. The second pillar handled foreign policy and military matters, and the third pillar coordinated member states’ efforts in the fight
against crime.
All three pillars were the extensions of existing policy
structures. The European Community pillar was a continuation of the EEC.
Additionally, coordination in foreign policy had taken place since the 1970s
under the European Political Cooperation (EPC), first written
into treaties by the Single European Act. While the JHA extended cooperation in
law enforcement, criminal justice, asylum, and immigration as well as judicial
cooperation in civil matters, some of these areas were already subject to
intergovernmental cooperation under the Schengen Implementation Convention of
1990.
The creation of the pillar system was the result of the
desire by many member states to extend the EEC to the areas of foreign policy,
military, criminal justice, and judicial cooperation. This desire was met with
misgivings by some member states, notably the United Kingdom, who thought some areas were too critical to their sovereignty to be managed by
a supranational mechanism. The agreed compromise was that instead of completely
renaming the European Economic Community as the European Union, the treaty
would establish a legally separate European Union comprising the European Economic
Community and entities overseeing intergovernmental policy areas such as
foreign policy, military, criminal justice, and judicial cooperation. The
structure greatly limited the powers of the European Commission, the European
Parliament, and the European Court of Justice.
Euro Convergence Criteria
Euro banknotes (2002)
The euro was introduced in 2002, replacing 12 national currencies.
The Maastricht, or convergence, criteria established the
minimum requirements for EU member states to enter the third stage of European
Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and adopt the euro as their currency. The
four criteria are defined in article 121 of the treaty establishing the
European Community. They impose control over inflation, public debt and the
public deficit, exchange rate stability, and the convergence of interest rates.
The purpose of this criteria was to maintain price stability within the
Eurozone even with the inclusion of new member states.
Inflation rates: No more than 1.5 percentage
points higher than the average of the three best performing (lowest inflation)
member states of the EU.
Government finance:
Annual government deficit: The ratio of the
annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at
the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it must reach
a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted
for exceptional cases.
Government debt: The ratio of gross government
debt to GDP must not exceed 60% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Even
if the target cannot be achieved due to specific conditions, the ratio must
have sufficiently diminished and be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory
pace. As of the end of 2014, of the countries in the Eurozone, only Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Luxembourg, and Finland still met this target.
Exchange rate: Applicant countries should have
joined the exchange-rate mechanism (ERM II) under the European Monetary System
(EMS) for two consecutive years and should not have devalued its currency
during the period.
Long-term interest rates: The nominal long-term
interest rate must not be more than 2 percentage points higher than in the
three lowest-inflation member states.
Lisbon Treaty and Beyond
The Lisbon Treaty
In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force.
On December 1, 2009, the Lisbon Treaty reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular, it changed the
legal structure, merging the three pillars system into a
single legal entity provisioned with a legal personality; created a permanent
President of the European Council; and strengthened the position of the High Representative
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. During the 2010s, the
cohesion of the EU has been tested by several issues, including a debt crisis
in some of the Eurozone countries, increasing migration from the Middle East,
and the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. As of December 2016, the UK
has not yet initiated formal withdrawal procedures.
37.2: Fall of the Soviet Union
37.2.1: The Soviet Union’s Aging Leadership
The aging Soviet leadership of the 1980s was
ill-equipped to deal with ongoing economic stagnation and worsening foreign
conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan War.
Learning Objective
Describe the leadership problem facing the
Soviet Union in the 1980s
Key Points
The transition
period that separated the Brezhnev and Gorbachev eras resembled the former much
more than the latter, although hints of reform emerged as early as 1983.
Andropov maneuvered
his way into power both through his KGB connections and by gaining the support
of the military by promising not to cut defense spending, despite the heavy toll
it exacted on the ailing Soviet economy.
Andropov began a
thorough house-cleaning throughout the party and state bureaucracy, but his
ability to reshape the top leadership was constrained by his own advanced age
and poor health as well as the influence of his rival, Konstantin Chernenko.
Andropov’s
domestic policy leaned heavily towards restoring discipline and order to Soviet
society. He eschewed radical political and economic reforms, promoting instead
a degree of candor in politics and mild economic experiments.
In foreign
affairs, Andropov continued Brezhnev’s policies, causing US-Soviet relations to
deteriorate rapidly.
Chernenko
succeeded Andropov in 1984, bringing about a number of significant policy
changes, including more investment in consumer goods and services and in
agriculture. Chernenko also called for a reduction in the Communist Party’s micromanagement
of the economy. However, KGB repression of Soviet dissidents increased and
personnel changes and investigations into corruption undertaken under Andropov
came to an end.
During this period of Soviet leadership, fighting in the Soviet-Afghan
War intensified, compounding Soviet economic stagnation and further entangling
the USSR in a war it didn’t seem they could successfully win.
Key Term
Goulash Communism
The variety of communism as practiced in the
Hungarian People’s Republic from the 1960s until the Central European collapse
of communism in 1989. With elements of free market economics and an
improved human rights record, it represented a quiet deviation from
the Soviet principles applied to Hungary in the previous decade. The name is a
semi-humorous metaphor derived from the popular Hungarian dish. Goulash is made
with an assortment of unlike ingredients, representing how Hungarian communism
was a mixed ideology and no longer strictly adhered to Marxist-Leninist
interpretations as in the past.
By 1982, the stagnation of
the Soviet economy was evidenced by the fact that the Soviet Union
had been importing grain from the U.S. throughout the 1970s. However, the conditions
that led to economic stagnation, primarily the huge rate of defense spending
that consumed the budget, were so firmly entrenched within the economic system that
any real turnaround seemed impossible. The transition period that separated the
Brezhnev and Gorbachev eras resembled the former much more than the latter,
although hints of reform emerged as early as 1983.
Andropov Interregnum
Yuri Andropov
Yuri Andropov as depicted in the August 1983 issue of Soviet Life.
Brezhnev died on November 10,
1982. Two days passed between his death and the announcement of the election of
Yuri Andropov as the new General Secretary, suggesting that a power struggle
had occurred in the Kremlin. Andropov maneuvered his way into power both
through his KGB connections and by gaining the support of the military by
promising not to cut defense spending. For comparison, some of his rivals, such as Konstantin Chernenko, were skeptical of continued high military spending. At age 69, he was the oldest person ever appointed as General Secretary and 11
years older than Brezhnev when he acquired that post. In June 1983, he assumed
the post of chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, thus becoming the
ceremonial head of state. It had taken Brezhnev 13 years to acquire this post.
Andropov began a thorough
house-cleaning throughout the party and state bureaucracy, a decision made easy
by the fact that the Central Committee had an average age of 69. He replaced
more than one-fifth of the Soviet ministers and regional party first
secretaries, and more than one-third of the department heads within the Central
Committee apparatus. As a result, he replaced the aging leadership with
younger, more vigorous administrators. But Andropov’s ability to reshape the
top leadership was constrained by his own age and poor health and the influence
of his rival (and longtime ally of Leonid Brezhnev) Konstantin Chernenko, who
previously supervised personnel matters in the Central Committee.
Andropov’s domestic policy
leaned heavily towards restoring discipline and order to Soviet society. He
eschewed radical political and economic reforms, promoting instead a small
degree of candor in politics and mild economic experiments similar to those
associated with the late Premier Alexei Kosygin’s initiatives in
the mid-1960s. In tandem with these economic experiments, Andropov launched an
anti-corruption drive that reached high into the government and party ranks.
Unlike Brezhnev, who possessed several mansions and a fleet of luxury cars, Andropov
lived a modest life. While visiting Budapest in early 1983, he expressed
interest in Hungary’s Goulash Communism and that the sheer size of the Soviet
economy made strict top-down planning impractical. 1982 had witnessed
the country’s worst economic performance since World War II, with real GDP
growth at almost zero percent, necessitating real change, and fast.
In foreign affairs, Andropov
continued Brezhnev’s policies. U.S.-Soviet relations deteriorated rapidly
beginning in March 1983, when President Ronald Reagan dubbed the Soviet
Union an “evil empire”. The official press agency TASS accused Reagan
of “thinking only in terms of confrontation and bellicose, lunatic
anti-communism”. Further deterioration occurred as a result of the September
1, 1983, Soviet shoot-down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 near Moneron Island, carrying 269 people including a sitting U.S. congressman, Larry McDonald, as
well as by Reagan’s stationing of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Western
Europe. Additionally, in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere, the U.S. began undermining Soviet-supported governments by supplying arms to
anti-communist resistance movements.
Andropov’s health declined
rapidly during the tense summer and fall of 1983, and he became the first
Soviet leader to miss the anniversary celebrations of the 1917 revolution. He
died in February 1984 of kidney failure after disappearing from public view for
several months. His most significant legacy to the Soviet Union was his
discovery and promotion of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Chernenko Interregnum
At 71, Konstantin Chernenko
was in poor health, suffering from emphysema, and unable to play an active role
in policy-making when he was chosen after lengthy discussion to succeed
Andropov. But Chernenko’s short time in office did bring about some significant
policy changes, including more investment in consumer goods and
services and in agriculture. He also called for a reduction in the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union’s (CPSU) micromanagement of the economy. However, KGB
repression of Soviet dissidents increased and personnel changes and
investigations into corruption undertaken under Andropov came to an end. In
February 1983, Soviet representatives withdrew from the World Psychiatric
Organization in protest of its continued complaints about the use of
psychiatry to suppress dissent. This policy was underlined in June when
Vladimir Danchev, a broadcaster for Radio Moscow, referred to the Soviet troops
in Afghanistan as “invaders” while conducting English-language
broadcasts. After refusing to retract this statement, he was sent to a mental institution
for several months.
Soviet-Afghan War
Andropov played a
dominant role in the decision to intervene militarily in Afghanistan on
December 24, 1979, insisting on the invasion although he knew that the
international community would find the USSR culpable. The decision to intervene
led to the Soviet-Afghan War, which continued once Andropov became the leader
of the USSR. By this time, Andropov felt the invasion might have been
a mistake and halfheartedly explored options for a negotiated withdrawal. The
Soviets had not foreseen taking such an active role in fighting the
mujahideen rebels and attempted to downplay their involvement in relation to that of
the Afghan army. However, the arrival of Soviet troops had the opposite effect
on the Afghan people, incensing rather than pacifying and causing the mujahideen
to gain in strength and numbers.
During the Chernenko
interregnum, fighting in Afghanistan intensified. Once it became apparent that
the Soviets could not take a backseat in the conflict, they followed three main
strategies aimed at quelling the uprising. Intimidation was the first strategy,
in which the Soviets would use airborne attacks as well as armored ground
attacks to destroy villages, livestock, and crops in trouble areas. Locals were forced to either flee their homes or die as daily Soviet attacks
made it impossible to live in these areas. By forcing the people of Afghanistan
to flee their homes, the Soviets hoped to deprive the guerrillas of resources
and safe havens. The second strategy consisted of subversion, which entailed
sending spies to join resistance groups and report information as well as
bribing local tribes or guerrilla leaders into ceasing operations. Finally, the
Soviets used military forays into contested territories to root
out the guerrillas and limit their options. Classic search and destroy
operations were implemented and once villages were occupied by Soviet forces,
inhabitants who remained were frequently interrogated and tortured for
information, or killed.
Tanks and Helicopters during the Soviet-Afghan War
Soviet ground forces in action while conducting an offensive operation against the Islamist resistance.
In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the U.S.,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Egypt, China, and others, contributed to Moscow’s
high military costs and strained international relations. The U.S. viewed the
struggle in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle and the CIA provided
assistance to anti-Soviet forces via Pakistani intelligence services in a
program called Operation Cyclone. The mujahideen favored sabotage operations.
The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out
pipelines and radio stations, and blowing up government office buildings, air
terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. They concentrated on both civilian and
military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys,
disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking
police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated
government officials and Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)
members, and laid siege to small rural outposts.
37.2.2: Gorbachev and Perestroika
Gorbachev launched
perestroika to rescue the Soviet economy from stagnation, but did not intend to
abandon the centrally planned economy entirely.
Learning Objective
Explain Gorbachev’s reasons for launching perestroika
Key Points
Gorbachev’s
primary goal as general secretary was to revive the Soviet economy after the
stagnant Brezhnev and interregnum years.
Gorbachev soon
came to believe that fixing the Soviet economy would be nearly impossible
without also reforming the political and social structure of the Communist
nation.
The purpose of
reform was to prop up the centrally planned economy—not to transition to market
socialism.
Gorbachev
initiated his new policy of perestroika (literally “restructuring” in
Russian) and its attendant radical reforms in 1986. Policy reforms included the
Law on State Enterprise, the Law on Cooperatives, and the opening of the Soviet
economy to foreign investment.
Unfortunately, Gorbachev’s
economic changes did not do much to restart the country’s sluggish economy.
In 1988,
Gorbachev introduced glasnost, which gave the Soviet people freedoms that they
had not previously known, including greater freedom of speech.
In June 1988, at the CPSU’s Party Conference, Gorbachev launched radical
reforms meant to reduce party control of the government apparatus, proposing a
new executive in the form of a presidential system as well as a new legislative
element.
Key Terms
glasnost
Roughly translating to “openness”, reforms to the political and judicial system made in the 1980s
that ensured greater freedoms for the public and the press as well as increased
government transparency.
perestroika
Literally “restructuring” in Russian, a political movement for reform within the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union during the 1980s, widely associated with Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev.
Mikhail Sergeyevich
Gorbachev was the eighth and final leader of the Soviet Union, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) from 1985
until 1991, when the party was dissolved. Gorbachev’s primary goal as general
secretary was to revive the Soviet economy after the stagnant Brezhnev and
interregnum years. In 1985, he announced that the economy was stalled and that
reorganization was needed, proposing a vague program of reform that was
adopted at the April Plenum of the Central Committee. His reforms called for fast-paced
technological modernization and increased industrial and agricultural
productivity. He also tried to make the Soviet bureaucracy more efficient.
Gorbachev soon came to
believe that fixing the Soviet economy would be nearly impossible without also
reforming the political and social structure of the Communist nation. He started
by making personnel changes, most notably replacing Andrei Gromyko with Eduard
Shevardnadze as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Gromyko had served at his post for
28 years and was considered a member of the old Soviet guard. Although
Shevardnadze was comparatively inexperienced in diplomacy, he, like Gorbachev,
had a background in managing an agricultural region of the Soviet Union
(Georgia), which entailed weak links to the military-industrial complex, sharing Gorbachev’s outlook on governance.
The purpose of reform was to
prop up the centrally planned economy—not to transition to market socialism.
Speaking in late summer 1985 to the secretaries for economic affairs of the
central committees of the East European communist parties, Gorbachev said:
“Many of you see the solution to your problems in resorting to market
mechanisms in place of direct planning. Some of you look at the market as a
lifesaver for your economies. But, comrades, you should not think about
lifesavers but about the ship, and the ship is socialism.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Mikhail Gorbachev in 2010.
Perestroika
Gorbachev initiated his new
policy of perestroika (literally “restructuring” in Russian) and its
attendant radical reforms in 1986. They were sketched, but not fully spelled
out, at the XXVIIth Party Congress in February–March 1986. The
“reconstruction” was proposed in an attempt to overcome economic
stagnation by creating a dependable and effective mechanism for accelerating
economic and social progress. In July 1987, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet
Union passed the Law on State Enterprise. The law stipulated that state
enterprises were free to determine output levels based on demand from consumers
and other enterprises. Enterprises had to fulfill state orders, but could
dispose of the remaining output as they saw fit. However, the state still held
control over the means of production for these enterprises, limiting their
ability to enact full-cost accountability. Enterprises bought input from
suppliers at negotiated contract prices. Under the law, enterprises became
self-financing; that is, they had to cover expenses (wages, taxes, supplies,
and debt service) through revenues. No longer was the government to rescue
unprofitable enterprises that faced bankruptcy. Finally, the law shifted
control over the enterprise operations from ministries to elected workers’
collectives.
The Law on Cooperatives,
enacted in May 1988, was perhaps the most radical of the economic reforms
introduced in the early part of the Gorbachev era. For the first time since
Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy was abolished in 1928, the law permitted
private ownership of businesses in the services, manufacturing, and
foreign-trade sectors. The law initially imposed high taxes and employment
restrictions, but it later revised these to avoid discouraging private-sector
activity.
The most significant of
Gorbachev’s reforms in the foreign economic sector allowed foreigners to invest
in the Soviet Union in joint ventures with Soviet ministries, state
enterprises, and cooperatives. The original version of the Soviet Joint Venture
Law, which went into effect in June 1987, limited foreign shares of a Soviet
venture to 49 percent and required that Soviet citizens occupy the positions of
chairman and general manager. After potential Western partners complained, the
government revised the regulations to allow majority foreign ownership and
control. Under the terms of the Joint Venture Law, the Soviet partner supplied
labor, infrastructure, and a potentially large domestic market. The foreign
partner supplied capital, technology, entrepreneurial expertise, and high-quality products and services.
Gorbachev’s economic changes
did little to restart the country’s sluggish economy in the late 1980s.
The reforms decentralized economic activity to a certain extent, but price
controls remained, as did the ruble’s inconvertibility and most government
controls over the means of production. By 1990, the government had virtually
lost control over economic conditions. Government spending increased sharply as
more unprofitable enterprises required state support and
consumer price subsidies continued. Tax revenues declined because local
governments withheld tax revenues from the central government in a climate of growing
regional autonomy. The elimination of central control over production
decisions, especially in the consumer goods sector, led to the breakdown in
traditional supply-demand relationships without contributing to the formation
of new ones. Thus, instead of streamlining the system, Gorbachev’s decentralization
caused new production bottlenecks.
Glasnost
In 1988, Gorbachev introduced
glasnost, which gave the Soviet people freedoms they had not previously
known, including greater freedom of speech. The press became far less
controlled, and thousands of political prisoners and many dissidents were
released as part of a wider program of de-Stalinization. Gorbachev’s goal in
glasnost was to pressure conservatives within the CPSU who opposed
his policies of economic restructuring, believing that through varying ranges
of openness, debate, and participation, the Soviet people would support his
reform initiatives. At the same time, he exposed his plans to more public criticism.
In June 1988, at the CPSU’s Party Conference, Gorbachev launched radical
reforms to reduce party control of the government apparatus. He proposed
a new executive in the form of a presidential system as well as a new
legislative element, the Congress of People’s Deputies. Elections
to the Congress of People’s Deputies were held throughout the Soviet Union in
March and April 1989. This was the first free election in the Soviet Union
since 1917. Gorbachev became Chairman of the Supreme Soviet (or head of state)
on May 25, 1989.
37.2.3: Unrest in the Soviet Union
The increased freedoms of glasnost allowed opposition groups to make political gains against
the centralized Soviet government in Moscow.
Learning Objective
Analyze the reasons for the uprisings that broke
out across the Soviet Union in the late 1980s
Key Points
By the late
1980s, people in the Caucasus and Baltic states were demanding more autonomy
from Moscow, and the Kremlin was losing some of its control over certain regions
and elements in the Soviet Union.
The Chernobyl
disaster in April 1986 had major political and social effects that catalyzed the
revolutions of 1989.
Under glasnost,
the Soviet media began to expose numerous social and economic problems in the
Soviet Union that the government had long denied and covered up, such as
poor housing, food shortages, alcoholism, widespread pollution, creeping
mortality rates, the second-rate position of women, and the history of
state crimes against the population.
Political
openness continued to produce unintended consequences as nationalists swept the
board in regional elections.
Starting in the
mid-1980s, the Baltic states used the reforms provided by glasnost to assert
their rights to protect their environment (for example during the Phosphorite
War) and historic monuments, and later, their claims to sovereignty and
independence.
Momentum towards
full-blown revolution began in Poland where by early April 1989, numerous
reforms and freedoms for opposition groups had been obtained.
Revolutionary
momentum, encouraged by the peaceful transition underway in Poland, continued
in Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Romania.
The Soviet Union was dissolved by the end of 1991, resulting in 14
countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan) declaring their independence in the course of the years 1990–1991.
Key Terms
glasnost
Roughly translating to “openness”, this term
refers to the reforms the political and judicial system made in the 1980s
that ensured greater freedoms for the public and the press and increased
government transparency.
sovereignty
The full right and power of a governing body to
govern itself without interference from outside sources or bodies. In
political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme
authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant
Westphalian model of state foundation.
The Revolutions of 1989 were
part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in
the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.
Leadup to Revolution
By the late 1980s, people in
the Caucasus and Baltic states were demanding more autonomy from Moscow, and
the Kremlin was losing some of its control over certain regions and elements in
the Soviet Union. In November 1988, Estonia issued a declaration of
sovereignty, which eventually led to other states doing the same.
The Baltic Way, Lithuania, August 23, 1989
The Baltic Way was a human chain of approximately two million people dedicated to liberating the Baltic Republics from the USSR.
The Chernobyl disaster in
April 1986 had major political and social effects that catalyzed the revolutions of 1989. It is difficult to establish the
total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet
Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of USD $18 billion at the time) on
containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself. One political
result of the disaster was the greatly increased significance of the Soviet
policy of glasnost. Under glasnost, relaxation of censorship resulted in the
Communist Party losing its grip on the media, and Soviet citizens were able to
learn significantly more about the past and the outside world.
The Soviet media began to
expose numerous social and economic problems in the Soviet Union that the
government had long denied and covered up, such as poor housing, food
shortages, alcoholism, widespread pollution, creeping mortality rates, the
second-rate position of women, and the history of state crimes against
the population. Although Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s personality cult
as early as the 1950s, information about the true proportions of his atrocities
had still been suppressed. These revelations had a devastating effect on those
who believed in state communism and had never been exposed to this
information, as the driving vision of society was built on a foundation of
falsehood and crimes against humanity. Additionally, information about the
higher quality of life in the United States and Western Europe and about Western pop culture were exposed to
the Soviet public for the first time.
Political openness continued
to produce unintended consequences. In elections to the regional assemblies of
the Soviet Union’s constituent republics, nationalists swept the board. As
Gorbachev weakened the system of internal political repression, the ability of
the USSR’s central government to impose its will on the USSR’s constituent
republics was largely undermined. During the 1980s, calls for greater independence
from Moscow’s rule grew louder. This was especially marked in the Baltic
Republics of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, which had been annexed into the
Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin in 1940. Nationalist sentiment also took hold in
other Soviet republics such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
Starting in the mid-1980s,
the Baltic states used the reforms provided by glasnost to assert their rights
to protect their environment (for example during the Phosphorite War) and their
historic monuments, and, later, their claims to sovereignty and independence.
When the Balts withstood outside threats, they exposed an irresolute Kremlin.
Bolstering separatism in other Soviet republics, the Balts triggered multiple
challenges to the Soviet Union. The rise of nationalism under glasnost also
reawakened simmering ethnic tensions throughout the union. For example, in
February 1988, Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic Armenian region in
Azerbaijan, passed a resolution calling for unification with Armenia, which
sparked the Nagorno-Karabakh War.
Collapse (Summer 1989 to
Fall 1991)
Momentum toward full-blown
revolution began in Poland in 1989. During the Polish United Workers’ Party’s
(PZPR) plenary session of January 16-18, 1989, General Wojciech Jaruzelski and
his ruling formation overcame the Central Committee’s resistance by threatening
to resign. As a result, the communist party decided to allow relegalization of
the independent trade union Solidarity and approach its leaders for formal
talks. From February 6 to April 4, 94 sessions of talks between 13 working groups,
known as the Round Table Talks, resulted in political and economic
compromise reforms. The talks resulted in the Round Table Agreement, by which
political power wound be vested in a newly created bicameral legislature and a
president who would be the chief executive.
By April 4, 1989, numerous
reforms and freedoms for the opposition were obtained. Solidarity, now in
existence as the Solidarity Citizens’ Committee, would again be legalized as a
trade union and allowed to participate in semi-free elections. The election had
restrictions imposed designed to keep the communists in power, since only 35%
of the seats in the Sejm, the key lower chamber of parliament, would be open to
Solidarity candidates. The remaining 65% was reserved for candidates
from the PZPR and its allies (the United People’s Party, the Alliance of
Democrats, and the PAX Association). Since the Round Table Agreement mandated
only reform (not replacement) of socialism in Poland, the communist party
thought of the election as a way of neutralizing political conflict and staying
in power while gaining legitimacy to carry out economic reforms. However, the
negotiated social policy determinations by economists and trade
unionists during the Round Table talks were quickly rejected by
both the Party and the opposition.
A systemic transformation
was made possible by the Polish legislative elections of June 4, 1989, which
coincided with the bloody crackdown on the Tienanmen Square protesters in
China. When polling results were released, a political earthquake erupted:
Solidarity’s victory surpassed all predictions. Solidarity candidates captured
all seats they were allowed to compete for in the Sejm, while in the newly
established Senate they captured 99 out of the 100 available seats (the other
seat went to an independent, who later switched to Solidarity). At the same
time, many prominent PZPR candidates failed to gain even the minimum number of
votes required to capture the seats that were reserved for them. The communists
suffered a catastrophic blow to their legitimacy as a result.
Revolutionary momentum,
encouraged by the peaceful transition underway in Poland, continued in Hungary,
East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. A common feature among
these countries was the extensive use of campaigns of civil resistance, demonstrating
popular opposition to the continuation of one-party rule and contributing to
the pressure for change. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc country whose people
overthrew its Communist regime violently. The Tienanmen Square protests of 1989
failed to stimulate major political changes in China, but powerful images of
courageous defiance during that protest helped to spark a precipitation of
events in other parts of the globe. Hungary dismantled its section of the
physical Iron Curtain, leading to a mass exodus of East Germans through
Hungary that destabilized East Germany. This led to mass demonstrations in
cities such as Leipzig and subsequently to the fall of the Berlin Wall, which
served as the symbolic gateway to German reunification in 1990.
The Soviet Union was
dissolved by the end of 1991, resulting in 14 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) declaring their independence
from the Soviet Union in 1990-91. Lithuania was the
first Union Republic to declare independence from the dissolving Soviet Union
in the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania, signed by the
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania on March 11, 1990. The Act of the
Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania served as a model and inspiration to
other Soviet republics. However, the issue of independence was not immediately
settled and recognition by other countries was uncertain. The rest of the
Soviet Union, which constituted the bulk of the area, became Russia in December
1991.
Act of Restoration of Independence of Lithuania, March 11, 1990
Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania with signatures of the delegates.
Communism was abandoned in
Albania and Yugoslavia between 1990 and 1992. By 1992, Yugoslavia split into
the five successor states of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Macedonia,
Slovenia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was later renamed Serbia
and Montenegro and eventually split into two separate states,. Serbia then further split with the breakaway of the partially
recognized state of Kosovo. Czechoslovakia was dissolved three years after the
end of Communist rule, splitting peacefully into the Czech Republic and
Slovakia in 1992. The impact was felt in dozens of Socialist countries.
Communism was abandoned in countries such as Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mongolia
(which democratically re-elected a Communist government that ran the country
until 1996), and South Yemen. The collapse of Communism (and of the Soviet
Union) led commentators to declare the end of the Cold War.
During the adoption of
varying forms of market economies, there was initially a general decline in living
standards. Political reforms were varied, but in only five countries were
Communist parties able to keep for themselves a monopoly on power: China, Cuba,
North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. Many Communist and Socialist organisations in
the West turned their guiding principles over to social democracy. Communist
parties in Italy and San Marino suffered, and the renewal of the Italian
political class took place in the early 1990s. The European political landscape
was drastically changed, with numerous Eastern Bloc countries joining NATO and
the European Union, resulting in stronger economic and social integration.
37.2.4: Fall of the Berlin Wall
A relaxing of Eastern bloc
border defenses initiated a chain of events that pressured the East German
government into opening crossing points between East and West Berlin to
political refugees, precipitating the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall.
Learning Objective
Detail the events leading up
to the fall of the Berlin Wall
Key Points
The Berlin Wall
was a barrier that divided Berlin from 1961 to 1989. When Hungary disabled its
physical border defenses with Austria on August 19, 1989, it initiated a chain
of events that would eventually precipitate the fall of the Berlin Wall.
A slew of border
crossings and protests ensued in the
Peaceful Revolution of late 1989.
To ease the
difficulties posed by these large masses of people, the Politburo led by East
Germany’s leader Egon Krenz decided on November 9, 1989, to allow refugees to
exit directly via crossing points between East and West Germany, including
between East and West Berlin.
Günter
Schabowski, the party boss in East Berlin and the spokesman for the SED
Politburo, announced the new regulations, but mistakenly
said they were effectively immediately rather than the next day.
East Germans
began gathering at the Wall, demanding that border guards open the
gates. Finally, at 10:45 pm, Harald
Jäger, the commander of the Bornholmer Straße border crossing, yielded,
allowing the guards to open the checkpoints and people to pass through with
little to no identity checking.
Television
coverage of citizens demolishing sections of the Wall on November 9 was soon
followed by the East German regime announcing ten new border crossings,
including the historically significant locations of Potsdamer Platz, Glienicker
Brücke, and Bernauer Straße.
On June 13, 1990,
the East German military officially began dismantling the Wall, beginning in
Bernauer Straße and around the Mitte district.
On July 1, 1990, the day East Germany adopted West German currency, all de jure border controls ceased, although the inter-German border was meaningless for some time before that.
Key Terms
fakir beds
Essentially, a bed of nails used as
a deterrent to vehicle or foot crossing of an expanse.
defection
In politics, a person who gives up allegiance to
one state in exchange for allegiance to another in a way that is considered
illegitimate by the first state.
The Berlin Wall was a
barrier that divided Berlin from 1961 to 1989. Constructed by the German
Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany) beginning August 13, 1961, the Wall
completely cut off West Berlin by land from East Germany and East Berlin. The
barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which
circumscribed a wide area that contained anti-vehicle trenches, fakir beds, and
other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed the Wall was erected to protect
its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent grassroots socialist
state-building in East Germany. But in practice, the Wall served to prevent
massive emigration and defection that plagued East Germany and the communist
Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.
Berlin Wall Map
Map of the location of the Berlin Wall, showing checkpoints.
The Fall of the Wall
When Hungary disabled its
physical border defenses with Austria on August 19, 1989, it initiated a chain
of events that would eventually precipitate the fall of the Berlin Wall. In
September 1989, more than 13,000 East German tourists escaped through Hungary
to Austria. The Hungarians prevented many more East Germans from crossing the
border and returned them to Budapest. Those East Germans then flooded the West
German embassy and refused to return to East Germany. The East German
government responded to this by disallowing any further travel to Hungary, but
allowed those already there to return to East Germany.
Soon, a similar pattern
began to emerge out of Czechoslovakia. This time, however, the East German
authorities allowed people to leave, provided that they did so by train through
East Germany. This was followed by mass demonstrations within East Germany
itself. Initially, protesters were mostly people wanting to leave to the West,
chanting “Wir wollen raus!” (“We want out!”). Then
protesters began to chant “Wir bleiben hier!” (“We are staying
here!”). This was the start of what East Germans call the
Peaceful Revolution of late 1989. Protest demonstrations grew considerably by
early November, and the movement neared its height on November 4, when half a
million people gathered to demand political change at the Alexanderplatz
demonstration, East Berlin’s large public square and transportation hub.
The longtime leader of East
Germany, Erich Honecker, resigned on October 18, 1989, and was replaced by
Egon Krenz the same day. Honecker predicted in January of that year that
the Wall would stand for 50 or 100 more years if the conditions that caused its construction did not
change. The wave of refugees
leaving East Germany for the West kept increasing. By early November, refugees
were finding their way to Hungary via Czechoslovakia or the West German
Embassy in Prague. This was tolerated by the new Krenz government due to
long-standing agreements with the communist Czechoslovak government allowing
free travel across their common border. However, this movement grew so
large it caused difficulties for both countries. The Politburo
led by Krenz thus decided on November 9 to allow refugees to exit directly via
crossing points between East and West Germany, including between East and West
Berlin. Later the same day, the ministerial administration modified the
proposal to include private, round-trip travel. The new regulations were to
take effect the next day.
Günter Schabowski, the party
boss in East Berlin and the spokesman for the SED Politburo, had the task of
announcing the new regulations but had not been involved in the
discussions about the new regulations and was been fully updated. Shortly
before a press conference on November 9, he was handed a note announcing the
changes but given no further instructions on how to handle the information.
These regulations had only been completed a few hours earlier and were to take
effect the following day to allow time to inform the border guards. But
this starting time delay was not communicated to Schabowski. At the end of the
press conference, Schabowski read out loud the note he had been given. One of
the reporters, ANSA’s Riccardo Ehrman, asked when the regulations would take effect. After a few seconds’
hesitation, Schabowski stated based on assumption that it would be immediate. After further questions from
journalists, he confirmed that the regulations included border crossings
through the Wall into West Berlin, which he had not mentioned until then.
Excerpts from Schabowski’s
press conference were the lead story on West Germany’s two main news programs
that night, meaning that the news was also broadcast to nearly all of East
Germany. East Germans
began gathering at the Wall at the six checkpoints between East and West
Berlin, demanding that border guards immediately open the gates. The
surprised and overwhelmed guards made many hectic telephone calls to their
superiors about the problem. At first, they were ordered to find the more
aggressive people gathered at the gates and stamp their passports with a
special stamp that barred them from returning to East Germany—in effect,
revoking their citizenship. However, this still left thousands
demanding to be let through.
It soon became clear that no
one among the East German authorities would take personal responsibility for
issuing orders to use lethal force, so the vastly outnumbered soldiers had no
way to hold back the huge crowd of East German citizens. Finally, at 10:45 pm,
Harald Jäger, the commander of the Bornholmer Straße border crossing, yielded,
allowing the guards to open the checkpoints and people to pass through with
little to no identity checking. As the Ossis (“Easterners”) swarmed through,
they were greeted by Wessis (“Westerners”) waiting with flowers and champagne
amid wild rejoicing. Soon afterward, a crowd of West Berliners jumped on top of
the Wall and were joined by East German youngsters. They danced together
to celebrate their new freedom.
The Fall of the Berlin Wall
This photo shows part of the Wall at Brandenburg Gate, with Germans standing on top of the Wall days before it was torn down.
Demolition
Television coverage of
citizens demolishing sections of the Wall on November 9 was soon followed by
the East German regime announcing ten new border crossings, including the
historically significant locations of Potsdamer Platz, Glienicker Brücke, and
Bernauer Straße. Crowds gathered on both sides of the historic crossings
waiting for hours to cheer the bulldozers that tore down portions of the Wall
to reinstate ancient roads. While the Wall officially remained guarded at a
decreasing intensity, new border crossings continued for some time, including
the Brandenburg Gate on December 22, 1989. Initially the East German military
attempted to repair damage done by “Wall peckers,” but gradually
these attempts ceased and guards became more lax, tolerating the demolitions and unauthorized border crossings through holes in the Wall.
West Germans and West
Berliners were allowed visa-free travel starting December 23. Until that point,
they were only able to visit East Germany and East Berlin under restrictive
conditions that involved applying for a visa several days or weeks in advance
and the obligatory exchange of at least 25 Deutsche Marks per day of their
planned stay, which hindered spontaneous visits. Thus, in the weeks
between November 9 and December 23, East Germans could actually travel more
freely than Westerners.
On June 13, 1990, the East
German military officially began dismantling the Wall, beginning in Bernauer
Straße and around the Mitte district. From there, demolition continued through
Prenzlauer Berg/Gesundbrunnen, Helligensee, and throughout the city of Berlin
until that December. Various military units dismantled the Berlin/Brandenberg
border wall, completing the job in November 1991. Virtually every road that was
severed by the Berlin Wall was reconstructed and reopened by August 1, 1990.
On July 1, the day East Germany adopted West German currency, all de
jure border controls ceased, although the inter-German border was meaningless for some time before that. The fall of the Wall marked the first
critical step towards German reunification, which formally concluded a mere 339
days later on October 3, 1990, with the dissolution of East Germany and the
official reunification of the German state along the democratic lines of the
West German government.
37.2.5: Dissolution of the USSR
An
unintended consequence of the expanding reform within the USSR was the
destruction of the very system it was designed to save.
Learning Objective
Summarize the chain of
events that resulted in the dissolution of the USSR
Key Points
Since 1985, General Secretary Gorbachev instituted
liberalizing policies broadly referred to as glasnost and perestroika. As a
result of his push towards liberalization, dissidents were welcomed back in the
USSR and pro-independence movements became more vocal in the regional
republics.
Gorbachev continued to radically expand the
scope of glasnost during the late 1980s, stating that no subject was off limits
for open discussion in the media.
On March 17, 1991, in a Union-wide referendum,
76.4% of voters endorsed retention of a reformed Soviet Union.
On June 12, 1991, Boris Yeltsin won 57% of the
popular vote in democratic elections for the newly created post of President of
the Russian SFSR, defeating Gorbachev’s preferred candidate. In his election campaign,
Yeltsin criticized the “dictatorship of the center”.
Faced with growing separatism, Gorbachev sought
to restructure the Soviet Union into a less-centralized state. On August 20,
1991, the Russian SFSR was scheduled to sign a New Union Treaty that would have
converted the Soviet Union into a federation of independent republics with a
common president, foreign policy, and military. But more radical reformists
were increasingly convinced that a rapid transition to a market economy was
required.
On August 19, 1991, Gorbachev’s vice president,
Gennady Yanayev, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov,
KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov, and other senior officials acted to prevent the
union treaty from being signed by forming the “General Committee on the State
Emergency”, which put Gorbachev under house arrest and cut off his
communications.
After three days, the coup collapsed. The
organizers were detained and Gorbachev returned as president, albeit with his
power depleted.
On August 24, 1991, Gorbachev dissolved the
Central Committee of the CPSU, resigned as the party’s general secretary, and
dissolved all party units in the government. Five days later, the Supreme
Soviet indefinitely suspended all CPSU activity on Soviet territory,
effectively ending Communist rule in the Soviet Union and dissolving the only
remaining unifying force in the country. The Soviet Union collapsed with
dramatic speed in the last quarter of 1991.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union,
Russia underwent a radical transformation, moving from a centrally planned
economy to a globally integrated market economy. Corrupt and haphazard
privatization processes turned major state-owned firms over to politically
connected “oligarchs,” which left equity ownership highly concentrated.
Key Terms
perestroika
Literally
“restructuring” in Russian, a political movement for reform
within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during the 1980s, widely
associated with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
glasnost
Roughly
translating to “openness,” the reforms to the political and
judicial system in the 1980s that ensured greater freedoms for the public
and the press as well as increased government transparency.
The Soviet Union was dissolved on December 26, 1991, as a
result of declaration no. 142-Н of the Supreme Soviet. The declaration
acknowledged the independence of the former Soviet republics and created the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), although five of the signatories
ratified it much later or not at all. On the previous day, Soviet President
Mikhail Gorbachev, the eighth and final leader of the Soviet Union, resigned,
declared his office extinct, and handed over its powers – including control of
the Soviet nuclear missile launching codes – to Russian President Boris
Yeltsin. That evening at 7:32, the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for
the last time and replaced with the pre-revolutionary Russian flag. From August to December of 1991, all individual republics, including Russia
itself, seceded from the union. The week before the union’s formal
dissolution, 11 republics signed the Alma-Ata Protocol formally establishing
the CIS and declaring that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. The
Revolutions of 1989 and the dissolution of the USSR signaled the end of the
Cold War and left the United States as the world’s only superpower.
Moscow’s Crisis
Since 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the
USSR, instituted liberalizing policies broadly referred to as glasnost and
perestroika. As a result of his push towards liberalization, dissidents were
welcomed back in the USSR following prolonged exile and pro-independence
movements were becoming more vocal in the regional republics. At the January
28–30, 1987, Central Committee plenum, Gorbachev suggested a new policy of
“Demokratizatsiya” throughout Soviet society. He proposed that future
Communist Party elections should offer a choice between multiple candidates,
elected by secret ballot. However, the CPSU delegates at the Plenum watered
down Gorbachev’s proposal, and democratic choice within the Communist Party was
never significantly implemented.
Gorbachev continued to radically expand the scope of glasnost
during the late 1980s, stating that no subject was off limits for open
discussion in the media. Even so, the cautious Soviet intelligentsia took
almost a year to begin pushing the boundaries to see if he meant what he said.
For the first time, the Communist Party leader appealed over the heads of
Central Committee members for the people’s support in exchange for expansion of
liberties. The tactic proved successful – within two years political reform
could no longer be sidetracked by Party conservatives. An unintended
consequence was that expanding the scope of reform would ultimately destroy the
very system it was designed to save.
On January 14, 1991, Nikolai Ryzhkov resigned from his post
as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, or premier of the Soviet Union, and
was succeeded by Valentin Pavlov in the newly-established post of Prime
Minister of the Soviet Union. On March 17, 1991, in a Union-wide referendum,
76.4% of voters endorsed retention of a reformed Soviet Union. The Baltic
republics, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, boycotted the referendum, as did Checheno-Ingushetia (an autonomous republic within Russia that had a strong
desire for independence, and by now referred to itself as Ichkeria). In each of
the other nine republics, a majority of the voters supported the retention of a
reformed Soviet Union. On June 12, 1991, Boris Yeltsin won 57% of the popular
vote in democratic elections for the newly-created post of President of the
Russian SFSR, defeating Gorbachev’s preferred candidate, Ryzhkov, who won 16%
of the vote. In his election campaign, Yeltsin criticized the “dictatorship of
the center,” but did not yet suggest that he would introduce a market economy.
August Coup
Faced with growing separatism, Gorbachev sought to
restructure the Soviet Union into a less centralized state. On August 20, 1991,
the Russian SFSR was scheduled to sign a New Union Treaty that would have
converted the Soviet Union into a federation of independent republics with a
common president, foreign policy, and military. It was strongly supported by
the Central Asian republics, which needed the economic advantages of a common
market to prosper. However, it would have meant some degree of continued
Communist Party control over economic and social life.
More radical reformists were increasingly convinced that a
rapid transition to a market economy was required, even if the eventual outcome
meant the disintegration of the Soviet Union into several independent states.
Independence also accorded with Yeltsin’s desires as president of the Russian
Federation, as well as those of regional and local authorities to get rid of
Moscow’s pervasive control. In contrast to the reformers’ lukewarm response to
the treaty, the conservatives and Russian nationalists of the USSR – still
strong within the CPSU and the military – were opposed to weakening the Soviet
state and its centralized power structure.
On August 19, 1991, Gorbachev’s vice president, Gennady
Yanayev, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov, KGB
chief Vladimir Kryuchkov, and other senior officials acted to prevent the union
treaty from being signed by forming the “General Committee on the State
Emergency”, which put Gorbachev – on holiday in Foros, Crimea – under house
arrest and cut off his communications. The coup leaders issued an emergency
decree suspending political activity and banning most newspapers. Coup
organizers expected some popular support but found that public sympathy in
large cities and in the republics was largely against them, manifested by
public demonstrations, especially in Moscow. Russian SFSR President Yeltsin
condemned the coup and garnered popular support.
1991 Coup Attempt
T-80UD tanks near Red Square during the 1991 Soviet coup d’etat attempt.
Thousands of Muscovites came out to defend the White House
(the Russian Federation’s parliament and Yeltsin’s office), the symbolic seat
of Russian sovereignty at the time. The organizers tried but ultimately failed
to arrest Yeltsin, who rallied opposition to the coup with speech-making atop a
tank. The special forces dispatched by the coup leaders took up positions near
the White House, but members refused to storm the barricaded building. The coup
leaders also neglected to jam foreign news broadcasts, so many Muscovites
watched it unfold live on CNN. Even the isolated Gorbachev was able to stay
abreast of developments by tuning into BBC World Service on a small transistor
radio.
After three days, on August 21, 1991, the coup collapsed.
The organizers were detained and Gorbachev returned as president, albeit with
his power much depleted.
The Fall: August – December 1991
On August 24, 1991, Gorbachev dissolved the Central
Committee of the CPSU, resigned as the party’s general secretary, and dissolved
all party units in the government. Five days later, the Supreme Soviet
indefinitely suspended all CPSU activity on Soviet territory, effectively
ending Communist rule in the Soviet Union and dissolving the only remaining
unifying force in the country. The Soviet Union collapsed with dramatic speed
in the last quarter of 1991. Between August and December, ten republics
declared their independence, largely out of fear of another coup. By the end of
September, Gorbachev no longer had the authority to influence events outside of
Moscow. He was challenged even there by Yeltsin, who had begun taking over what
remained of the Soviet government, including the Kremlin.
On September 17, 1991, General Assembly resolution numbers
46/4, 46/5, and 46/6 admitted Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to the United
Nations, conforming to Security Council resolution numbers 709, 710, and 711,
passed on September 12 without a vote. The final round of the Soviet Union’s
collapse began with a Ukrainian popular referendum on December 1, 1991, in
which 90 percent of voters opted for independence. The secession of Ukraine,
the second-most powerful republic, ended any realistic chance of Gorbachev
keeping the Soviet Union together even on a limited scale. The leaders of the
three principal Slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (formerly
Byelorussia), agreed to discuss possible alternatives to the union.
On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus
secretly met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha, in western Belarus, and signed the
Belavezha Accords, which proclaimed the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and
announced formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a looser
association to take its place. They also invited other republics to join the
CIS. Gorbachev called it an unconstitutional coup. However, by this time there
was no longer any reasonable doubt that, as the preamble of the Accords put it,
“the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality,
is ceasing its existence.” On December 12, the Supreme Soviet of the
Russian SFSR formally ratified the Belavezha Accords and renounced the 1922
Union Treaty. It also recalled the Russian deputies from the Supreme Soviet of
the USSR. In effect, the largest and most powerful republic had seceded from
the Union. Later that day, Gorbachev hinted for the first time that he was
considering stepping down.
Doubts remained over whether the Belavezha Accords had legally
dissolved the Soviet Union since they were signed by only three republics.
However, on December 21, 1991, representatives of 11 of the 12 remaining
republics – all except Georgia – signed the Alma-Ata Protocol, which confirmed
the dissolution of the Union and formally established the CIS. They also recognized
and accepted Gorbachev’s resignation. While Gorbachev hadn’t made any formal
plans to leave his position yet, he did tell CBS News that he would resign as
soon as he saw that the CIS was indeed a reality.
In a nationally televised speech early in the morning of
December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president of the USSR – or, as he put
it, “I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” He declared the office extinct, and
all of its powers, including control of the nuclear arsenal, were ceded to
Yeltsin. A week earlier, Gorbachev met with Yeltsin and accepted the fait
accompli of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. On the same day, the Supreme Soviet
of the Russian SFSR adopted a statute to change Russia’s legal name from “Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” to “Russian Federation,” showing that it
was now a sovereign state. On the night of December 25, at 7:32 p.m. Moscow
time, after Gorbachev left the Kremlin the Soviet flag was lowered for the
last time and the Russian tricolor was raised in its place, symbolically
marking the end of the Soviet Union. On that same day, the President of the
United States George H.W. Bush held a brief televised speech officially
recognizing the independence of the 11 remaining republics.
On December 26, the upper chamber of the Union’s Supreme
Soviet voted both itself and the Soviet Union out of existence. The lower
chamber, the Council of the Union, had been out of commission since December
12, when the recall of Russian deputies left it without a quorum. The following
day Yeltsin moved into Gorbachev’s former office, though Russian authorities
had taken over the suite two days earlier. By the end of 1991, the few
remaining Soviet institutions that had not been taken over by Russia ceased
operation, and individual republics assumed the central government’s role.
The Alma-Ata Protocol addressed issues such as UN membership
following dissolution. Notably, Russia was authorized to assume the Soviet
Union’s UN membership, including its permanent seat on the Security Council.
The Soviet Ambassador to the UN delivered a letter signed by Russian President
Yeltsin to the UN Secretary General dated December 24, 1991, informing him that
by virtue of the Alma-Ata Protocol, Russia was the successor state to the USSR.
After being circulated among the other UN member states and with no objections
being raised, the statement was accepted on
December 31, 1991.
The Transition to a Market Economy, 1991-1998
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia radically transformed from a centrally planned economy to a globally
integrated market economy. Corrupt and haphazard privatization processes turned
major state-owned firms over to politically connected “oligarchs”,
which left equity ownership highly concentrated. Yeltsin’s program of radical,
market-oriented reform came to be known as a “shock therapy.” It was
based on the recommendations of the IMF and a group of top American economists,
including Larry Summers. The result was disastrous, with real GDP falling by
more than 40% by 1999, the occurrence of hyperinflation, which wiped out
personal savings, and crime and destitution spreading rapidly. Difficulties in
collecting government revenues amid the collapsing economy and a dependence on
short-term borrowing to finance budget deficits led to the 1998 Russian
financial crisis.
Also during this time, Russia became the largest
borrower from the International Monetary Fund with loans totaling $20 billion.
The IMF was the subject of criticism for lending so much as Russia introduced
little of the reforms promised in exchange for money, especially as critics
suspected a large part of these funds could have been diverted or even used to
fund illegal enterprises.
37.3: Apartheid Repealed
37.3.1: Institutional Racism in South Africa
Due to increasing Afrikaner
resentment of perceived black and white English-speaking labor advantages and
the concurrent electoral success of the National Party in 1948, institutional
racism became state policy under apartheid.
Learning Objective
Examine how racism was institutionalized in
South Africa during apartheid
Key Points
In South Africa
during apartheid, institutional racism was a powerful means of excluding
from resources and power any person not categorized r marked as white.
The Union of
South Africa allowed social custom and law to govern multiracial affairs and the racial allocation, of access to economic,
social, and political status. Nevertheless, by 1948 gaps in the social structure concerning the rights and
opportunities of nonwhites were apparent..
Many Afrikaners,
whites chiefly of Dutch descent, resented what they perceived as disempowerment
by an underpaid black workforce and the superior economic power and prosperity
of white English speakers.
The National
Party’s election platform stressed that apartheid would preserve a market for
white employment in which nonwhites could not compete, and because the voting
system was disproportionately weighted in favor of rural constituencies and the
Transvaal in particular, the 1948 election catapulted the National Party from a
small minority to a commanding position with an eight-vote parliamentary lead.
The first grand
apartheid law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalized
racial classification and introduced an identity card for all persons over the
age of 18, specifying their racial group.
The second
pillar of grand apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950, which put an end to
diverse settlement areas and determined where one lived according to race.
The Prohibition
of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 prohibited marriage between those of different
races, and the Immorality Act of 1950 made sexual relations with a person of a
different race a criminal offense.
Under the
Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be
reserved for a particular race, creating separate beaches,
buses, hospitals, schools, universities, and other facilities.
Further laws were designed to suppress resistance, especially armed
resistance, to apartheid.
Key Terms
Atlantic Charter
A pivotal policy statement issued on August 14,
1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-war world: no territorial
aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people,
restoration of self-government to those deprived of it, reduction of trade
restrictions, global cooperation to secure better economic and social
conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas,
abandonment of the use of force, and disarmament of aggressor nations.
Bantustans
Also known as Bantu homeland, black homeland,
black state, or simply homeland, a territory set aside for
black inhabitants of South Africa and South-West Africa (now Namibia) as part
of apartheid. Ten were established in South Africa and
ten in neighboring South-West Africa (then under South African administration)
for members of designated ethnic groups. This made each territory ethnically homogeneous to create autonomous nation-states for South Africa’s black ethnic groups.
In South Africa during apartheid, institutional racism was a powerful means of excluding from
resources and power any person not categorized as white. Those considered black were further discriminated against based upon their backgrounds, with Africans
facing more extreme forms of exclusion and exploitation than those marked as
colored or Indian.
Election of 1948
The Union of South Africa
allowed social custom and law to govern the consideration of multiracial
affairs and the allocation in racial terms of access to economic, social, and
political status. Most white South Africans, regardless of their differences, accepted the prevailing pattern. Nevertheless, by 1948 it
remained apparent that there were occasional gaps in the social structure,
whether legislated or otherwise, concerning the rights and opportunities of
nonwhites. The rapid economic development of World War II attracted black
migrant workers in large numbers to chief industrial centers where they
compensated for the wartime shortage of white labor. However, this escalated
rate of black urbanization went unrecognized by the South African government,
which failed to accommodate the influx with parallel expansion in housing or
social services.
Overcrowding, spiking crime
rates, and disillusionment resulted. Urban blacks came to support a new
generation of leaders influenced by the principles of self-determination and
popular freedoms enshrined in such statements as the Atlantic Charter. Whites
reacted negatively to these developments. Many Afrikaners, whites chiefly of
Dutch descent but with early infusions of Germans and French Huguenots who were
soon assimilated, also resented what they perceived as disempowerment by an
underpaid black workforce and the superior economic power and prosperity of
white English speakers. In addition, Jan Smuts, as a strong advocate of the
United Nations, lost domestic support when South Africa was criticized for its
color bar and continued mandate of South-West Africa by other UN member states.
Afrikaner nationalists
proclaimed they would offer voters a new policy to ensure continued
white domination. The policy was initially expounded from a theory by
Hendrik Verwoerd presented to the National Party by the Sauer
Commission. It called for a systematic effort to organize relations, rights,
and privileges of the races as officially defined through a series of
parliamentary acts and administrative decrees. Segregation was previously pursued only in major matters, such as separate schools, and enforcement
depended on local authorities and societal complicity. Now it would be a matter of national legislation. The party gave this policy a
name: apartheid, meaning “apartness”. Apartheid would be the basic
ideological and practical foundation of Afrikaner politics for the next quarter-century.
The National Party’s
election platform stressed that apartheid would preserve a market for white
employment in which nonwhites could not compete. On the issues of black urbanization,
the regulation of nonwhite labor, influx control, social security, farm
tariffs, and nonwhite taxation, the United Party’s policy remained
contradictory and confused. Its traditional bases of support not only took
mutually exclusive positions, but found themselves increasingly at odds with
each other. Smuts’ reluctance to consider South African foreign policy against
the mounting tensions of the Cold War also stirred up discontent, while the
nationalists promised to purge the state and public service of communist
sympathizers. First to desert the United Party were Afrikaner farmers, who
wished to see a change in influx control due to problems with squatters, as
well as higher prices for their maize and other produce in the face of mine owners’
demand for cheap food policies.
The party also failed to appeal to its working-class constituents given its long-term affiliation with affluent and
capitalist sectors. Populist rhetoric allowed the National Party to
sweep eight constituencies in the mining and industrial centers of the
Witwatersrand and five more in Pretoria. Barring the predominantly
English-speaking landowner electorate of the Natal, the United Party was
defeated in almost every rural district. Its urban losses in the nation’s most
populous province, the Transvaal, proved equally devastating. Because the voting
system was disproportionately weighted in favor of rural constituencies and the
Transvaal in particular, the 1948 election catapulted the National Party from a
small minority to a commanding position with an eight-vote parliamentary lead. Daniel
François Malan became the first nationalist prime minister, with the aim of
implementing apartheid and silencing liberal opposition.
D.F. Malan
Daniel François Malan, the first apartheid-era prime minister (1948–1954).
Legislation
NP leaders argued that South
Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial
groups: white, black, colored, and Indian. Such groups were split into 13
nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and
Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups.
The state passed laws that paved the way for “grand apartheid,” large-scale segregation by compelling people to live
in separate places defined by race, leading to the creation of black-only
townships where blacks were relocated en masse. This strategy was influenced
in party by British rule after they took control of the Boer republics in the
Anglo-Boer war.
The first grand apartheid
law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalized racial
classification and introduced an identity card for all persons over the age of
18 specifying their racial group. Official boards were established to
decide on a classification when a person’s race was unclear. This
caused difficulties for many people, especially colored people, when families were placed in different racial classes.
The second pillar of grand
apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950. Until then, most settlements had
people of different races living side-by-side. This Act put an end to diverse
areas and determined where one lived according to race. Each race was allotted
its own area, used in later years as a basis of forced removal. The
Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 allowed the government to demolish
black shanty town slums and forced white employers to pay for the construction
of housing for black workers who were permitted to reside in cities
otherwise reserved for whites.
The Prohibition of Mixed
Marriages Act of 1949 prohibited marriage between persons of different races,
and the Immorality Act of 1950 made sexual relations with a person of a
different race a criminal offense.
Under the Reservation of
Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a
particular race, creating separate beaches, buses,
hospitals, schools, universities, and other facilities. Signboards such as “whites
only” applied to public areas, including park benches. Blacks were
provided with services greatly inferior to those given to whites, and to a lesser
extent, to those for Indian and colored people.
Apartheid-Era Sign
Further laws suppressed resistance, especially armed resistance, to apartheid. The
Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned any party subscribing to Communism.
The act defined Communism and its aims so broadly that anyone who opposed
government policy risked being labeled as a Communist. Since the law
specifically stated that Communism aimed to disrupt racial harmony, it was
frequently used to gag opposition to apartheid. Disorderly gatherings were
banned, as were certain organizations deemed threatening to the
government.
Education was segregated by
the 1953 Bantu Education Act, which crafted a separate system of education for
black South African students and was designed to prepare black people for lives
as a laboring class. In 1959, separate universities were created for black,
colored, and Indian people. Existing universities were not permitted to enroll
new black students. The Afrikaans Medium Decree of 1974 required the use of
Afrikaans and English equally in high schools outside the homelands.
The Bantu Authorities Act of
1951 created separate government structures for blacks and whites and was the
first legislation to support the government’s plan of separate
development in the Bantustans. The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act of
1959 entrenched the NP policy of nominally independent “homelands”
for blacks. So-called “self–governing Bantu units” were proposed,
which would have devolved administrative powers with the promise later of
autonomy and self-government. It also abolished the seats of white representatives
of black South Africans and disenfranchised the few blacks still qualified to
vote. The Bantu Investment Corporation Act of 1959 set up a mechanism to
transfer capital to the homelands to create employment there. Legislation in
1967 allowed the government to halt industrial development in white cities and
redirect such development to the black homelands. The Black Homeland
Citizenship Act of 1970 marked a new phase in Bantustan strategy. It changed
the citizenship of blacks to apply only within one of the ten autonomous
territories. The aim was to ensure a demographic majority of white people
within South Africa by having all ten Bantustans achieve full independence.
The government tightened pass
laws compelling blacks to carry identity documents in order to prevent the
immigration of blacks from other countries. To reside in a city, blacks had to be
employed there. Until 1956, women were for the most part excluded from these
pass requirements, as attempts to introduce pass laws for women were met with
fierce resistance.
Disenfranchisement of
Colored Voters
In 1950, D.F. Malan
announcement the NP’s intention to create a Colored Affairs Department. J.G.
Strijdom, Malan’s successor as Prime Minister, moved to strip voting rights
from black and colored residents of the Cape Province. The previous government
introduced the Separate Representation of Voters Bill into Parliament in
1951; however, four voters, G. Harris, W.D. Franklin, W.D. Collins, and Edgar
Deane, challenged its validity in court with support from the United Party. The
Cape Supreme Court upheld the act, but it was reversed by the Appeal Court, which
found it invalid because a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of both
Houses of Parliament was needed to change the entrenched clauses of the
Constitution. The government then introduced the High Court of Parliament Bill
(1952), which gave Parliament the power to overrule decisions of the court. The
Cape Supreme Court and the Appeal Court declared this invalid as well.
In 1955, the Strijdom
government increased the number of judges in the Appeal Court from five to
11 and appointed pro-Nationalist judges to fill the new seats. In the same
year, the Strijdom government introduced the Senate Act, which increased the
Senate from 49 seats to 89. Adjustments were made to the effect that the NP
controlled 77 of these seats. Parliament met in a joint sitting and passed the
Separate Representation of Voters Act in 1956, which transferred colored voters
from the common voters’ roll in the Cape to a new colored voters’ roll.
Immediately after the vote, Senate was restored to its original size.
The Senate Act was contested
in the Supreme Court, but the recently enlarged Appeal Court, packed with
government-supporting judges, upheld both the Senate and Separate
Representation of Voters Acts. The Separate Representation of Voters Act
allowed colored people to elect four people to Parliament, but a 1969 law
abolished those seats and stripped colored people of their right to vote. Since
Asians had never been allowed to vote, this resulted in whites being the sole
enfranchised group.
Division Among Whites
Before South Africa became a
republic, politics among white South Africans was typified by the division
between mainly Afrikaner pro-republic conservatives and largely English
anti-republican liberal sentiments, with the legacy of the Boer War still
affecting viewpoints among many people. Once South Africa became a republic,
Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd called for improved relations and greater
accord between people of British descent and the Afrikaners. He claimed that
the only difference among these groups was between those in favor of apartheid
and those against it. The ethnic division would no longer be between Afrikaans
and English speakers, but between blacks and whites. Most Afrikaners supported
the notion of unanimity among white people as a means to ensure their safety.
White voters of British descent were divided. Many opposed a republic,
leading to a majority “no” vote in Natal. Later, some recognized the
perceived need for white unity, convinced by the growing trend of decolonization
elsewhere in Africa, which concerned them. British Prime Minister Harold
Macmillan’s “Wind of Change” speech left the British faction feeling
that Britain had abandoned them.
More conservative English speakers
supported Verwoerd. Yet others were troubled by the implications of severing
ties with Britain and wished to remain loyal to the Crown. They were displeased
with their perceived choice between British and South African nationalities.
Although Verwoerd tried to bind these different blocs along racial lines, subsequent
voting patterns illustrated only a minor swell of support, indicating that many
English speakers remained apathetic and Verwoerd had not truly succeeded in
uniting the white population.
37.3.2: The African National Congress
The African National Congress (ANC) resisted the apartheid system in South Africa using both peaceful and violent
means.
Learning Objective
Describe the
origins and evolution of the African National Congress
Key Points
The
African National Congress (ANC) was formed on January 8, 1912, as a way to
bring Africans together as one people to defend their rights and freedoms.
The
successful increase of awareness brought to the plight of Indians in South
Africa under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi inspired blacks in South Africa
to resist the racism and inequality that they and other non-whites were
experiencing under apartheid.
In
1949, the ANC saw a jump in membership, which had previously lingered
around 5,000, and began to establish a firm presence in South African national
society.
In
June 1955, the Congress of the People, organized by the ANC and Indian,
Colored, and White organizations, adopted the Freedom Charter, the fundamental
document of the anti-apartheid struggle that demanded equal rights for
all regardless of race.
In
1959, a number of members broke from the ANC due to objections over the
ANC’s reorientation away from African nationalist policies. They formed the
rival Pan Africanist Congress (PAC).
The
ANC planned a campaign against the Pass Laws to begin on March 31, 1960. The
PAC preempted the ANC by holding unarmed protests 10 days earlier, during
which 69 protesters were killed and 180 injured by police fire in what became
known as the Sharpeville massacre. In the aftermath of the tragedy, both organizations
were banned from political activity.
Following
the Sharpeville massacre, the ANC leadership concluded that methods of
non-violence were not suitable against the apartheid system. A military wing
was formed in 1961 called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), with Nelson Mandela as its
first leader.
The
ANC was classified as a terrorist organization by the South African government
and some Western countries, including the United States and United Kingdom.
Key Term
apartheid
A system of
institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination that existed in South
Africa between 1948 and 1991.
Origins
The African
National Congress (ANC) was formed on January 8, 1912, by Saul Msane, Josiah
Gumede, John Dube, Pixley ka Isaka Seme, and Sol Plaatje. It grew from a number
of chiefs, people’s representatives, and church organizations as a way to bring
Africans together as one people to defend their rights and freedoms. From its
inception, the ANC represented both traditional and modern elements of South
African black society, from tribal chiefs to church bodies and educated black
professionals. Women, however, were only admitted as affiliate members from
1931, and as full members in 1943. The formation of the ANC Youth League in
1944 by Anton Lembede heralded a new generation committed to building
non-violent mass action against the legal underpinnings of the white minority’s
supremacy.
Native National Congress delegation to England, June 1914
Left to right: Thomas Mapike, Rev. Walter Rubusana, Rev. John Dube, Saul Msane, and Sol Plaatjie. The delegation tried to get the British government to intervene against the Land Act, but the outbreak of the First World War thwarted their hopes for intervention.
In 1946, the
ANC allied with the South African Communist Party to assist in the formation of
the South African Mine Workers’ Union. After the miners strike became a general
labor strike, the ANC’s President General Alfred Bitini Xuma, along with
delegates of the South African Indian Congress, attended the 1946 session of
the United Nations General Assembly, where the treatment of Indians in South
Africa was raised by the government of India. Together, they put
the issue of police brutality and the wider struggle for equality in South
Africa on the radar of the international community.
Opposition to
Apartheid
The return
of an Afrikaner-led National Party government by the overwhelmingly white
electorate in 1948 signaled the advent of the policy of apartheid. During the
1950s, non-whites were removed from electoral rolls, residence and mobility
laws were tightened, and political activities restricted. The successful
increase of awareness to the plight of Indians in South Africa under
the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi inspired blacks in South Africa to resist the
racism and inequality that they and other non-whites were experiencing. The
ANC also realized it needed a fervent leader like Gandhi was for the
Indians, who was, in the words of Nelson Mandela, “willing to violate the
law and if necessary go to prison for their beliefs as Gandhi had”. The
two groups began working together, forcing themselves to accept one another and
abandon their personal prejudices, even jointly
campaigning for their struggle to be managed by the United Nations.
In 1949, the
ANC saw a jump in membership, which had previously lingered around 5,000,
and began to establish a firm presence in South African national society. In
June 1952, the ANC joined with other anti-apartheid organizations in a Defiance
Campaign against the restriction of political, labor, and residential rights,
during which protesters deliberately violated oppressive laws, following the
example of Gandhi’s passive resistance in KwaZulu-Natal and in India. The
campaign was called off in April 1953 after new laws prohibiting protest
meetings were passed. In June 1955, the Congress of the People, organized by
the ANC and Indian, Colored, and White organizations at Kliptown near
Johannesburg, adopted the Freedom Charter, henceforth the fundamental document
of the anti-apartheid struggle, demanding equal rights for all
regardless of race. As opposition to the regime’s policies continued, 156
leading members of the ANC and allied organizations were arrested in 1956. The
resulting “treason trial” ended with mass acquittals five years
later.
The ANC
first called for an academic boycott of South Africa in protest of its
apartheid policies in 1958 in Ghana. The call was repeated the following year
in London.
In 1959, a
number of members broke from the ANC because they objected to the ANC’s
reorientation away from African nationalist policies. They formed the rival Pan
Africanist Congress (PAC), led by Robert Sobukwe.
Protest and Banning
The ANC
planned a campaign against the Pass Laws, which required blacks to carry an identity
card at all times to justify their presence in white areas, to begin on March
31, 1960. The PAC preempted the ANC by holding unarmed protests 10 days
earlier, during which 69 protesters were killed and 180 injured by police fire
in what became known as the Sharpeville massacre. In the aftermath of the
tragedy, both organizations were banned from political activity. International
opposition to the regime increased throughout the 1950s and 1960s, fueled by
the growing number of newly independent African nations, the Anti-Apartheid
Movement in Britain, and the civil rights movement in the United States. In
1960, the leader of the ANC, Albert Luthuli, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Murder at Sharpeville, March 21, 1960
Painting of the Sharpeville massacre, which took place March 21, 1960 in Gauteng province, South Africa. The painting, by Godfrey Rubens, is currently located in the South African Consulate in London.
Violent Political Resistance
Following
the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, the ANC leadership concluded that methods of
non-violence, such as those utilized by Gandhi against the British Empire, were
not suitable against the apartheid system. A military wing was formed in 1961,
called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), meaning “Spear of the Nation”, with
Mandela as its first leader. MK operations during the 1960s primarily involved
targeting and sabotaging government facilities. Mandela was arrested in 1962,
convicted of sabotage in 1964, and sentenced to life imprisonment on Robben Island,
along with Sisulu and other ANC leaders after the Rivonia Trial. During the
1970s and 1980s, the ANC leadership in exile under Oliver Tambo targeted apartheid government leadership, command and control, secret
police, and military-industrial complex assets and personnel in decapitation
strikes, targeted killings, and guerrilla actions such as bomb explosions in
facilities frequented by military and government personnel. A number of
civilians were also killed in these attacks. Examples include the
Amanzimtoti bombing, the Sterland bomb in Pretoria, the Wimpy bomb in Pretoria,
the Juicy Lucy bomb in Pretoria, and the Magoo’s bar bombing in Durban. ANC
acts of sabotage aimed at government institutions included the bombing of the
Johannesburg Magistrates Court, the attack on the Koeberg nuclear power
station, the rocket attack on Voortrekkerhoogte in Pretoria, and the 1983
Church Street bombing in Pretoria, which killed 16 and wounded 130.
The ANC was
classified as a terrorist organization by the South African government and some
Western countries, including the United States and United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, the ANC had a London office from 1978 to 1994 at 28 Penton Street
in Islington, now marked with a plaque. During this period, the South African
military engaged in a number of raids and bombings on ANC bases in Botswana,
Mozambique, Lesotho, and Swaziland. Dulcie September, a member of the ANC investigating the arms trade between France and South Africa, was
assassinated in Paris in 1988. In the ANC’s training camps, the ANC faced
allegations that dissident members faced torture, detention without trial, and
even execution.
Violence
also occurred between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party, a political party
that grew out of a 1920s cultural organization established for Zulus. Between
1985 and 1989, 5,000 civilians were killed during in-fighting between the two
parties. Massacres of each other’s supporters include the Shell House massacre
and the Boipatong massacre.
As the years
progressed, ANC attacks, coupled with international pressure and internal
dissent, increased in South Africa. The ANC received financial and tactical
support from the USSR, which orchestrated military involvement with surrogate
Cuban forces via Angola. However, the fall of the USSR after 1991 brought an
end to funding and changed the attitude of some Western governments that previously supported the apartheid regime as an ally against communism. The
South African government found itself under increasing internal and external
pressure, and this, together with a more conciliatory tone from the ANC,
resulted in a change in the political landscape. State President F.W. de Klerk
unbanned the ANC and other banned organizations on February 2, 1990, and began
peace talks for a negotiated settlement to end apartheid.
37.3.3: Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress
Nelson Mandela was a central figure in the negotiation process that led to South Africa’s transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy.
Learning Objective
Describe the role played by Mandela in repealing apartheid
Key Points
Apartheid was a system of racial discrimination and segregation in the South African government, ended through a series of negotiations between 1990 and 1993.
When de Klerk became President in 1989, he built on previous secret negotiations with the imprisoned Mandela. The first significant steps toward formal negotiations took place in February 1990 when de Klerk announced the unbanning of the ANC and other organizations and the release of ANC leader Nelson Mandela after 27 years in prison.
In May 1990, Mandela led a multiracial ANC delegation into preliminary negotiations with a government delegation of 11 Afrikaner men, which led to the Groot Schuur Minute in which the government lifted the state of emergency.
In August 1990, Mandela—recognizing the ANC’s severe military disadvantage—offered a ceasefire, the Pretoria Minute, for which he was widely criticized by MK activists.
The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) began in December 1991. Mandela remained a key figure, taking the stage to denounce de Klerk as the “head of an illegitimate, discredited minority regime.”
CODESA 2 was held in May 1992, at which de Klerk insisted that post-apartheid South Africa must use a federal system with a rotating presidency to ensure the protection of ethnic minorities. Mandela opposed this, demanding a unitary system governed by majority rule.
In September 1992, Mandela and de Klerk resumed negotiations and agreed to a multiracial general election, which would result in a five-year coalition government and a constitutional assembly. The ANC conceded to safeguarding the jobs of white civil servants. The duo also agreed on an interim constitution based on a liberal democratic model, dividing the country into nine provinces each with its own premier and civil service, a compromise between federalism and Mandela’s desire for a unitary government.
The National Assembly elected during the 1994 general election in turn elected Mandela as South Africa’s first black chief executive.
Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency.
Key Term
apartheid
A system of
institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South
Africa between 1948 and 1991.
The apartheid system in South Africa was ended through a series of negotiations between 1990 and 1993 and through unilateral steps by the de Klerk government. These negotiations took place between the governing National Party, the African National Congress (ANC), and a wide variety of other political organizations. Negotiations were offset by political violence, including allegations of a state-sponsored third force destabilizing the country. The negotiations resulted in South Africa’s first non-racial election, which was won by the ANC.
Background
Apartheid was a system of racial discrimination and segregation in the South African government. It was formalized in 1948, forming a framework for political and economic dominance by the white population and severely restricting the political rights of the black majority. Between 1960 and 1990, the ANC and other mainly black opposition political organizations were banned. As the National Party cracked down on black opposition to apartheid, most leaders of the ANC and other opposition organizations were either imprisoned or went into exile, including Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned from 1962 until 1990. However, increasing local and international pressure on the government and the realization that apartheid could neither be maintained by force forever nor overthrown by the opposition without considerable suffering, eventually led both sides to the negotiating table.
Early Contact
The first meetings between the South African government and Nelson Mandela were driven by the National Intelligence Service (NIS) under the leadership of Niel Barnard and his Deputy Director General, Mike Louw. These secret meetings were designed to understand if there was sufficient common ground for future peace talks. As these meetings evolved, a level of trust developed between the key actors (Barnard, Louw, and Mandela). To facilitate future talks while preserving secrecy needed to protect the process, Barnard arranged for Mandela to be moved off Robben Island to Pollsmoor Prison in 1982. This provided him with more comfortable lodgings, but also gave easier access in a way that could not be compromised. Barnard therefore brokered an initial agreement in principle about what became known as “talks about talks”. It was at this stage that the process was elevated from a secret engagement to a more public engagement.
Mandela’s prison cell on Robben Island
The inside of Mandela’s prison cell as it was when he was imprisoned in 1964.
Mandela’s cell later contained more furniture, including a bed from around 1973.
As the secret talks bore fruit and the political engagement began, NIS withdrew from center stage in the process and moved to a new phase of operational support work. This was designed to test public opinion about a negotiated solution. A key initiative was known in Security Force circles as the Dakar Safari, which saw a number of prominent Afrikaner opinion-makers engage with the African National Congress in Dakar, Senegal, and Leverkusen, Germany at events organized by the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa. The operational objective of this meeting was not to understand the opinions of the actors themselves—that was well-known at this stage within strategic management circles—but rather to gauge public opinion about a movement away from the previous security posture of confrontation and repression to one based on engagement and accommodation.
Unbanning and Mandela’s Release, 1990-91
When F.W. de Klerk became President in 1989, he built on the previous secret negotiations with the imprisoned Mandela. The first significant steps towards formal negotiations took place in February 1990 when in his speech at the opening of Parliament, de Klerk announced the unbanning of the ANC and other banned organizations and the release of ANC leader Nelson Mandela after 27 years in prison. Mandela proceeded on an African tour, meeting supporters and politicians in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Libya, and Algeria. Then he continued to Sweden, where he was reunited with exiled ANC leader Oliver Tambo, and London, where he appeared at the Nelson Mandela: An International Tribute for a Free South Africa concert at Wembley Stadium in Wembley Park. In France, Mandela was welcomed by President François Mitterrand; in Vatican City by Pope John Paul II; and in the United Kingdom by Thatcher. In the United States, he met President George H.W. Bush, addressed both Houses of Congress, and visited eight cities, with particular popularity among the African-American community. In Cuba, he became friends with President Fidel Castro, whom he had long admired. He met President R. Venkataraman in India, President Suharto in Indonesia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, and Prime Minister Bob Hawke in Australia. He visited Japan, but not the USSR, a longtime ANC supporter. All the while, Mandela encouraged foreign countries to support sanctions against the apartheid government.
In May 1990, Mandela led a multiracial ANC delegation into preliminary negotiations with a government delegation of 11 Afrikaner men. Mandela impressed them with his discussions of Afrikaner history, and the negotiations led to the Groot Schuur Minute, in which the government lifted the state of emergency. In August, Mandela—recognizing the ANC’s severe military disadvantage—offered a ceasefire, the Pretoria Minute, for which he was widely criticized by Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) activists. He spent much time trying to unify and build the ANC, appearing at a Johannesburg conference in December attended by 1,600 delegates, many of whom found him more moderate than expected. At the ANC’s July 1991 national conference in Durban, Mandela admitted the party’s faults and announced his aim to build a “strong and well-oiled task force” for securing majority rule. At the conference, he was elected ANC President, replacing the ailing Tambo, and a 50-strong multiracial, mixed-gendered national executive was elected.
Mandela was given an office in the newly purchased ANC headquarters at Shell House, Johannesburg, and moved into his wife Winnie Madikizela’s house in Soweto. Their marriage was increasingly strained as he learned of her affair with Dali Mpofu, but he supported her during her trial for kidnapping and assault. He gained funding for her defense from the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa and from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. However, in June 1991, she was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison, reduced to two on appeal. On April 13, 1992, Mandela publicly announced his separation from Winnie. The ANC forced her to step down from the national executive for misappropriating ANC funds and Mandela moved into the mostly white Johannesburg suburb of Houghton.
Mandela’s prospects for a peaceful transition were further damaged by an increase in “black-on-black” violence, particularly between ANC and Inkatha supporters in KwaZulu-Natal, which resulted in thousands of deaths. Mandela met with Inkatha leader Buthelezi, but the ANC prevented further negotiations on the issue. Mandela argued that there was a “third force” within the state intelligence services, fueling the violence. Mandela openly blamed de Klerk – whom he increasingly distrusted – for the Sebokeng massacre. In September 1991, a national peace conference was held in Johannesburg at which Mandela, Buthelezi, and de Klerk signed a peace accord, though the violence continued.
CODESA Talks: 1991-92
The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) began in December 1991 at the Johannesburg World Trade Center, attended by 228 delegates from 19 political parties. Although Cyril Ramaphosa led the ANC’s delegation, Mandela remained a key figure, and after de Klerk used the closing speech to condemn the ANC’s violence, Mandela denounced de Klerk as the “head of an illegitimate, discredited minority regime.” Dominated by the National Party and ANC, little negotiation was achieved.
At CODESA 2 in May 1992, de Klerk insisted that post-apartheid South Africa must use a federal system with a rotating presidency to ensure the protection of ethnic minorities. Mandela opposed this, demanding a unitary system governed by majority rule. Following the Boipatong massacre of ANC activists by government-aided Inkatha militants, Mandela called off the negotiations before attending a meeting of the Organisation of African Unity in Senegal, at which he called for a special session of the UN Security Council and proposed that a UN peacekeeping force be stationed in South Africa to prevent state terrorism. Calling for domestic mass action, in August the ANC organized the largest-ever strike in South African history, and supporters marched on Pretoria.
Following the Bisho massacre, in which 28 ANC supporters and one soldier were shot dead by the Ciskei Defence Force during a protest march, Mandela realized that mass action was leading to further violence and resumed negotiations in September. He agreed to do so on the conditions that all political prisoners be released, Zulu traditional weapons be banned, and Zulu hostels fenced off. The latter two measures were intended to prevent further Inkatha attacks. de Klerk reluctantly agreed to these terms. The negotiations agreed that a multiracial general election would be held, resulting in a five-year coalition government of national unity and a constitutional assembly that gave the National Party continuing influence. The ANC also conceded to safeguarding the jobs of white civil servants. Such concessions brought fierce internal criticism. The duo also agreed on an interim constitution based on a liberal democratic model, guaranteeing separation of powers, creating a constitutional court, and including a U.S.-style bill of rights. The constitution also divided the country into nine provinces, each with its own premier and civil service, a compromise between de Klerk’s desire for federalism and Mandela’s desire for a unitary South African government.
The democratic process was threatened by the Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG), an alliance of far-right Afrikaner parties and black ethnic-secessionist groups like the Inkatha. In June 1993, the white supremacist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) attacked the Kempton Park World Trade Center. Following the murder of ANC activist Chris Hani, Mandela gave a speech to calm rioting soon after appearing at a mass funeral in Soweto for Tambo, who had died of a stroke. In July 1993, both Mandela and de Klerk visited the U.S., independently meeting with President Bill Clinton and each receiving the Liberty Medal. Soon after, Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway. Influenced by Thabo Mbeki, Mandela began meeting with big business figures and played down his support for nationalization, fearing that he would scare away much needed foreign investment. Although criticized by socialist ANC members, he had been encouraged to embrace private enterprise by members of the Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties at the January 1992 World Economic Forum in Switzerland.
Frederik de Klerk with Nelson Mandela
Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992.
General Election: 1994
With the election set for April 27, 1994, the ANC began campaigning, opening 100 election offices and orchestrating People’s Forums across the country at which Mandela could appear. The ANC campaigned on a Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) to build a million houses in five years, introduce universal free education, and extend access to water and electricity. The party’s slogan was “a better life for all,” although it was not explained how this development would be funded. With the exception of the Weekly Mail and the New Nation, South Africa’s press opposed Mandela’s election, fearing continued ethnic strife. Mandela devoted much time to fundraising for the ANC, touring North America, Europe, and Asia to meet wealthy donors, including former supporters of the apartheid regime. He also urged a reduction in the voting age from 18 to 14, which was ultimately rejected by the ANC.
Concerned that COSAG would undermine the election, particularly in the wake of the conflict in Bophuthatswana and the Shell House Massacre—incidents of violence involving the AWB and Inkatha, respectively—Mandela met with Afrikaner politicians and generals, including P.W. Botha, Pik Botha, and Constand Viljoen, persuading many to work within the democratic system. With de Klerk, he also convinced Inkatha’s Buthelezi to enter the elections rather than launch a war of secession. As leaders of the two major parties, de Klerk and Mandela appeared on a televised debate. Although de Klerk was widely considered the better speaker at the event, Mandela’s offer to shake his hand surprised him, leading some commentators to deem it a victory for Mandela. The election went ahead with little violence, although an AWB cell killed 20 with car bombs. As widely expected, the ANC won a sweeping victory, taking 63% of the vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to unilaterally change the constitution. The ANC was also victorious in seven provinces, with Inkatha and the National Party each taking another.
Presidency of Nelson Mandela
The newly elected National Assembly’s first act was to formally elect Mandela as South Africa’s first black chief executive. His inauguration took place in Pretoria on May 10, 1994, televised to a billion viewers globally. The event was attended by 4,000 guests, including world leaders from a wide range of geographic and ideological backgrounds. Mandela headed a Government of National Unity dominated by the ANC—which had no experience of governing by itself—but containing representatives from the National Party and Inkatha. Under the interim constitution, Inkatha and the National Party were entitled to seats in the government by virtue of winning at least 20 seats in the election. In keeping with earlier agreements, both de Klerk and Thabo Mbeki were given the position of Deputy President. Although Mbeki had not been his first choice for the job, Mandela grew to rely heavily on him throughout his presidency, allowing him to shape policy details. Although he dismantled press censorship and spoke out in favor of freedom of the press, Mandela was critical of much of the country’s media, noting that it was overwhelmingly owned and run by middle-class whites and believing that it focused too heavily on scaremongering about crime.
National Reconciliation
Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency. Having seen other post-colonial African economies damaged by the departure of white elites, Mandela worked to reassure South Africa’s white population that they were protected and represented in “the Rainbow Nation”. Although his National Unity government would be dominated by the ANC, he attempted to create a broad coalition by appointing de Klerk as Deputy President and other National Party officials as ministers for Agriculture, Energy, Environment, and Minerals and Energy, as well as naming Buthelezi as Minister for Home Affairs. The other cabinet positions were taken by ANC members, many of whom—like Joe Modise, Alfred Nzo, Joe Slovo, Mac Maharaj, and Dullah Omar—had long been comrades. Mandela’s relationship with de Klerk was strained because he believed de Klerk was intentionally provocative. Likewise, de Klerk felt that he was being intentionally humiliated by the president. In January 1995, Mandela heavily chastised him for awarding amnesty to 3,500 police officers just before the election, and later criticized him for defending former Minister of Defence Magnus Malan when the latter was charged with murder.
Mandela personally met with senior figures of the apartheid regime, including Hendrik Verwoerd’s widow, Betsie Schoombie, and lawyer Percy Yutar. He also laid a wreath by the statue of Afrikaner hero Daniel Theron. Emphasizing personal forgiveness and reconciliation, Mandela announced that “courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace”. He encouraged black South Africans to get behind the previously hated national rugby team, the Springboks, as South Africa hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Mandela wore a Springbok shirt at the final against New Zealand, and after the Springboks won the match, Mandela presented the trophy to captain Francois Pienaar, an Afrikaner. This was widely seen as a major step in the reconciliation of white and black South Africans. Mandela’s efforts at reconciliation assuaged the fears of whites, but also drew criticism from more militant blacks. Among the latter was his estranged wife, Winnie, who accused the ANC of being more interested in appeasing the white community than in helping the black majority.
Mandela oversaw the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate crimes committed under apartheid by both the government and the ANC, appointing Desmond Tutu as its chair. To prevent the creation of martyrs, the Commission granted individual amnesties in exchange for testimony of crimes committed during the apartheid era. Dedicated in February 1996, it held two years of hearings detailing rapes, torture, bombings, and assassinations before issuing its final report in October 1998. Both de Klerk and Mbeki appealed to have parts of the report suppressed, though only de Klerk’s appeal was successful. Mandela praised the Commission’s work, stating that it “had helped us move away from the past to concentrate on the present and the future.”
37.4: The Rwandan Genocide
37.4.1: Composition of the Rwandan Population
The Rwandan population is comprised of three
main ethnic groups: the Hutus, Tutsis, and Twa.
Learning Objective
Describe the ethnic subgroups that make up the
Rwandan population
Key Points
The largest
ethnic groups in Rwanda are the Hutus, the Tutsis, and the Twa.
When Europeans
first explored the region around the Great Lakes of Chad that has since become
Rwanda, they described the people in the region as having descended from
three racially distinct tribes and coexisting in a complex social order.
A contrasting
picture of human cultural diversity was recorded in the early Rwandan oral
histories, ritual texts, and biographies, in which the terms Tutsi, Hutu, and
Twa were rarely used and the boundary between Tutsi and Hutu was somewhat open
to social mobility.
Elites in
pre-colonial Rwanda propagated an origin myth of the three groups to justify
the hierarchical relationship of sociopolitical inequality between them in
sacred, religious terms.
Despite sociopolitical
stratification, Rwanda was a unified society. Inhabitants all considered
themselves part of the same nation, spoke the same language, practiced the same
cultural traditions, and worshiped the same God.
European
colonizers would later exploit group divisions as a means of securing control.
Key Terms
serfs
The status of many peasants within feudal systems,
an individual who occupies a plot of land
and is required to work for the owner of that land in return for protection and
the right to exploit certain fields on the property to maintain their own
subsistence.
pygmies
A member of an ethnic group whose
average height is unusually short. Anthropologists define this as any group where adult men are on average less than 4 feet 11 inches tall.
The largest ethnic groups in
Rwanda are the Hutus, the Tutsis, and the Twa. Starting with the Tutsi feudal
monarchy rule of the 10th century, the Hutus were a subjugated social group.
It was not until Belgian colonization that the tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis
became focused on race, with the Belgians propagating the myth that Tutsis were
the superior ethnicity. The resulting tensions would eventually foster the
slaughtering of Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide. Since then, government policy
has changed to recognize one main ethnicity: “Rwandan.”
Rwanda
Location of Rwanda (dark blue) in the African Union (light blue)
The map shows the location of Rwanda. Located in central and east Africa, Rwanda is one of the smallest countries on the African mainland. Located a few degrees south of the Equator, Rwanda is bordered by Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Pre-Colonial Rwanda
When Europeans first
explored the region around the Great Lakes of Chad that has since become
Rwanda, they described the people found in the region as descending from
three racially distinct tribes and coexisting in a complex social order: the
Tutsis, Hutus, and Twa. The Tutsis, an elite minority of about 24% of the
population, were tall, slim pastoralists. The Hutu majority, about 75% of the
population, were stocky, strong farmers. The Twa were a marginalized minority
of 1% of the population: a tribe of pygmies, dwelling in the forests as hunters
and gatherers. Although these groups were distinct and stratified in relation
to one another, the boundary between Tutsi and Hutu was somewhat open to social
mobility. The Tutsi elite were defined by their exclusive ownership of land and
cattle. Hutus, though disenfranchised socially and politically, could shed
Hutuness, or kwihutura, by accumulating wealth and thereby rising through the
social hierarchy to the status of Tutsi.
A contrasting picture of
human cultural diversity was recorded in the early Rwandan oral histories,
ritual texts, and biographies, in which the terms Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa were
rarely used and had meanings different from those conceived by the Europeans. In
these oral histories, the term Tutsi was equivalent to the phrase “wealthy
noble”; Hutu meant “farmer”; and Twa was used to refer to people
skilled in hunting, use of fire, pottery-making, guarding, and other disciplines. In contrast to
the European conception, rural farmers are often described as wealthy and well-connected.
Kings sometimes looked down on them but still married individuals from this group and frequently conferred them with titles, land, herds, armies, servitors, and ritual
functions.
Origin Myths
Elites in pre-colonial
Rwanda propagated an origin myth of the three groups to justify the
hierarchical relationship of sociopolitical inequality in sacred,
religious terms. According to this myth, Kigwa, a deity who fell from heaven,
had three sons: Gatwa, Gahutu, and Gatutsi. He chose an heir by giving each son
the responsibility of watching over a pot of milk during the night. Gatwa drank
the milk, Gahutu fell asleep and carelessly spilled his pot, and Gatutsi
kept watch, keeping his milk safe. Therefore, Kigwa appointed Gatutsi to be his
successor and Gahutu to be his brother’s servant, while Gatwa was to be
resigned to the status of an outsider. Gatutsi would possess cattle and power,
and Gahutu would only be allowed to acquire cattle through service to Gatutsi,
whereas Gatwa was condemned to the fringe of society. This myth was the basis
of the hierarchical relationship that placed the Tutsi at the apex of the
social pyramid. The prevalence of this myth became the basis for the social and
political stratification of Rwanda.
From the 15th century
when the Tutsi arrived in what is now Rwanda as migrant pastoralists to the
onset of colonization, Rwanda was a feudal monarchy. A Tutsi monarch ruled,
distributing land and political authority through hereditary chiefs whose power
was manifest in their land and cattle ownership. Most of these chiefs were
Tutsis. The land was farmed under an imposed system of patronage in which Tutsi
chiefs demanded manual labor in return for the rights of Hutus to occupy their
land. This system left Hutus with the status of serfs. Additionally, when
Rwanda conquered the peoples on its borders, their ethnic identities were cast
aside and they were simply labeled “Hutu.” Therefore, “Hutu” became an identity
that was not necessarily ethnic, but rather associated with subjugation.
Stratified Social Hierarchy
This social system was based
on five fundamental assumptions, as reinforced through group interactions and
influenced by cultural myths:
Fundamental natural
differences existed between the groups.
The origin of the Tutsis was
celestial.
The civilization that Tutsis
brought to Rwanda was superior.
The kingship of the Tutsi
Mwami was divinely ordained.
Divine sanctions would occur
if the monarchy was usurped by any other group.
Despite the stratification promulgated by these ideas, Rwanda was still
very much a unified society. Notwithstanding association with different groups
in the sociopolitical hierarchy, the inhabitants all considered themselves part
of the same nation, the Banyarwanda, which means “people of Rwanda.” They spoke
the same language, practiced the same cultural traditions, and worshiped the
same God. However, the arrival of European colonizers would later exploit group
divisions as a means of securing control. The modern conception of Tutsi and
Hutu as distinct ethnic groups in no way reflects the pre-colonial relationship
between them. Tutsi and Hutu were simply groups occupying different places in
the Rwandan social hierarchy, the division between which was exacerbated by
slight differences in appearance propagated by occupation and pedigree.
37.4.2: Imperialism and Racial Divisions
European imperialists used
power disparities and pseudo-science to perpetuate the myth of divergent Tutsi
and Hutu racial identities.
Learning Objective
Explain how European imperialists encouraged
categorizing Rwandans on the basis of ethnicity
Key Points
The construction
of divergent ethnic “Tutsi” and “Hutu” identities occurred during the era of
European colonization from the late 1880s to the 1950s.
The Germans were
not interested in disrupting social affairs – their sole concern was the
efficient extraction of natural resources and trade of profitable cash crops.
Therefore, their strategy was to reaffirm Tutsi chiefdoms over Hutus to maintain administrative order.
The German
presence had mixed effects on the authority of Rwandan governing powers, not
only helping the Mwami increase control over Rwandan affairs, but also
weakening Tutsi power due to the introduction of capitalist forces and
increased integration with outside markets.
Germany’s defeat
in World War I allowed Belgian forces to conquer Rwanda, and Belgian
involvement was far more intrusive than German administration.
Influenced by
racialized attitudes, Belgian social scientists declared that Tutsis must be
descendants of the Hamites, who shared a purported closer bloodline to
Europeans, and that the Tutsis and Hutus composed two fundamentally different
ethno-racial groups.
The Belgians’ pseudo-scientific perspective justified Tutsi racial
superiority and Hutu oppression for decades to come.
Key Term
Mwami
A chiefly title usually translated as “king.”
Unlike much of the rest of Africa,
Rwanda and the Great Lakes region was not divided up during the 1884 Berlin
Conference. Instead, the region was divided in an 1890 conference in Brussels. Rwanda and Burundi were given to the German Empire as colonial
spheres of interest in exchange for Germany renouncing all claims on Uganda.
The poor-quality maps referenced in these agreements left Belgium with a claim
on the western half of the country, and after several border skirmishes, the
final borders of the colony were not established until 1900. These borders
contained the kingdom of Rwanda as well as a group of smaller kingdoms on the
shore of Lake Victoria.
German and Belgian
Colonization
Germany
The construction of
divergent ethnic “Tutsi” and “Hutu” identities occurred during the era of
European colonization from the late 1880s to the 1950s. German colonialism did
little to alter the existing stratified social system. The Germans were not
interested in disrupting social affairs – their sole concern was the efficient
extraction of natural resources and trade of profitable cash crops. Colonial
bureaucrats relied heavily on native Tutsi chiefs to maintain order over the
Hutu lower classes and collect taxes. Thus, the German affirmation of the
stratified social structure was utilized by the Tutsi aristocracy as
justification for minority rule over the lower-class Hutu masses.
The German presence had
mixed effects on the authority of Rwandan governing powers. The Germans helped
the Mwami increase their control over Rwandan affairs, but Tutsi power weakened
with the introduction of capitalist forces and via increased integration with
outside markets and economies. Money came to be seen by many Hutus as a replacement
for cattle, in terms of both economic prosperity and for purposes of social standing. Tutsi power was also weakened by Germany through the introduction of the head-tax on all Rwandans. As some Tutsis feared, the tax made the Hutus feel less bonded to their Tutsi patrons and
more dependent on European foreigners. The head-tax also implied equality among
those counted. Thus, despite Germany’s attempt to uphold traditional
Tutsi domination of the Hutus, the Hutu began to shift their ideas surrounding
this concept.
Mwami Palace
A reconstruction of the traditional Mwami’s palace at Nyanza, Rwanda.
Belgium
Germany’s defeat in World
War I allowed Belgian forces to conquer Rwanda. Belgian involvement in the
region was far more intrusive than German administration. In an era of Social
Darwinism, European anthropologists claimed to identify a distinct “Hamitic
race” that was superior to native “Negroid” populations. Influenced by
racialized attitudes, Belgian social scientists declared that the Tutsis, who
wielded political control in Rwanda, must be descendants of the Hamites, who shared
a purported closer bloodline to Europeans. The Belgians concluded that the
Tutsis and Hutus composed two fundamentally different ethno-racial groups.
Thus, the Belgians viewed the Tutsis as more civilized, superior, and most
importantly, more European than the Hutus.
This perspective justified placement of societal control in the hands of the Tutsis at the expense of the
Hutus, establishing a comprehensive race theory that would dictate Rwandan
society until independence: Tutsi racial superiority and Hutu oppression. The
institutionalization of Tutsi and Hutu ethnic divergence was accomplished
through administrative, political, economic, and educational means. Initially,
Belgian administrators used an expedient method of classification based on the
number of cattle a person owned – anyone with ten or more cattle was considered
a member of the aristocratic Tutsi class. However, the presence of wealthy Hutu
was problematic. Then in 1933, the colonial administration institutionalized a
more rigid ethnic classification by issuing ethnic identification cards,
officially branding every Rwandan as Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa.
Tutsis began to believe the
myth of their superior racial status and exploited their power over the Hutu
majority. A history of Rwanda that justified the existence of these racial
distinctions was written. No historical, archaeological, or
linguistic traces have been found to date that confirm this official history.
The observed differences between the Tutsis and the Hutus are about the same as
those evident between the different French social classes in the 1950s. The way
people nourished themselves explains a large part of the differences observed; for
instance, the Tutsis, who raised cattle, traditionally drank more milk
than the Hutu, who were farmers.
Post-Colonial Framework
As Belgium’s era of colonial
dominance over Rwanda drew to a close during the 1950s, Hutu and Tutsi
racial identities had become firmly institutionalized. Manipulative racial
engineering by the Belgians and the despotic practices of the Tutsi chieftains
they empowered helped to drive together the disparate Rwandan sub-classes under
the “Hutu” moniker. When the Belgians finally left Rwanda in the early
1960s, the politics of racial and ethnic division remained. In the decades that
followed, regimes under both Hutu ultra-nationalists and moderate conciliators
would demonstrate how the labels of Hutu and Tutsi could be molded to fit political expediency.
37.4.3: 100 Days of Violence
The Rwandan genocide was a
mass slaughter of Tutsi people in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority
government.
Learning Objective
Recall the key events of the
100 Days of Violence
Key Points
The army began
training Hutu youth in combat and arming civilians in 1990 as part of an official
program of civil defense against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).
In March 1993,
Hutu Power groups began compiling lists of “traitors” who they planned to kill,
possibly including President Juvenal Habyarimana.
In October 1993,
the President of Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, who had been elected in June as the
country’s first ever Hutu president, was assassinated by extremist Tutsi army
officers.
On January 11,
1994, General Romeo Dallaire, commander of United Nations Assistance Mission
for Rwanda (UNAMIR) sent the infamous “Genocide Fax” to UN Headquarters,
stating that an informant told him of plans to distribute weapons to Hutu
militias to kill Belgian members of UNAMIR and guarantee Belgian
withdrawal from the country.
On April 6,
1994, the airplane carrying President Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the
Hutu president of Burundi, was shot down as it prepared to land in Kigali,
killing everyone on board.
Following Habyarimana’s
death, a crisis committee was formed, which would remain the de facto source of
power in the country as well as one of the driving sources of the genocide.
Within hours of
Habyarimana’s death, the genocide began. For the remainder of April and early
May, the Presidential Guard, gendarmerie,
and youth militias, aided by local populations, continued killing at very high
rates.
The RPF made
slow but steady gains in the north and east of the country, ending killings in
each area they occupied.
At the end of July, Kagame’s RPF forces held the whole of Rwanda, except
for the zone in the southwest that was occupied by Operation Turquoise,
effectively ending the genocide.
Key Terms
interahamwe
A Hutu paramilitary organization that enjoyed
the backing of the Hutu-led government leading up to and during the Rwandan
genocide. Since the genocide, they have been driven out of Rwanda, mainly to
Zaire (present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo).
UN Charter article 2(4)
“All members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Although some
commentators interpret Article 2(4) as banning only the use of force directed
at the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, the more
widely held opinion is that these are merely intensifiers, and that the article
constitutes a general prohibition subject only to the exceptions stated in the
Charter (i.e., self-defense and Chapter VII action by the Security Council).
The Rwandan genocide, also
known as the genocide against the Tutsi, was a mass slaughter of Tutsi people
in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority government. An estimated 500,000 to
one million Rwandans were killed during the 100-day period from April 7 to
mid-July 1994, constituting as many as 70% of the Tutsi population and 20% of
Rwanda’s overall population.
Nyamata Memorial Site
Human skulls at the Nyamata Genocide Memorial.
Prelude
Preparation for Genocide
Historians do not agree on a
precise date on which the idea of a “final solution” to kill
every Tutsi in Rwanda was introduced. The army began training Hutu youth in
combat and arming civilians with weapons such as machetes in 1990, as part of
an official program of civil defense against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF),
which largely consisted of Tutsi refugees whose families had fled to Uganda
after the 1959 Hutu revolt against colonial rule. Rwanda also purchased large
numbers of grenades and munitions starting in late 1990. In one deal, future UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his role as Egyptian foreign
minister, facilitated a large sale of arms from Egypt. The Rwandan Armed Forces
(FAR) also expanded rapidly during this time, growing from fewer than 10,000
troops to almost 30,000 in one year. New recruits were often poorly
disciplined, however, and a divide grew between them and the more elite,
experienced units.
In March 1993, the Hutu
Power group began compiling lists of “traitors” who they planned to kill, and
it is possible that President Juvenal Habyarimana’s name was on these lists.
The far-right Hutu Power political party Coalition for the Defense of the
Republic (CDR) was actively and openly accusing the president of treason, and
many Power groups believed that the national radio station, Radio Rwanda, had become too liberal and supportive of the opposition. In turn, they founded a new
radio station, Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), which
broadcast racist propaganda, obscene jokes, and music, and quickly became
popular throughout the country. Throughout 1993, hardliners imported machetes
on a scale far larger than required for agriculture, as well as other
tools that could be used as weapons, such as razor blades, saws, and scissors.
These tools were distributed around the country, ostensibly as part of the
civil defense network.
In October 1993, the
President of Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, who had been elected in June as the
country’s first ever Hutu president, was assassinated by extremist Tutsi army
officers. The assassination caused shock waves throughout the country,
reinforcing the notion among Hutus that the Tutsi were their enemy and could
not be trusted. The CDR and Power wings of other parties quickly realized they
could use the situation to their advantage. The idea of a Tutsi “final
solution”, which had been floating around as a fringe political viewpoint, now
occupied the top of Hutu party agendas and was actively planned. The Hutu Power
groups were confident of persuading the Hutu population to carry out killings
given the public anger at Ndadaye’s murder, the persuasiveness of RTLM
propaganda, and the traditional obedience of Rwandans to authority. Power
leaders began arming the interahamwe
and other militia groups with AK-47s and other weapons, whereas previously they
possessed only machetes and traditional hand weapons.
On January 11, 1994, General
Romeo Dallaire, commander of United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR) sent the infamous “Genocide Fax” to UN Headquarters. The fax stated
that Dallaire was in contact with a high-level informant who told him of plans
to distribute weapons to Hutu militias to kill Belgian members of
UNAMIR and guarantee Belgian withdrawal from the country. The informant, a local
politician, had been ordered to register all Tutsis in Kigali. Dallaire
requested permission for the protection of his informant and the informant’s
family, but Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the UN, repeatedly forbade
any operations despite having authority for approval until guidance was
received from headquarters, citing UN Charter article 2(4).
Assassination of Habyarimana
On April 6, 1994, the airplane
carrying President Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of
Burundi, was shot down as it prepared to land in Kigali, killing everyone on
board. Responsibility for the attack was disputed, with both the RPF and Hutu
extremists blamed. A later investigation by the Rwandan government blamed
Hutu extremists in the Rwandan army. Despite disagreements about the
perpetrators, the attack and deaths of the two Hutu presidents served as the
catalyst for the genocide.
Following Habyarimana’s
death, on the evening of April 6, a crisis committee was formed of
Major General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, and a number
of other senior army staff officers. The committee was headed by Bagosora,
despite the presence of the more senior Ndindiliyimana. Prime Minister Agathe
Uwilingiyimana was legally next in the line of political succession, but the
committee refused to recognize her authority. Dallaire met with the committee
that night and insisted that Uwilingiyimana be placed in charge, but Bagosora
refused, saying Uwilingiyimana did not “enjoy the confidence of the Rwandan
people” and was “incapable of governing the nation”. Bagosora sought to
convince UNAMIR and the RPF that the committee was acting to contain the
Presidential Guard, which he described as “out of control,” and that it would
abide by the Arusha agreement, which had ended the three-year Rwandan civil
war.
Killings of Moderate Leaders
UNAMIR sent an escort of ten
Belgian soldiers to bring Prime Minister Uwilingiyimana her to the Radio Rwanda offices to address the nation. The plan
was cancelled, however, because the Presidential Guard took over the radio
station shortly afterwards and would not permit Uwilingiyimana to speak on air.
Later that morning, a number of soldiers and a crowd of civilians overwhelmed
the Belgians guarding Uwilingiyimana, forcing them to surrender their weapons.
Uwilingiyimana and her husband were killed, but their children survived by
hiding behind furniture and were rescued by Senegalese UNAMIR officer Mbaye
Diagne. The ten Belgians guards were taken to the Camp Kigali military base
where they were tortured and killed.
In addition to assassinating
Uwilingiyimana, the extremists spent the night of April 6 in Kigali with lists of prominent moderate politicians and journalists
on a mission to kill them. Fatalities that evening included President of the
Constitutional Court Joseph Kavaruganda, Minister of Agriculture Frederic
Nzamurambaho, Parti Liberal leader Landwald Ndasingwa and his Canadian wife,
and chief Arusha negotiator Boniface Ngulinzira. A few moderates survived,
including prime minister-delegate Faustin Twagiramungu, but the plot was
successful enough that by the morning of April 7, all moderate politicians and
leaders were either dead or in hiding.
Genocide
The genocide itself began
within a few hours of Habyariamana’s death. Military leaders in Gisenyi
province were initially the most organized, convening a large number of interahamwe and civilian Hutu. The
commanders announced the president’s death, blamed the RPF, and then ordered
the crowd to begin killing. The genocide spread to Ruhengeri, Kibuye, Kigali,
Kibungo, Gikongoro, and Cyangugu provinces on April 7. In each case, local
officials, responding to orders from Kigali, spread rumors that the RPF had
killed the president and commanded the population to kill Tutsi in retribution.
The Hutu population, which had been prepared and armed during the preceding
months, carried out the orders without question. There were few killings in
Gitarama and Butare provinces during the early phases of the genocide, due to
the moderation of their governors. Killings began in earnest in
Gitarama on April 9 and in Butare on April 19, following the arrest and murder
of Tutsi governor Jean Baptiste Habyarimana. The genocide did not affect areas
already under RPF control, including parts of Byumba province and eastern
Ruhengeri.
For the remainder of April
and early May, the Presidential Guard, gendarmerie,
and youth militias, aided by local populations, continued killing at very high
rates. Historian Gerard Prunier estimates in his book The Rwanda Crisis that up to 800,000 Rwandans were murdered during
the first six weeks of the genocide, which represents a rate of killing five
times higher than during the German Holocaust. The goal of the
genocide was to kill every Tutsi living in Rwanda, and with the exception of
the advancing RPF army, there was no opposition force to prevent or slow the
killings. Domestic opposition had already been eliminated and UNAMIR was expressly forbidden to use force except in self-defense. In rural areas, where
Tutsi and Hutu lived side-by-side and families knew each other, it was easy for
Hutu to identify and target their Tutsi neighbors. In urban areas were
residents were more anonymous, identification was facilitated using road blocks
manned by the military and interahamwe.
Each person who encountered a road block was required to show their national
identity card, which included ethnicity, and anyone carrying a Tutsi card was
slaughtered immediately. Many Hutu were also killed for a variety of reasons,
including demonstrating sympathy for moderate opposition parties, being a
journalist, or simply appearing Tutsi.
The RPF made slow and steady
gains in the north and east of the country, ending killings in each area they
occupied. The genocide was effectively ended in April in areas of Ruhengeri,
Byumba, Kibungo, and Kigali provinces. The killings also ceased during f April in western Ruhengeri and Gisenyi because almost every Tutsi had
been eliminated. Large numbers of Hutu in RPF-conquered areas fled, fearing
retribution killings. Half a million Kibungo residents fled over the bridge at
Rusumo Falls into Tanzania at the end of April and were accommodated in UN
camps effectively controlled by ousted leaders of the Hutu regime.
In the remaining provinces,
killings continued throughout May and June, although they became increasingly
sporadic. Most Tutsi were already eliminated and the interim government hoped
to rein in the growing anarchy and engage the population in fighting the
encroaching RPF. On June 23, approximately 2,500 soldiers entered southwestern
Rwanda as part of the French-led UN Operation Turquoise, intended as
a humanitarian mission, although the soldiers were unable to save significant
lives. The genocidal authorities were overtly welcoming of the
French, displaying the French flag on their own vehicles, but slaughtering
Tutsi who came out of hiding seeking protection.
Planning and Organization
The crisis committee, headed
by Bagosora, took power following Habyarimana’s death and was the principal
authority coordinating the genocide. Bagosora immediately began issuing orders
to kill Tutsi, addressing groups of interahamwe
in person in Kigali and making telephone calls to leaders in the provinces.
Other leading national organizers included defense minister Augustin
Bizimana; commander of the paratroopers, Aloys Ntabakuze; and head of the
Presidential Guard, Protais Mpiranya. Businessman Felicien Kabuga funded the
RTLM and the interahamwe, while
Pascal Musabe and Joseph Nzirorera were responsible for coordinating militia
activities nationally. In Kigali, the genocide was led by the Presidential
Guard. They were assisted by militias, who in turn set up road blocks
throughout the capital. Militias also initiated house searches within the city,
slaughtering Tutsi and looting their property. Kigali governor Tharcisse
Renzaho played a leading role, touring road blocks to ensure their effectiveness
and using his position at the top of the Kigali provincial government to
disseminate orders and dismiss officials who were not sufficiently active in
perpetuating murder.
In rural areas, the local
government hierarchy was also in most cases the chain of command for execution
of the genocide. The governor of each province, acting on orders from Kigali,
disseminated instructions to the district leaders who in turn issued directions
to the leaders of the sector, cells, and villages of their districts. The majority
of actual killings in the countryside were carried out by ordinary civilians
under orders from their leaders. A combination of historical Hutu repression by
the Tutsi minority, a culture of obedience to authority, and duress due to the
belief that lack of participation would lead to violent retribution, all
contributed to the willingness of ordinary citizens to commit violent acts
against their neighbors.
The crisis committee
appointed an interim government on April 8. Using the terms of the 1991
constitution instead of the Arusha Accords, the committee designated Theodore
Sindikubwabo as interim president and Jean Kambanda was the new prime minister.
All political parties were represented in the government, but most members were
from the Hutu Power wings of their respective parties. The interim government
was sworn in on April 9, and immediately relocated their headquarters from
Kigali to Gitarama in order to avoid fighting between the RPF and Rwandan army
in the capital. The crisis committee was officially dissolved, but Bagosora and
some senior officers remained de facto rulers of the country. The government
played some part in mobilizing the population, providing the regime an air of
legitimacy, but it was in reality a puppet regime with no ability to halt the
army or interahamwe’s activities.
Impact
Given the chaotic nature of
the situation, there is no consensus on the number of people killed during the
genocide. Unlike the genocides carried out by Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge
in Cambodia, authorities made no attempts to document or systematize deaths.
The succeeding RPF government has stated that 1,071,000 were killed in 100 days,
10% of whom were Hutu. Based on those statistics, it could be derived that 10,000
people were murdered every day, which equals 400 people per hour, or seven
people every minute. The journalist Philip Gourevitch agrees with an estimate
of one million, while the UN estimates the death toll to be 800,000. It is
estimated that approximately 300,000 Tutsi survived the genocide. Thousands of
widows, many of whom were subjected to rape, are now HIV-positive. The genocide
also created about 400,000 orphans, and nearly 85,000 of them were forced to
become heads of households.
Rwandan Patriotic Front
Military Campaign and Victory
On April 7, as the genocide
began, RPF commander Paul Kagame warned the crisis committee and UNAMIR that he
would resume the civil war if the killing did not stop. The next day, Rwandan
government forces attacked the national parliament building from several
directions, but RPF troops stationed there successfully fought back. The RPF
then began an attack from the north on three fronts, seeking to link up quickly
with the isolated troops in Kigali. Kagame refused to talk to the interim
government, believing that it was just a cover for Bagosora’s rule and not truly
committed to ending the genocide. Over the next few days, the RPF advanced
steadily south, capturing Gabiro and large areas of the countryside to the
north and east of Kigali. They avoided attacking Kigali or Byumba, but
conducted maneuvers designed to encircle the cities and cut off supply routes.
The RPF also allowed Tutsi refugees from Uganda to settle behind the front line
in RPF-controlled areas.
Paul Kagame (2014)
Paul Kagame was commander of the Rwandan Patriotic Front for most of the Civil War.
Throughout April, there were
numerous attempts by UNAMIR to establish a ceasefire, but Kagame insisted each
time that the RPF would not stop fighting unless the killings stopped. In late
April, the RPF secured the whole of the Tanzanian border area and began to move
west from Kibungo to the south of Kigali. They encountered little resistance,
except around Kigali and Ruhengeri. By May 16, they cut the road between
Kigali and Gitarama, the temporary home of the interim government, and by June
13, they had taken Gitarama itself following an unsuccessful attempt by the
Rwandan government forces to reopen the road. Subsequently, the interim
government was forced to relocate to Gisenyi in the far northwest. As well as
fighting the war, Kagame was recruiting heavily to expand the RPF. The new
recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi,
but they were less well -trained and disciplined than earlier recruits.
Having completed the encirclement of Kigali, the RPF spent the latter of
half of June fighting for the city itself. The government forces had superior
manpower and weapons, but the RPF steadily gained in territory while conducting
raids to rescue civilians behind enemy lines. Kagame was able to exploit the
government forces’ focus on the genocide and translate that into RPF wins in
the battle for Kigali. The RPF also benefited from the government’s waning
morale as it lost territory. The RPF finally defeated Rwandan government forces
in Kigali on July 4, and on July 18, they took Gisenyi and the rest of the
northwest, forcing the interim government into Zaire, ending the genocide. At
the end of July 1994, Kagame’s forces held the whole of Rwanda, except for the
zone in the southwest occupied by the French-led UN force, Operation
Turquoise.
37.4.4: Aftermath and Reconciliation in Rwanda
Rwandans had recourse to international and
community justice in the aftermath of the genocide.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the methods used to encourage
reconciliation after the genocide
Key Points
The systematic
destruction of the judicial system during the genocide and civil war was a
major problem for the prospects of reconciliation in Rwanda.
It was not
until 1996 that Rwandan courts finally began trials for genocide cases with the
enactment of Organic Law N° 08/96 of 30 on August 30.
In response to
the overwhelming number of potentially culpable individuals and the slow pace
of the traditional judicial system, the government of Rwanda passed Organic Law
N° 40/2000 in 2001, establishing Gacaca Courts at all administrative levels.
The Gacaca
court system traditionally dealt with conflicts within communities, but it was
adapted to deal with genocide crimes.
The International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) had jurisdiction over high-level members of
the government and armed forces, while the government of Rwanda was responsible
for prosecuting lower-level leaders and local people.
Following the
RPF victory, approximately two million Hutu fled to refugee camps in neighboring
countries, particularly Zaire, fearing RPF reprisals for the Rwandan Genocide.
Refugee camps
were set up by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), but
were effectively controlled by the army and government of the former Hutu
regime, who began rearming in a bid to return to power in Rwanda.
In addition to
dismantling the refugee camps, Kagame began planning a war to remove the long
time dictator of Zaire, who had supported the genocidaires based in the camps and was accused of allowing
attacks on Tutsi people within Zaire.
Key Term
Gacaca
Loosely translated to “justice among the grass,”
a system of community justice inspired by Rwandan tradition. It was adapted in 2001 to fit the needs of Rwanda in
the wake of the 1994 genocide.
Domestic Situation
The infrastructure and
economy of Rwanda suffered greatly during the genocide. Many buildings were
uninhabitable, and the former regime had taken all currency and
movable assets when they fled the country. Human resources were also
severely depleted, with over 40% of the population having been killed or fled.
Many of the remainder were traumatized: most had lost relatives, witnessed
killings, or participated in the genocide. The long-term effects of war rape in
Rwanda for the victims include social isolation, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies and babies, with some women resorting to self-induced
abortions. The army, led by Paul Kagame, maintained law and order while the
government began the work of rebuilding the country’s structures.
Rwanda’s demography over time
Rwanda’s population (1961-2003). Y-axis : Number of inhabitants in thousands.
Non-governmental organizations
began to move back into the country, but the international community did not
provide significant assistance to the new regime, and most international aid
was routed to the refugee camps formed in Zaire following the exodus
of Hutu from Rwanda. Kagame strove
to portray the government as inclusive and not Tutsi-dominated. He directed the
removal of ethnicity from citizens’ national identity cards, and the government
began a policy of downplaying the distinctions among Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa.
During the genocide and in
the months following the RPF victory, RPF soldiers killed many people they
accused of participating in or supporting the genocide. Many of these soldiers
were recent Tutsi recruits from within Rwanda who had lost family or friends
and sought revenge. The scale, scope, and source of ultimate responsibility of
these reprisal killings is disputed, although some non-governmental
organizations such as Human Rights Watch alleged that Kagame and the RPF elite
either tolerated or organized the killings. In an interview with journalist
Stephen Kinzer, Kagame acknowledged that killings had occurred, but stated that
they were carried out by rogue soldiers and had been impossible to control.
July 4, 1994, is marked as Liberation
Day in Rwanda and commemorated as a public holiday. The RPF has been the
dominant political party in the country since 1994 and maintained control
of the presidency and the Parliament in national elections, with the party’s
vote share consistently exceeding 70%. The RPF is seen as a Tutsi-dominated
party but receives support from across ethnic sub-groups. It is credited with
ensuring continued peace, stability, and economic growth; however, some human
rights organizations, such as Freedom House and Amnesty International, claim
that the government suppresses the freedoms of opposition groups.
Justice System
The systematic destruction
of the judicial system during the genocide and civil war was a major problem
for the prospects of reconciliation in Rwanda. After the genocide, over one
million people were potentially culpable for their roles in the genocide, amounting
to nearly one-fifth of the population remaining after the summer of 1994. The
RPF pursued a policy of mass arrests for the genocide, jailing over 100,000 in
the two years after the genocide. The pace of arrests overwhelmed the physical
capacity of the Rwandan prison system, leading to what Amnesty International
deemed “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”. The country’s 19 prisons were
designed to hold about 18,000 inmates, but at their peak in 1998, there were
100,000 people in detention facilities across the country.
Government institutions,
including judicial courts, were destroyed, and many judges, prosecutors, and
employees were murdered. By 1997, Rwanda only had 50 lawyers in its judicial
system. These barriers caused trials of those arrested for
genocide-related crimes to proceed very slowly. Of the 130,000 suspects held in
Rwandan prisons after the genocide, 3,343 cases were handled between
1996 and the end of 2000. Of those defendants, 20% received death sentences,
32% received sentencing of life in prison, and 20% were acquitted. It was
calculated that it would take over 200 years to conduct the trials of the
suspects in prison—not including individuals who remained at large.
It was not until 1996 that
Rwandan courts finally began trials for genocide cases with the enactment of
Organic Law N° 08/96 of 30 on August 30, 1996. This law established the
regular domestic courts as the core mechanism for responding to genocide until
it was amended in 2001 to include the Gacaca Courts. The Organic Law
established four categories for those involved in the genocide, specifying the
limits of punishment for members of each category. The first category was
reserved for those who were “planners, organizers, instigators, supervisors and
leaders” of the genocide or who used positions of state authority
to promote the genocide. This category also applied to murderers who
distinguished themselves on the basis of their zeal or cruelty or who engaged
in sexual torture. Members of this first category were eligible for the death
sentence.
While Rwanda had the death
penalty prior to the 1996 Organic Law, no executions had taken
place since 1982. However, following the enactment of the 1996 Organic Law, 22
individuals were executed by firing squad in public executions in April 1997.
After this, Rwanda conducted no further executions, though it did continue to
issue death sentences until 2003. On July 25, 2007, the Organic Law Relating to
the Abolition of the Death Penalty came into law, abolishing the death penalty
and converting all existing death penalty sentences to life in prison under
solitary confinement.
Gacaca Courts
In response to the
overwhelming number of potentially culpable individuals and the slow pace of
the traditional judicial system, the government of Rwanda passed Organic Law N°
40/2000 in 2001. The new law established Gacaca Courts at all
administrative levels of Rwanda and in Kigali. It was mainly created to lessen
the burden on normal courts and escalate the administration of justice for
those already in prison. The least severe cases, according to the terms
of Organic Law N° 08/96 of 30, would be handled by the Gacaca Courts.
With this law, the government began implementing a participatory justice
system, known as Gacaca, to address the enormous backlog of cases.
The Gacaca court system
traditionally dealt with conflicts within communities, but was adapted to
deal with genocide crimes. The following are the objectives of the Gacaca Courts:
Identifying the truth about
what happened during the genocide
Speeding up genocide
trials,
Fighting against a culture
of impunity
Contributing to the national
unity and reconciliation process
Demonstrating the capacity
of the Rwandan people to resolve their own problems.
Throughout the years, the
Gacaca court system went through a series of modifications. It is estimated
that it has tried over one million cases to date. Meanwhile,
the UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), based
in Arusha, Tanzania. The UN Tribunal had jurisdiction over high-level members
of the government and armed forces, while the government of Rwanda was
responsible for prosecuting lower-level leaders and local people.
Closing of the Courts
On June 18, 2012, the Gacaca
court system was officially closed after facing criticism over favoring members
and associated parties to the RPF-dominated government. Concern persisted that
the judges who presided over the genocide trials were not trained adequately
for serious legal questions or complex proceedings. Further, many judges
resigned after facing accusations of personal participation in the genocide. There was a lack of defense counsel and protections for the
accused, who were denied the right to appeal to ordinary courts. Most trials
were open to the public, but there were issues relating to witness
intimidation.
Since the ICTR was
established as an ad hoc international jurisdiction, the tribunal was
officially closed on December 31, 2015. Initially, the UN Security Council
established the ICTR in 1994 with a mandate of four years without a fixed
deadline. As the years passed, however, it became apparent that the ICTR would
exist long past its original mandate.
Refugees, Insurgency, and
the Congo Wars
Following the RPF victory,
approximately two million Hutu fled to refugee camps in neighboring countries,
particularly Zaire, fearing RPF reprisals for the Rwandan Genocide. Refugee
camps were crowded and squalid, and thousands of refugees died in disease
epidemics, including cholera and dysentery. The camps were set up by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), but were effectively controlled
by the army and government of the former Hutu regime, including many leaders of
the genocide, who began rearming in a bid to return to power in Rwanda. By late
1996, Hutu militants from the camps were launching regular cross-border
incursions, and the RPF-led Rwandan government launched a counteroffensive.
Rwanda provided troops and military training to the Banyamulenge, a Tutsi group
in the Zairian South Kivu province, helping them to defeat Zairian security
forces. Rwandan forces, the Banyamulenge, and other Zairian Tutsi then
attacked the refugee camps, targeting Hutu militia. These attacks caused
hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee, many returning to Rwanda
despite the presence of the RPF, while others ventured further west into Zaire.
Rwandan refugee camp in east Zaire
Refugee camp for Rwandans in Kimbumba, eastern Zaire (current Democratic Republic of the Congo), following the Rwandan genocide.
The defeated forces of the
former regime continued a cross-border insurgency campaign, supported initially
by the predominantly Hutu population of Rwanda’s northwestern provinces. By
1999, however, a program of propaganda and Hutu integration into the Rwandan national
army succeeded in bringing the Hutu to the side of the government, and the
insurgency was defeated.
In addition to dismantling
the refugee camps, Kagame began planning a war to remove long-time dictator of
Zaire, President Mobutu Sese Seko, from power. Mobutu supported the genocidaires based in the camps and was
accused of allowing attacks on Tutsi people within Zaire. The rebels
quickly took control of North and South Kivu provinces and then advanced west,
gaining territory from the poorly organized and demotivated Zairian army with
little fighting, and controlling the whole country by May 1997. Mobutu
fled into exile and the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC). Rwanda fell out with the new Congolese regime in 1998 and Kagame
supported a fresh rebellion, leading to the Second Congo War. This war lasted
until 2003 and caused millions of deaths and massive damage. A 2010 UN report
accused the Rwandan army of committing widespread human rights violations and
crimes against humanity in the DRC during the two Congo wars, but the charges
were denied by the Rwandan government.
37.4.5: The Lack of International Response
Most international actors during the Rwandan
genocide stood on the sidelines, hoping to avoid their own nationals’ loss of
life and political entanglements.
Learning Objective
Account for the lack of international
intervention during the Rwandan genocide
Key Points
The United
Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) had been in Rwanda since October
1993, but their mandate was hampered by the UN’s inability to intervene
militarily, President Habyarimana and other Hutu Power hardliners, and the loss
of troops.
During the first
few days of the genocide, France launched Amaryllis, a military operation
assisted by the Belgian army and UNAMIR, to evacuate expatriates from Rwanda,
but the French and Belgians refused to allow any Tutsi to accompany the
evacuations.
In late June
1994, France launched Opération Turquoise, a UN-mandated mission to create safe
humanitarian areas for displaced persons, refugees, and civilians in danger, but
as the genocide came to an end and the RPF ascended to a leadership role within
the country, many Rwandans interpreted Turquoise as a mission to protect Hutu
from the RPF.
U.S. president
Bill Clinton and his cabinet were aware of a “final solution” for Tutsi people
within Rwanda before the massacre began, but fear of a repeat of the events in
Somalia shaped U.S. failure to intervene.
Many Catholic and other clergy within Rwanda sacrificed their lives to
save others from slaughter; however, there is evidence that others did
little to prevent the spread of the genocide, with some even actively
participating in crimes.
Key Terms
Chapter VI mandate
The chapter of the United Nations Charter that deals
with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that
could lead to war to first seek solutions via peaceful methods. If these
methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, the issue must be referred to
the UN Security Council.
Françafrique
A portmanteau of France and Afrique used to
denote France’s relationship with its former African colonies and sometimes
extended to cover former Belgian colonies as well.
Most of the world stood on
the sidelines during the Rwandan genocide, hoping to avoid the loss of life and
political entanglement that the American debacle in Somalia had created. As
reports of the genocide spread through the media, the Security Council agreed
to supply more than 5,000 troops to Rwanda to combat the genocide. But the
delay and denial of recommendations prevented the force from getting there in a
timely fashion, and ultimately they arrived months after the genocide was over.
After the genocide, many government officials in the international community
mourned the loss of thousands of civilians within Rwanda, though they took no action to prevent the slaughter as it was happening.
UNAMIR
The United Nations
Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) had been in Rwanda since October 1993
with a mandate to oversee the implementation of the Arusha Accords following
the Rwandan civil war. UNAMIR commander Romeo Dallaire learned of the Hutu
Power movement during the mission’s deployment, as well as plans for the mass
extermination of Tutsi. Dallaire also learned of growing secret weapons caches,
but his request to raid them was turned down by the UN Department of
Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). UNAMIR’s effectiveness in peacekeeping was also
hampered by President Habyarimana and Hutu hardliners, and by April 1994, the
Security Council threatened to terminate UNAMIR’s mandate if it did not make
progress with its mission.
Kigali school chalkboard
A school chalkboard in Kigali. Note the names “Dallaire,” UNAMIR Force Commander, and “Marchal,” UNAMIR Kigali sector commander.
Following the death of
Habyarimana and the start of the genocide, Dallaire liaised repeatedly with
both the Crisis Committee and the RPF, attempting to re-establish peace and
prevent the resumption of the civil war. Neither side was interested in a
ceasefire: the government was controlled by backers of the genocide, and the
RPF considered continued fighting necessary to stop the killings. UNAMIR’s
Chapter VI mandate rendered it powerless to intervene militarily, and most of
its Rwandan staff were killed in the early days of the genocide, severely
limiting its ability to operate. On April 12, the Belgian government, one of the largest troop contributors to UNAMIR, lost ten soldiers who were
protecting Prime Minister Uwilingillyimana, and subsequently announced its
withdrawal from the force, reducing UNAMIR’s effectiveness further.
UNAMIR was therefore largely
reduced to a bystander role, and Dallaire later labeled it a failure. Its most
significant contribution was to provide refuge for thousands of Tutsi and
moderate Hutu at its headquarters in Amahoro Stadium as well as other secure
UN sites, and in assisting with the evacuation of foreign nationals. In
mid-May, the UN finally conceded that “acts of genocide may have been
committed” and agreed to reinforcement, which would be referred to as UNAMIR
2. New soldiers did not start arriving until June, however, and following the
end of the genocide in July, the role of UNAMIR 2 was largely confined to
maintaining security and stability until its termination in 1996.
France and Operation
Turquoise
During President
Habyarimana’s years in power, France maintained very close relations with him
as part of its Françafrique policy and assisted Rwanda militarily against the
RPF during the Civil War. France considered the RPF, along with Uganda, to be a
part of a plot to increased Anglophone influence at the expense of that of the
French. During the first few days of the genocide, France launched Amaryllis,
a military operation assisted by the Belgian army and UNAMIR, to evacuate
expatriates from Rwanda. The French and Belgians refused to allow any Tutsi to
accompany them, and those who boarded the evacuation trucks were forced off at
Rwandan government checkpoints, where they were killed. The French also
separated several expatriates and children from their Tutsi spouses, rescuing
the foreigners but leaving the Rwandans to a likely death. The French did,
however, rescue several high profile members of Habyarimana’s government, as
well as his wife, Agathe.
In late June 1994, France
launched Opération Turquoise, a UN-mandated mission to create safe humanitarian
areas for displaced persons, refugees, and civilians in danger. The French
entered southwestern Rwanda from bases in the Zairian cities of Goma and Bukavu
and established the zone Turquoise within the Cyangugu-Kibuye-Gikongoro
triangle, an area occupying approximately one-fifth of Rwanda. Radio France
International Estimated that Turquoise saved around 15,000 lives, but as the
genocide came to an end and the RPF ascended to a leadership role within the
country, many Rwandans interpreted Turquoise as a mission to protect Hutu from
the RPF, including some Hutu who had participated in the genocide. The French
remained hostile to the RPF and their presence did temporarily stall the RPF’s
advance. A number of inquiries have been made into French involvement in
Rwanda, including the 1998 French Parliamentary Commission on Rwanda, which
accused France of errors of judgement but stopped short of accusing it of
direct responsibility for the genocide itself. A 2008 report by the Rwandan
government and sponsored by the Mucyo Commission, however, did accuse the
French government of knowing about the genocide and helping to train
Hutu militia members.
Other International Actors
Southern European Task Force (SETAF) Transporting Water
The water was made by eight chlorinators and two reverse osmosis machines in Goma for Rwandan refugees located at Camp Kimbumba, Zaire.
Intelligence reports
indicated that U.S. president Bill Clinton and his cabinet were aware of a “final
solution” for Tutsi people within Rwanda before the height of the massacre. However, fear of a repeat of the events in Somalia shaped U.S. policy at
the time, with many commentators identifying the graphic consequences of the
Battle of Mogadishu as the key reason for the U.S. failure to intervene in
later conflicts such as the Rwandan Genocide. After the Battle of Mogadishu,
the bodies of several U.S. casualties were dragged through the streets by crowds
of local civilians and members of Aidid’s Somali National Alliance. As a
result, 80% of the discussion in Washington in the lead up to the 100 days of
violence in Rwanda concerned the evacuation of American citizens. Later, Bill
Clinton would refer to the failure of the U.S. government to intervene in the
genocide as one of his greatest foreign policy failings while in office.
The Roman Catholic Church affirms that a genocide took place in Rwanda,
but states that those who took part did so without the permission of the
Church. Many Catholic and other clergy sacrificed their lives to save others
from slaughter. However, there is evidence that others contributed to the
mayhem, with some even actively participating in crimes. Though religious
factors were not prominent, Human Rights Watch faulted a number of religious
authorities in Rwanda in a 1999 report on the genocide, including Roman
Catholics, Anglicans, and Protestants, for failing to condemn the genocide.
Some religious authorities were even tried and convicted for their
participation in the genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR). Father Athanase Seromba was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment
(increased on appeal to life imprisonment) by the ICTR for his role in the massacre
of 2,000 Tutsis. The court heard that Seromba lured the Tutsis to a church
where they believed they would find refuge. When they arrived, he ordered
bulldozers to crush the refugees within and Hutu militias to kill any
survivors. Similarly, Bishop Misago was accused of corruption and complicity in
the genocide, but was cleared of all charges in 2000.
37.5: The Yugoslav War
37.5.1: Populations of the Former Yugoslavia
Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks were the three
largest South Slavic groups that inhabited the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.
Learning Objective
Describe the similarities and differences
between Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks
Key Points
Until the 19th
century, the term Bosniak (Bošnjak) referred
to all inhabitants of Bosnia regardless of religious affiliation; over
time, a growing sense of Bosnian nationhood was cherished mainly by Muslim
Bosnians, associating the Bosniak identity with one faith.
After World War
I, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later called the Kingdom of
Yugoslavia, or the First Yugoslavia) was formed, recognizing only those three
nationalities in its constitution as Serbian and Croatian nationalists
attempted to absorb Bosniak ethnicities into their
populations.
Following the liberation
of Yugoslavia, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia reorganized the country into
federal republics: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia,
and Montenegro.
Official state
policy prescribed that Yugoslavia’s peoples were equal groups that would
coexist peacefully within the federation.
Josip Broz Tito,
the first president of Yugoslavia, expressed his desire for an undivided
Yugoslav ethnicity; however, distinctions among ethnic groups persisted,
reinforced by disparate histories of foreign occupation.
In 1964, the Fourth Congress of the Bosnian Party assured Bosniaks the right
to self-determination, prompting the recognition of Bosnian Muslims as a
distinct nation at a meeting of the Bosnian Central Committee in 1968, though
not under the Bosniak or Bosnian name.
Key Term
South Slavs
A subgroup of Slavic peoples
who speak South Slavic languages. They inhabit a contiguous region in the
Balkan Peninsula, southern Pannonian Plain, and eastern Alps, and are
geographically separated from the body of West Slavic and East Slavic people by
the Romanians, Hungarians, and Austrians. The South Slavs include the Bosniaks,
Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Slovenes.
Following the liberation of Yugoslavia, the
Communist Party of Yugoslavia reorganized the country into federal republics: Serbia,
Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro.
Further, two autonomous provinces were created within the Serbian republic
based on the presence of minorities in the region: Vojvodina (inhabited by a
Hungarian minority) and Kosovo and Metohija (inhabited by an Albanian minority).
The term “nationality” (narodnost) was used to describe the status of Albanians,
Hungarians, and other non-constitutive peoples, distinguishing them from the
nations. This combination of historical and ethnic criteria only applied to
Serbia and not Italian-inhabited Istria or Serb-inhabited Krajina, for example.
The word “nation” (nacija, narod) was used to denote the country’s
constitutive peoples (konstitutivne
nacije), or residents of the federal republics.
Official state policy
prescribed that Yugoslavia’s peoples were equal groups that would coexist
peacefully within the federation. This policy was distilled into a slogan:
“brotherhood and unity” and provided for in the 1974 Yugoslav
constitution.
South Slavs
The concept of Yugoslavia as
a single state for all South Slavic peoples emerged in the late 17th century
and gained prominence through the Illyrian movement of the 19th century. The
name Yugoslavia (sometimes spelled Jugoslavia) is a combination of the Slavic
words jug (south) and sloveni (Slavs). When the term Yugoslav
was first introduced, it was meant to unite a common people of South Slavs.
Josip Broz Tito, the first president of Yugoslavia, expressed his desire for an
undivided Yugoslav ethnicity; however, distinctions among ethnic groups
persisted, reinforced by disparate histories of foreign occupation. As of 1981,
Serbs were the largest ethnic population within Yugoslavia, representing 36.3%
of the population. Croats comprised the second largest ethnic majority,
representing 19.7% of the population, and Muslims, or Bosniaks, comprised 8.9%
of the population.
South Slavic Europe
The green area shows countries
where a South Slavic language is the national language. The dark gray areas of the map show other Slavic-speaking countries.
Bosniaks
Until the 19th century, the term
Bosniak (Bošnjak) came to refer to
all inhabitants of Bosnia regardless of religious affiliation. Terms such as
“Boşnak milleti”, “Boşnak kavmi”, and “Boşnak
taifesi” (all meaning, roughly, “the Bosnian people”) were used
in the Ottoman Empire to describe Bosnians in an ethnic or tribal sense. After
the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, the Austrian
administration officially endorsed Bošnjaštvo
(“Bosniakhood”) as the basis of a multi-confessional Bosnian nation. The policy
aspired to isolate Bosnia and Herzegovina from its irredentist neighbors
(Orthodox Serbia, Catholic Croatia, and the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire) and
to negate the concept of Croatian and Serbian nationhood, which had already
begun to take ground among Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Catholic and Orthodox
communities, respectively. Nevertheless, a sense of Bosnian nationhood was
cherished mainly by Muslim Bosnians, but fiercely opposed by nationalists from
Serbia and Croatia who were instead opting to claim the Bosnian Muslim
population as their own. After World War I, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and
Slovenes (later called the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) was formed and recognized
only those three nationalities in its constitution.
After World War II, in the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnian Muslims continued to be
treated as a religious group instead of an ethnic one. In the 1948 census,
Bosnia and Herzegovian’s Muslims had three options for self-identification:
Serb-Muslim, Croat-Muslim, or ethnically undeclared Muslim. In the 1953 census,
the category “Yugoslav, ethnically undeclared” was introduced, and the
overwhelming majority of those who declared themselves as such were Muslim.
Bosniaks were recognized as an ethnic group in 1961, but not as a nationality. Nevertheless,
many Bosniak communist intellectuals argued that the Muslims of Bosnia and
Herzegovina were in fact a distinct native Slavic people that should be
recognized as a nation.
In 1964, the Fourth Congress of the Bosnian Party assured Bosniaks the right
to self-determination, prompting the recognition of Bosnian Muslims as a
distinct nation at a meeting of the Bosnian Central Committee in 1968, though
not under the Bosniak or the Bosnian name. As a compromise, the Constitution of
Yugoslavia was amended to list “Muslims” in a national sense, recognizing
a constitutive nation but not the Bosniak name. The use of “Muslim” as an
ethnic denomination was criticized early on, however. Sometimes other terms,
such as Muslim with a capital “M” were used (that is, “musliman” was
a practicing Muslim, while “Musliman” was a member of the Muslim
nation; Serbo-Croatian uses capital letters for names of peoples, but small for
names of adherents).
37.5.2: NATO and UN Intervention
Although NATO and UN intervention into the Bosnian conflict was
significant, its outcomes were often controversial.
Learning Objective
Assess the successes and limitations of NATO and UN interventions in the
Bosnian War
Key Points
The UN
repeatedly but unsuccessfully attempted to stop the Bosnian War, and the
much-touted Vance-Owen Peace Plan in the first half of 1993 made little impact.
The
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was formally
established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council on May 25,
1993.
The
establishment of UN Safe Areas is considered one of the most controversial
decisions of the United Nations, due to uncertainty about how UN
member states could protect what had become a war-torn, unstable region.
By 1995, the
situation in the UN Safe Areas had deteriorated to the point of diplomatic
crisis, culminating in the Srebrenica massacre, one of the worst atrocities to
occur in Europe since World War II.
NATO became
militarily involved in the conflict when its jets shot down four Serb aircraft
in violation of the UN-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia on February 28,
1994.
UNPROFOR made
its first request for NATO air support in March 1994, and by April, NATO began
participating in air strikes to support safe areas on the ground, marking the
first time NATO participated in this type of military maneuver.
Operation Deliberate Force was a sustained air campaign conducted by NATO
in concert with UNPROFOR ground operations to undermine the military capability
of the VRS. The air campaign was key in pressuring the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to take part in negotiations that resulted in the Dayton Agreement
in November 1995.
Key Term
Vance-Owen Peace Plan
A peace
proposal negotiated with the leaders of Bosnia’s warring factions by UN Special
Envoy Cyrus Vance and EC representative Lord Owen. This plan involved the
division of Bosnia into ten semi-autonomous regions.
The United Nations and Bosnia
The UN repeatedly, but
unsuccessfully, attempted to stop the Bosnian War, and the much-touted
Vance-Owen Peace Plan in the first half of 1993 made little impact. On February
22, 1993, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 808, which
decided “that an international tribunal shall be established for the
prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international
humanitarian law.” On May 15-16, 96% of Serbs voted to reject the
Vance-Owen peace plan. After the failure of the plan, an armed conflict sprang
up between Bosniaks and Croats over the 30% of Bosnia the latter held. The
peace plan was one of the factors leading to the escalation of the conflict as
Lord Owen avoided moderate Croat authorities (pro-unified Bosnia) and
negotiated directly with more extreme elements who were in favor of
separation.
Sniper Alley
Norwegian UN troops on their way up Sniper Alley in Sarajevo, November 1995.
On May 25, 1993, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was formally
established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council. In April
1993, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 816, calling on
member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. On April 12,
1993, NATO commenced Operation Deny Flight to enforce this no-fly zone. In an
attempt to protect civilians, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR),
which had been established during the Croatian War of Independence, saw its
role further extended in May 1993 to protect areas declared as “safe
havens” around Sarajevo, Goražde, Srebrenica, Tuzla, Žepa, and Bihać by
Resolution 824. On June 4, 1993, the United Nations Security Council passed
Resolution 836, authorizing the use of force by UNPROFOR for the purpose of
protecting the above-named safe zones.
United Nations Safe Zones
The establishment of the UN
Safe Areas is considered one of the most controversial decisions of the United
Nations. The resolutions establishing the safe areas were unclear about the
procedure by which these areas were to be protected in the war zone that Bosnia
and Herzegovina had become. The resolutions also created a difficult diplomatic
situation for member states that voted in favor of it due to their
unwillingness to take necessary steps to ensure the security of the safe areas.
In 1995, the situation in the UN Safe Areas had deteriorated to the point of diplomatic
crisis, culminating in the Srebrenica massacre, one of the worst atrocities in
Europe since World War II. By the end of the war, every one of the Safe Areas
had been attacked by the Serbs, and Srebrenica and Žepa were overrun.
Srebrenica
From the outset, violations
of the safe area agreement in Srebrenica were abundant. Between 1,000 and 2,000
soldiers from three of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) Drina Corps Brigades
were deployed around the enclave, equipped with tanks, armored vehicles,
artillery, and mortars. The 28th Mountain Division of the Army of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) that remained in the enclave was neither well-organized nor well-equipped. A firm command structure and communications system
was lacking and some soldiers carried old hunting rifles or no weapons at all.
Few had proper uniforms. Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Karremans (the Dutchbat
Commander with UNPROFOR) testified to the ICTY that his personnel were
prevented from returning to the enclave by Serb forces and that equipment and
ammunition were also barred. Bosniaks in Srebrenica
complained of attacks by Serb soldiers, while to the Serbs it appeared that
Bosnian government forces in Srebrenica were using the safe area as a
convenient base from which to launch counter-offensives against the VRS, with UNPROFOR
failing to take any preventive action. General Sefer Halilović admitted that
ARBiH helicopters had flown in violation of the no-fly zone and that he had
personally dispatched eight helicopters with ammunition for the 28th Division
within the enclave.
A Security Council mission
led by Diego Arria arrived in Srebrenica on April 25, 1993, and in their
subsequent report to the UN, condemned the Serbs for perpetrating “a slow-motion
process of genocide.” The mission then stated that:
“Serb forces must
withdraw to points from which they cannot attack, harass or terrorise the town.
UNPROFOR should be in a position to determine the related parameters. The
mission believes, as does UNPROFOR, that the actual 4.5 km by 0.5 km decided as
a safe area should be greatly expanded.”
Specific instructions from UN
Headquarters in New York stated that UNPROFOR should not be too zealous in
searching for Bosniak weapons and later, that the Serbs should withdraw their
heavy weapons before the Bosniaks gave up their weapons. The Serbs never did
withdraw their heavy weapons.
By early 1995, fewer and
fewer supply convoys were making it through to the enclave. The situation in
Srebrenica and in other enclaves had deteriorated into lawless violence as
prostitution among young Muslim girls, theft, and black marketeering
proliferated. The already meager resources of the civilian population dwindled
further and even the UN forces started running dangerously low on food,
medicine, ammunition, and fuel, eventually forced to patrol the
enclave on foot. Dutchbat soldiers who went out of the area on leave were not
allowed to return, and their numbers dropped from 600 to 400 men. In March and
April, the Dutch soldiers noticed a build-up of Serb forces near two of their
observation posts.
In March 1995, Radovan
Karadžić, President of the Republika Srpska (RS), despite pressure from the
international community to end the war and ongoing efforts to negotiate a peace
agreement, issued a directive to the VRS concerning the long-term strategy of
the VRS forces in the enclave. The directive, known as “Directive 7”,
specified that the VRS was to completely separate Srebrenica from Žepa and make
the situation within Srebrenica enclave unbearable by combat means, with the
aim of ending the life of all Srebrenica’s inhabitants. By mid-1995, the
humanitarian situation of the Bosniak civilians and military personnel in the
enclave was catastrophic. In May, following orders, ARBiH Commander Naser Orić
and his staff left the enclave by helicopter to Tuzla, leaving senior officers
in command of the 28th Division. In late June and early July, the 28th Division
issued a series of reports, including urgent pleas for the humanitarian
corridor to the enclave to be reopened. When this failed, Bosniak civilians
began dying from starvation. On July 7, the mayor of Srebrenica reported that
eight residents had died of starvation.
The Serb offensive against
Srebrenica began in earnest the day before, on July 6, 1995. In the following
days, the five UNPROFOR observation posts in the southern part of the enclave
fell one by one in the face of the Bosnian-Serb advance. Some of the Dutch
soldiers retreated into the enclave after their posts were attacked, but the
crews of the other observation posts surrendered into Serb custody.
Simultaneously, the defending Bosnian forces came under heavy fire and were
pushed back towards the town. Once the southern perimeter began to collapse,
about 4,000 Bosniak residents who had been living in a Swedish housing complex
for refugees nearby fled north into the town of Srebrenica. Dutch soldiers
reported that the advancing Serbs were “cleansing” the houses in the
southern part of the enclave.
Late on July 9, 1995,
emboldened by early successes and little resistance from the largely demilitarized
Bosniaks and the absence of any significant reaction from the
international community, Karadžić issued a new order authorizing the
1,500-strong VRS Drina Corps to capture the town of Srebrenica. The following
morning (July 10), Lieutenant-Colonel Karremans made urgent requests for air
support from NATO to defend Srebrenica as crowds filled the streets, some carrying
weapons. VRS tanks were approaching the town, and NATO airstrikes on these
began on the afternoon of July 11, 1995. NATO bombers attempted to attack VRS
artillery locations outside the town, but poor visibility forced NATO to cancel
this operation. Further NATO air attacks were cancelled after the VRS threatened
to bomb the UN’s Potočari compound, kill Dutch and French military hostages,
and attack surrounding locations where 20,000 to 30,000 civilian refugees were
situated. In the days that followed, more than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks, mainly
men and boys, would be killed by units of the VRS under the command of General
Ratko Mladić.
Srebrenica Massacre Victim
Skull of a victim of the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre in an exhumed mass grave outside the village of Potocari, Bosnia and Herzegovina, July 2007.
NATO Military Involvement
NATO became militarily
involved in the conflict when its jets shot down four Serb aircraft in violation of
the UN no-fly zone over central Bosnia on February 28, 1994. On March 12, 1994,
the UNPROFOR made its first request for NATO air support, but close air support
was not deployed as the approval
process was delayed. On April 10-11, 1994, UNPROFOR called in NATO air strikes to protect
the Goražde safe area, resulting in the bombing of a Serbian military command
outpost near Goražde by 2 US F-16 jets. This was the first time in NATO’s
history that it had participated in this type of military maneuver. As a
result, 150 UN personnel were taken hostage on April 14, and on April 16, a
British Sea Harrier was shot down over Goražde by Serb forces.
On August 5, at the request
of UNPROFOR, NATO aircraft attacked a target within the Sarajevo Exclusion Zone
after weapons were seized by Bosnian Serbs from a collection site near
Sarajevo. On September 22, 1994, NATO aircraft carried out an air strike
against a Bosnian Serb tank at the request of UNPROFOR.
Operation Deliberate Force
Operation Deliberate Force was a sustained air campaign conducted by NATO
in concert with UNPROFOR ground operations to undermine the military capability
of the VRS, which had threatened and attacked UN-designated safe areas in
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War. Events such as the Srebrenica
and Markale massacres precipitated intervention. The operation was carried out
between August 30 and September 20, 1995, involving 400 aircraft and
5,000 personnel from 15 nations. Commanded by Admiral Leighton W. Smith, the
campaign struck 338 Bosnian Serb targets, many of which were destroyed.
Overall, 1,026 bombs were dropped during the operation, 708 of which were
precision-guided. The air campaign was key in pressuring the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia to take part in negotiations that resulted in the Dayton
Agreement reached in November 1995.
37.5.3: The Bosnian War
The Bosnian War was an
international armed conflict that took place between the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat entities within Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, and Herzeg-Bosnia.
Learning Objective
Explain the events of the Bosnian War
Key Points
Following Slovenian
and Croatian secession from the Socialist Federal Republic in 1991, the
multi-ethnic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina passed a referendum for
independence on February 29, 1992.
On March 18,
1992, representatives from the three major ethnic majorities signed the Lisbon
Agreement, agreeing to an ethnic division of Bosnia: Alija Izetbegović for the
Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs, and Mate Boban for the Croats.
However, on March 28, 1992, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his
opposition to any such division of the country.
Serb forces
attacked Bosnian Muslim civilian populations, following the same pattern once
areas were under their control: houses and apartments were systematically
ransacked or burnt down, civilians were rounded up or captured, and many were
beaten or killed in the process.
A number of
genocidal massacres perpetrated against the Bosniak population were reported
during the war, including Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Tuzla, and two incidents at Markale.
The Siege of
Sarajevo started in early April 1992 and lasted 44 months, with suffering inflicted on the largely Bosniak civilian population to force Bosnian
authorities to accept Serb demands.
The Graz
agreement was signed between Bosnian-Serb and Bosnian-Croat leaders in early
May 1992, causing deep divisions within the Croat community and strengthening Croat
separatist factions, which led to their conflict with the Bosniaks.
Numerous
ceasefire agreements were signed and breached as advantages were gained and
lost across sides. The UN repeatedly attempted to stop the war, but the
much-touted Vance-Owen Peace Plan made little impact.
On May 25, 1993,
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
formally established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council.
The
Croat-Bosniak war officially ended on February 23, 1994, when the commander of the
Croat Defense Council (HVO), General Ante Roso, and commander of the Bosnian
Army, General Rasim Delić, signed a ceasefire agreement in Zagreb, leading to
the Washington Agreement being finalized shortly thereafter.
On September 26, 1995, an agreement of further basic principles for a
peace accord was reached in New York City between the foreign ministers of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. A
60-day ceasefire came into effect on October 12, and on November 1, peace talks
began in Dayton, Ohio.
Key Terms
Vance-Owen peace plan
A peace proposal negotiated between the leaders
of Bosnia’s warring factions in early January 1993, facilitated by UN Special
Envoy Cyrus Vance and European Community representative Lord Owen. The proposal
involved the division of Bosnia into ten semi-autonomous regions and received
the backing of the UN.
Split Agreement
The Split Agreement was a mutual defense
agreement between Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed in Split, Croatia, on July 22,
1995. It called on the Croatian Army to intervene militarily in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
The Bosnian War was an
international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between
1992 and 1995. Following a number of violent incidents in early 1992, the war
started in earnest on April 6, 1992, and ended on December
14, 1995. The main belligerents were the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and those of the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat
entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, and Herzeg-Bosnia,
who were led and supplied by Serbia and Croatia respectively. The war was part
of the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Following the Slovenian and
Croatian secession from the Socialist Federal Republic in 1991, the
multi-ethnic Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina – which was inhabited
by mainly Muslim Bosniaks (44%), as well as Orthodox Serbs (32.5%) and Catholic
Croats (17%) – passed a referendum for independence on February 29, 1992. The
turnout to the referendum was reported as 63.7%, with 92.7% in
favor of independence (implying that Bosnian Serbs, who made up approximately
34% of the population, largely boycotted the referendum). Independence was
formally declared by the Bosnian parliament on March 3, 1992. On March 18,
1992, representatives from the three major ethnic majorities signed the Lisbon
Agreement: Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs,
and Mate Boban for the Croats. However, on March 28, 1992, Izetbegović, after
meeting with the then-U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann, in
Sarajevo, withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any type of
ethnic division of Bosnia.
In late March 1992, fighting between Serbs and combined Croat and Bosniak forces in and near
Bosanski Brod resulted in the killing of Serb villagers in Sijekovac. Serb
paramilitaries committed the Bijeljina massacre, most victims of which were
Bosniak, on April 1-2, 1992.
Course of the War
At the outset of the Bosnian
war, Serb forces attacked the Bosnian Muslim civilian population in eastern
Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, the Serb forces,
including military, police, paramilitaries, and sometimes even Serb villagers,
followed the same pattern: houses and apartments were systematically ransacked
or burnt down, civilians were rounded up or captured, and many were beaten or
killed in the process. Men and women were separated when captured, with many
men massacred or detained in camps. Women and children were kept in
detention centers that were intolerably unhygienic. Many were
mistreated and raped repeatedly. The Serbs had the upper hand due to their
possession of heavier weaponry (although they claimed less manpower than the
Bosnians). They were supplied by the Yugoslav People’s Army and usually
established control over areas where Serbs were already in the majority.
The Siege of Sarajevo
started in early April 1992. The capital Sarajevo was mostly held by Bosniaks. In
the 44 months of the siege, terror against Sarajevo residents varied in
intensity, but the purpose remained the same: inflict suffering on civilians to
force the Bosnian authorities to accept Serb demands. The Army of Republika
Srpska (VRS) surrounded the city for nearly four years, deploying troops and
artillery in the surrounding hills in what would become the longest siege in
the history of modern warfare.
Funeral in Sarajevo, 1992
A family mourns during a funeral at the Lion’s cemetery during the Siege of Sarajevo.
The Graz agreement was
signed between the Bosnian-Serb and Bosnian-Croat leaders in early May 1992,
causing deep divisions within the Croat community and strengthening separatist
factions, which led to conflict with the Bosniaks. One of the primary pro-union
Croat leaders was Blaž Kraljević, leader of the Croatian Defence Forces (HOS),
which had a Croatian nationalist agenda but unlike the Croat Defense Council
(HVO), fully supported cooperation with the Bosniaks. In June 1992, focus
switched to the towns of Novi Travnik and Gornji Vakuf, where HVO efforts to
gain control were resisted. On June 18, 1992, the Bosnian Territorial Defence
in Novi Travnik received an ultimatum from HVO that included demands to abolish
existing Bosnia and Herzegovina institutions within the town and submit to the
authority of HVO and the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia, as well as expel all
Muslim refugees. These demands were to be met within 24 hours. The next day,
as demands were not met, an attack was launched. The town’s elementary
school and post office were attacked and damaged.
Vastly under-equipped Bosnian
forces fighting on two fronts were able to repel Croats and gain territory. Bosnia was surrounded by Croat and Serb forces from all sides with no way
to import weapons or food. What saved Bosnia at this time was its vast heavy industrial
complex, which was able to switch to military hardware production. Numerous
ceasefire agreements were signed and breached as advantages were gained and
lost across sides. The UN repeatedly but unsuccessfully attempted to stop the
war, and the much-touted Vance-Owen Peace Plan in the first half of 1993 made
little impact.
On February 22, 1993, the
United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 808, which decided “that
an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons
responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law.” On
May 15-16, 96% of Serbs voted to reject the Vance-Owen peace plan. After the
failure of the plan, an armed conflict sprang up between Bosniaks and Croats
over the 30 percent of Bosnia the latter held. The peace plan was one of the
factors leading to the escalation of the conflict as Lord Owen avoided moderate
Croat authorities (pro-unified Bosnia) and negotiated directly with more extreme
elements who were in favor of separation.
On May 25, 1993, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was formally
established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council. In April
1993, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 816, calling on
member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. On April 12,
1993, NATO commenced Operation Deny Flight to enforce this no-fly zone. In an
attempt to protect civilians, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR),
established during the Croatian War of Independence, saw its
role further extended in May 1993 to protect areas declared as “safe
havens” around Sarajevo, Goražde, Srebrenica, Tuzla, Žepa, and Bihać by
Resolution 824. On June 4, 1993, the United Nations Security Council passed
Resolution 836, authorizing the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the above-named safe zones.
Sniper Alley in Sarajevo
Norwegian UN troops on their way up Sniper Alley in Sarajevo, November 1995.
The Croat-Bosniak war
officially ended on February 23, 1994, when the commander of HVO, General Ante
Roso, and commander of the Bosnian Army, General Rasim Delić, signed a
ceasefire agreement in Zagreb. On March 18, 1994, a peace agreement — the
Washington Agreement — was mediated by the U.S. between the warring Croats
(represented by the Republic of Croatia) and the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. It was signed in both Washington D.C. and Vienna. The Washington
Agreement ended the war between Croats and Bosniaks and divided the combined
territory held by Croat and Bosnian government forces into ten autonomous
cantons, establishing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This reduced
the warring parties to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, militarily
composed of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) and the HVO, and Republika Srpska, composed militarily of the VRS.
The war continued until
November 1995. In July 1995, VRS forces under General Ratko Mladić occupied the
UN safe area of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. The resulting Srebrenica
massacre led to the murder of more than
8,000 Muslim Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of
Srebrenica. UNPROFOR, represented on the ground at Srebrenica by a 400-strong
contingent of Dutch peacekeepers, failed to prevent the town’s capture and the
subsequent massacre. The ICTY ruled this event a genocide in the Krstić case.
In line with the
Croat-Bosniak Split Agreement, Croatian forces operated in western Bosnia under
Operation Summer ’95 and in early August launched Operation Storm, aimed at taking
over the Republic of Serb Krajina in Croatia. With this, the Bosniak-Croat
alliance gained winning momentum in the war, taking much of western Bosnia from
the VRS in several operations, including Operation Mistral 2 and Operation
Sana. VRS forces committed several major massacres during 1995: the Tuzla
massacre on May 25, the Srebrenica massacre, and the second Markale massacre on
August 28 (the first Markale massacre occurred on February 5, 1994, when a 120-millimeter mortar shell landed in the center of a marketplace in Sarajevo). On
August 30, the Secretary General of NATO announced the start of Operation Deliberate
Force, which consisted of widespread airstrikes against Bosnian Serb positions
supported by UNPROFOR rapid reaction force artillery attacks. On September 14, 1995,
NATO air strikes were suspended to allow the implementation of an agreement
with Bosnian Serbs for the withdrawal of heavy weapons from around Sarajevo.
Twelve days later, on September 26, an agreement of further basic
principles for a peace accord was reached in New York City between the foreign
ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia.
A 60-day ceasefire came into effect on October 12, and on November 1, peace
talks began in Dayton, Ohio. The war ended with the Dayton Peace Agreement
signed on November 21, 1995; the final version of the peace agreement was
signed December 14, 1995, in Paris.
37.5.4: Prosecution in the International Criminal Court
A number of Serbs,
Croats, and Bosniaks were prosecuted following the Bosnian
War, and some trials are still ongoing.
Learning Objective
Detail the cases brought before the ICC for crimes perpetrated during the
Bosnian War
Key Points
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) was established in 1993 as a body within the UN tasked with prosecuting
war crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia.
The former president of Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, was
found guilty of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and
sentenced to 40 years imprisonment on March 24, 2016.
Ratko Mladić, the top military general with command
responsibility in the Army of Republika Srpska, is currently on trial by the
ICTY, charged with crimes in connection with the siege of Sarajevo and the
Srebrenica massacre, following a long period in hiding as he attempted to
evade arrest.
Serbian President Slobodan Milošević was charged with war
crimes in connection with the war in Bosnia, including grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions, crimes against humanity, and genocide; however, he died in
2006 before his trial ended.
Paramilitary leader Vojislav Šešelj was acquitted in a
first-instance verdict on all counts of an alleged joint criminal enterprise to
ethnically cleanse large areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina of non-Serbs by the ICTY on
March 31, 2016. He went on to lead the Serbian Radical Party to legislative
victories in early 2016.
The Hague revealed that Alija Izetbegović, President
of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War, had also been
under investigation for war crimes, although the prosecutor did not find
sufficient evidence over the course of Izetbegović’s lifetime to issue an
indictment.
Many Serbs have accused
Sarajevo authorities of practicing selective justice in the active prosecution
of Serbs for war crimes, while similar acts carried out by Bosniaks have been
ignored or downplayed.
Key Term
joint criminal enterprise
A legal doctrine used
by the ICTY to prosecute political and military leaders for mass war crimes,
including genocide, committed during the Yugoslav Wars.
The
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
established in 1993 as a body within the UN tasked with prosecuting war crimes
committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal is an ad hoc court located in The Hague, Netherlands.
Both Serbs and Croats were indicted and convicted of systematic war crimes
under the principle of joint criminal enterprise, while Bosniaks were indicted
and convicted of individual ones. Most of the Bosnian-Serb wartime leadership,
such as Biljana Plavšić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Radoslav Brđanin, and Duško Tadić,
were indicted and judged guilty for war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
Major
ICTY Cases
Radovan Karadžić
Radovan Karadžić was found guilty of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment on March 24, 2016.
The
former president of Republika Srpska Radovan Karadžić was found guilty of
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and sentenced to 40 years
imprisonment on March 24, 2016. He was found guilty of genocide for the
Srebrenica massacre, which aimed to kill “every able-bodied male” and systematically exterminate the Bosnian Muslim community. He was
also convicted of persecution, extermination, deportation, forcible transfer
(ethnic cleansing), and murder in connection with his campaign to drive Bosnian
Muslims and Croats out of villages claimed by Serb forces. Ratko Mladić, the
top military general with command responsibility in the Army of Republika
Srpska, is currently on trial in the ICTY, charged with crimes in connection
with the siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre, following a long period
in hiding as he attempted to evade arrest. The closing arguments for his
case were conducted in December 2016 and a verdict is forthcoming. Prosecutors
have argued for nothing less than a life sentence, citing the dissatisfaction
of Bosnians when Karadžić was only given a 40-year sentence.
Ratko Mladić
General Ratko Mladić during UN-mediated talks at Sarajevo Airport in 1993.
The
Serbian President Slobodan Milošević was charged with war crimes in connection
with the war in Bosnia, including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,
crimes against humanity, and genocide; however, he died in 2006 before his
trial could finish. Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities on March
31, 2001, on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement
following his resignation of the Yugoslav presidency and a disputed presidential
election. The initial investigation into Milošević faltered for lack of
evidence, prompting the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić to extradite him to
the ICTY to stand trial for charges of war crimes instead. At the outset of the
trial, Milošević denounced the Tribunal as illegal because it had not been
established with the consent of the UN General Assembly. As a result, he
refused to appoint counsel for his defense and chose to defend himself in the
five years that the trial progressed prior to his death.
Paramilitary
leader Vojislav Šešelj was acquitted in a first-instance verdict on all counts of
an alleged joint criminal enterprise to ethnically cleanse large areas of
Bosnia-Herzegovina of non-Serbs by the ICTY on March 31, 2016. The acquittal
was appealed by prosecutors from the Mechanism for International Criminal
Tribunals (MICT), a United Nations Security Council agency that functions as an
overseer and successor to the ICTY. Subsequently, Šešelj led the Serbian
Radical Party in the 2016 elections, and his party won 23 seats in the
parliament.
The Hague revealed that Alija Izetbegović, President of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War, was also under
investigation for war crimes, although the prosecutor did not find sufficient
evidence over the course of Izetbegović’s lifetime to issue an indictment. Other
Bosniaks convicted of or on trial for war crimes include Rasim
Delić, chief of staff of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sentenced
to three years’ imprisonment on September 15, 2008, for his failure to prevent the
Bosnian mujahideen members of the Bosnian army from committing crimes,
including murder, rape, and torture, against captured civilians and enemy combatants.
Enver Hadžihasanović, a general of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, was sentenced to 3.5 years for authority over acts of murder and
wanton destruction in Central Bosnia. Hazim Delić was the Bosniak Deputy
Commander of the Čelebići prison camp, which detained Serb civilians. He was
sentenced to 18 years by the ICTY Appeals Chamber on April 8, 2003, for murder
and torture of the prisoners and the rape of two Serbian women.
Many Serbs have accused
Sarajevo authorities of practicing selective justice in the active prosecution
of Serbs for war crimes, while similar acts carried out by Bosniaks have been
ignored or downplayed. Genocide at Srebrenica is the most serious war crime
that any Serbs have been convicted of at the ICTY. Crimes against humanity
(i.e., ethnic cleansing), a charge second in gravity only to genocide, is the
most serious war crime that any Croat has been convicted of. The most serious
war crime a Bosniak has been charged with at the Tribunal is breach of
the Geneva Conventions.
37.6: Globalization
37.6.1: The Development of the Internet
The Internet has evolved
from a government tool used for research to a pervasive social medium.
Learning Objective
Describe the
changes brought on by the advent of the Internet
Key Points
The Digital Revolution is the change from mechanical and analog
electronic technology to digital electronics with the adoption and
proliferation of digital computers and information.
The system
that would evolve into the Internet was designed primarily for government use. However, interest in commercial use of the Internet grew quickly.
The World
Wide Web is an information space where documents and other web resources are
identified by URIs, interlinked by hypertext links, and accessed via the
Internet using a web browser and web-based applications.
From 1997 to 2001, the first speculative investment bubble related to the
Internet took place. “Dot-com” companies were propelled to
exceedingly high valuations as investors rapidly stoked stock values.
The term
“Web 2.0” describes websites that emphasize user-generated content
(including user-to-user interaction), usability, and interoperability.
The Web 2.0 movement was itself greatly accelerated and transformed by the rapid growth in mobile devices.
Key Terms
World Wide Web
An information
space where documents and other web resources are identified by URIs,
interlinked by hypertext links, and accessed via the Internet using a
web browser and web-based applications.
Digital Revolution
The
change from mechanical and analog electronic technology to digital
electronics with the adoption and proliferation of digital computers and
information.
The change from mechanical and
analog electronic technology to digital electronics with the adoption and
proliferation of digital computers and information is known as the Digital Revolution. Implicitly, the term refers to the sweeping changes brought about by digital computing and communication
technology during and after the latter half of the 20th century. Analogous to
the Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution, the Digital Revolution
marked the beginning of the Information Age.
Rise of the Global Internet and
the World Wide Web
Internet Map
Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005, data found on opte.org. Each line is drawn between two nodes each representing an IP address. The length of the lines are indicative of the delay between those two nodes. This graph represents less than 30% of the Class C networks reachable by the data collection program in early 2005.
Initially, as with its
predecessor networks, the system that would evolve into the Internet was
primarily for government use. However, interest in
commercial use of the Internet quickly grew.
Although commercial use was initially forbidden, the exact definition of commercial use
was unclear and subjective. As a result, during the late 1980s, the first
Internet service provider (ISP) companies were formed. The first commercial
dial-up ISP in the United States was The World, which opened in 1989.
The World Wide Web (sometimes
abbreviated “www” or “W3”) is an information space where
documents and other web resources are identified by URIs, interlinked by
hypertext links, and accessed via the Internet using a web browser and, more
recently, web-based applications. It has become known simply as “the
Web.” As of the 2010s, the World Wide Web is the primary tool billions use
to interact on the Internet, and it has changed people’s lives immeasurably. Tim
Berners-Lee is credited with inventing the World Wide Web in 1989 and
developing in 1990 both the first web server and the first web browser, called
WorldWideWeb (no spaces) and later renamed Nexus. Many others were soon
developed, with Marc Andreessen’s 1993 Mosaic (later Netscape) often credited with sparking the internet boom of the 1990s.
A boost in web users was
triggered in September 1993 by NCSA Mosaic, a graphic browser that eventually
ran on several popular office and home computers. It was the first web browser
aimed at bringing multimedia content to non-technical users, and included
images and text on the same page, unlike previous browser designs. Andreessen was head of the company that released Netscape Navigator in
1994, resulted in one of the early browser wars
with Microsoft Windows’ Internet Explorer (a competition Netscape Navigator
eventually lost). When commercial use restrictions were lifted in 1995, online
service America Online (AOL) offered users connection to the Internet via
their own internal browser.
Web 1.0: 1990s to Early 2000s
In terms of providing context for
this period, mobile cellular devices, which today provide near-universal access, were used for
business but were not a routine household item. Modern social media did not exist, laptops were bulky, and most households
did not have computers. Data rates were slow and most people lacked means to
video or digitize video, so websites such as YouTube did not yet exist. Media
storage was transitioning slowly from analog tape to digital optical discs (DVD)
and from floppy disc to CD. Technologies that would enable and simplify web development, such as PHP,
modern Javascript and Java, AJAX, HTML 4 (and its emphasis
on CSS), and various software frameworks, awaited invention and widespread adoption.
From 1997 to 2001,
the first speculative investment bubble related to the Internet took place, in
which “dot-com” companies (referring to the “.com” top
level domain used by businesses) were propelled to exceedingly high valuations
as investors rapidly stoked stock values. This dot-com bubble was followed by a
market crash; however, this only temporarily slowed growth.
The changes that would propel the
Internet into its place as a social system took place during a relatively short
period of about five years, starting from around 2004. They included:
Accelerating adoption of and familiarity with the necessary hardware (such as
computers).
Accelerating storage technology
and data access speeds. Hard drives emerged, eclipsed smaller,
slower floppy discs, and grew from megabytes to gigabytes (and by around 2010,
terabytes). Typical system RAM grew from hundreds of kilobytes to gigabytes. Ethernet, the enabling technology for TCP/IP, moved from common
speeds of kilobits to tens of megabits per second to gigabits per second.
High speed Internet and wider
coverage of data connections at lower prices allowed for larger traffic
rates, more reliable traffic, and traffic from more locations.
The gradually accelerating
perception of the ability of computers to create new means and approaches to
communication, the emergence of social media and websites such as Twitter and
Facebook, and global collaborations such as Wikipedia (which existed before but
gained prominence as a result).
Web 2.0
The term “Web 2.0”
describes websites that emphasize user-generated content (including
user-to-user interaction), usability, and interoperability. It first appeared
in a January 1999 article called “Fragmented Future” written by Darcy
DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design. The term resurfaced
around 2002 to 2004 and gained prominence following the first Web 2.0
Conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O’Reilly outlined
their definition of the “Web as Platform”, where software
applications are built upon the Web as opposed to the desktop. The unique
aspect of this migration, they argued, is that “customers are building
your business for you.” They argued that the activities of users
generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be
harnessed to create value.
Web 2.0 does not refer to an
update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the
way webpages are made and used. Web 2.0 describes an approach in which sites
focus substantially on user interaction and collaboration in a social media
dialogue. Customers create content in a virtual community, in
contrast to websites where people are limited to the passive viewing of
content. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis,
folksonomies, video sharing sites, hosted services, Web applications, and
mashups. This era saw several household names gain prominence through their
community-oriented operation, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and
Wikipedia.
The Mobile Revolution
The process of change generally described as
“Web 2.0” was itself greatly accelerated and transformed by the increasing growth in mobile devices. This mobile revolution
meant that computers in the form of smartphones became ubiquitous. People now bring devices everywhere and use them to communicate, shop, seek information, and take and instantly share photos and video. Location-based services and crowd-sourcing became common, with posts tagged by location and websites and services
becoming location aware. Mobile-targeted websites (such as
“m.website.com”) are increasingly designed especially for these new
devices. Netbooks, ultrabooks, widespread 4G and Wi-Fi, and mobile chips
capable or running at nearly the power of desktops on far less power enabled this stage of Internet development.
The term “App” emerged (short for “Application program” or
“Program”) as did the “App store”.
37.6.2: Ease of Movement
One benefit of globalization and the accompanying improvements in transportation technology is the
ease of travel.
Learning Objective
Explain how travel has become easier and more
universal in the modern age
Key Points
As
transportation technology improved, travel time and costs decreased
dramatically between the 18th and early 20th centuries.
The developments
in technology and transport infrastructure, such as jumbo jets, low-cost
airlines, and more accessible airports, have made many types of tourism more
affordable.
As of 2014,
there were an estimated 232 million international migrants in the world, and
approximately half were estimated to be economically active. International
movement of labor is often considered important to economic development.
More
students are seeking higher education in foreign countries and many
international students now consider overseas study a stepping stone to
permanent residency within a country.
As more people have ties to networks of people and places across the globe
rather than to a current geographic location, people are increasingly marrying
across national boundaries.
Because globalization has brought people into greater contact with
foreign cultures, some have come to view one or more globalizing
processes as detrimental to social well-being on a global or local scale, with
xenophobia an issue in many modern societies.
Key Terms
immigration
The international movement of people into a destination country where they do not possess citizenship to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens. People also immigrate to take up employment as migrant workers or temporarily as foreign workers.
tourism
The act of traveling for pleasure, or the theory and practice of touring, the business of attracting, accommodating, and entertaining tourists, and the business of operating tours.
xenophobia
The fear of that perceived as foreign or strange.
An essential aspect of
globalization is increased ease of travel. As transportation technology
improved, travel time and costs decreased dramatically between the 18th and
early 20th centuries. For example, travel across the Atlantic Ocean took up to five weeks in the 18th century, but around the time of the 20th century
it took a mere eight days. Today, modern aviation has made long-distance
transportation quick and affordable.
Tourism
Tourism is travel for
pleasure. Developments in technology and transport infrastructure, such as
jumbo jets, low-cost airlines, and more accessible airports, have made many
types of tourism more affordable. International tourist arrivals surpassed the
milestone of 1 billion for the first time in 2012.
A visa is
a conditional authorization granted by a country to a foreigner allowing them
to enter and temporarily remain within or leave that country. Some countries –
such as those in the Schengen Area – have agreements with other countries
allowing citizens to travel between them without visas. The World
Tourism Organization announced that the number of tourists who required a visa
before traveling was at its lowest level ever in 2015.
Map of scheduled airline traffic around the world, circa June 2009.
The map shows 54317 routes.
Immigration
Immigration is the
international movement of people into a destination country of which they are
not natives or where they do not possess citizenship to settle or
reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens, or to
take up employment as a migrant worker or temporary foreign worker. According
to the International Labor Organization, as of 2014, there were an estimated
232 million international migrants in the world (defined as persons outside
their country of origin for 12 months or more), and approximately half were estimated to be employed or seeking
employment. International movement of labor is often seen as important to
economic development. For example, freedom of movement for workers in the
European Union means that people can move freely between member states to live,
work, study, or retire in another country.
Globalization
Globalization is associated
with a dramatic rise in international education. More nd more students are
seeking higher education in foreign countries and many international students
now consider overseas study a stepping stone to permanent residency within a
country. The contributions that foreign students make to host nation economies,
both culturally and financially, has encouraged the implementation of further
initiatives to facilitate the arrival and integration of overseas students, including
substantial amendments to immigration and visa policies and procedures.
Transnational Marriage
Transnational marriage is a
marriage between two people from different countries and a by-product of the
movement and migration of people. A variety of special issues arise in
marriages between people from different countries, including those related to
citizenship and culture, which add complexity and challenges to these kinds of
relationships. In an age of increasing globalization, where a growing number of
people have ties to networks of people and places across the globe rather than
to a current geographic location, people are increasingly marrying across
national boundaries.
Reactions
Because globalization has brought people into greater contact with
foreign peoples and cultures, some have come to view one or more globalizing
processes as detrimental to social well-being on a global or local scale.
Xenophobia is the fear of that perceived as foreign or strange.
Xenophobia can manifest itself in the relations and
perceptions of an in-group towards an out-group, including the fear of losing one’s
identity, suspicion of another group’s activities, aggression, and a desire to
eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.
37.6.3: International Trade
International trade has become more entrenched
in the domestic policy of states and everyday life of citizens as globalization
increases.
Learning Objective
Identify how trade has changed since the 1990s
Key Points
While
international trade has existed throughout history, its economic, social, and
political importance has been on the rise in recent centuries.
Industrialization,
advanced technology, globalization, multinational corporations, and outsourcing
are all having a major impact on the international trade system.
The global
supply chain consists of complex interconnected networks that allow companies
to produce, handle, and distribute goods and services to the public
worldwide.
E-commerce is the
act of buying or selling online and draws on technologies such as mobile
commerce, electronic funds transfer, supply chain management, internet
marketing, online transaction processing, electronic data interchange (EDI),
inventory management systems, and automated data collection systems.
Offshore outsourcing is the practice of hiring an external organization
to perform business functions in a country other than the one where the
products or services are actually developed or manufactured.
Key Term
International trade
The exchange of capital, goods, and services
across international borders or territories.
International trade is the
exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or
territories. In most countries, such trade represents a significant share of
gross domestic product (GDP). While international trade has existed throughout
history (for example, Uttarapatha, Silk Road, Amber Road, and salt roads), its
economic, social, and political importance has been on the rise in recent
centuries. Trading globally gives consumers and countries the opportunity to be
exposed to new markets and products. Almost every kind of product can be found
on the international market: food, clothes, spare parts, oil, jewelry, wine,
stocks, currencies, and water. Services are also traded: tourism, banking,
consulting, and transportation. A product sold to the global market is
an export, and a product bought from the global market is an import.
Imports and exports are accounted for in a country’s current account in the
balance of payments.
Industrialization, advanced
technology, globalization, multinational corporations, and outsourcing are all
having a major impact on the international trade system. Increasing
international trade is crucial to the continuance of globalization. Without
international trade, nations would be limited to the goods and services
produced within their own borders. International trade is in principle not
different from domestic trade, as the motivation and behavior of parties
involved in a trade do not change fundamentally regardless of whether trade is
across a border. The main difference is that international trade is
typically more costly than domestic trade, since a border
imposes tariffs, time costs due to border
delays, and costs associated with country differences such as language, the
legal system, or culture.
Another difference between
domestic and international trade is that factors of production such as capital
and labor are typically more mobile within a country than across countries.
Thus, international trade is mostly restricted to goods and services,
and only to a lesser extent to capital, labor, or other factors of
production. Trade in goods and services can serve as a substitute for trade in
factors of production. Instead of importing a factor of production, a country
can import goods that make intensive use of that factor of production and thus
embody it. An example is the import of labor-intensive goods by the United
States from China. Instead of importing Chinese labor, the United States
imports goods produced with Chinese labor.
Volume of world merchandise exports
Monthly data sourced from Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, January 2000 to March 2012.
Supply Chains
The global supply chain
consists of complex interconnected networks that allow companies to produce,
handle, and distribute goods and services to the public worldwide. A
supply chain is a system of organizations, people, activities, information, and
resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer.
Supply chain activities involve the transformation of natural resources, raw
materials, and components into a finished product that is delivered to the end
customer. Corporations manage supply chains to take advantage of cheaper
costs of production. As the world has become more interconnected, resources,
labor, and processes along the chain may occur in various locations,
reaching an end point separate from all of these.
E-commerce is the act of
buying or selling online. Electronic commerce draws on technologies such as
mobile commerce, electronic funds transfer, supply chain management, Internet
marketing, online transaction processing, electronic data interchange (EDI),
inventory management systems, and automated data collection systems. Modern
electronic commerce typically uses the World Wide Web for at least one part of
the transaction’s life cycle, although it may also use other technologies such
as email. E-commerce has become an important tool for businesses of all sizes
worldwide, not only to sell to customers, but also to engage with them.
Offshore Outsourcing
Offshore outsourcing is the
practice of hiring an external organization to perform some business functions
(“outsourcing”) in a country other than the one where the products or
services are actually developed or manufactured (“offshore”). It can
be contrasted with offshoring, in which a company moves itself entirely to
another country or functions are performed in a foreign country by a
foreign subsidiary. The widespread use and availability of the Internet has
enabled individuals and small businesses to contract freelancers from all over
the world to get projects done at a lower cost. Crowd-sourcing systems such as
Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower have added the element of scalability, allowing
businesses to outsource information tasks across the Internet to thousands of
workers. Opponents point out that the practice of sending work overseas by countries
with higher wages reduces their own domestic employment and domestic
investment. Many customer service jobs as well as jobs in the information
technology sectors (data processing, computer programming, and technical
support) in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have
been or will potentially be affected.
There are different views on the impact of offshore outsourcing, encapsulated
in the debates over protectionism versus free trade. Some see offshore
outsourcing as a potential threat to the domestic job market in the developed
world and ask for their home governments to enact protective measures or at
least to scrutinize existing trade practices. Others, particularly the
countries who receive work due to offshore outsourcing, see it as an
opportunity. Free-trade advocates suggest economies as a whole will obtain a
net benefit from labor offshoring, but it is unclear if those whose jobs are
displaced receive a net benefit.
37.6.4: Globalization and Democracy
At the turn of the 21st century,
globalization is seemingly hand-in-hand with political liberalization.
Learning Objective
Give examples of how democratic ideas can be
spread thanks to globalization
Key Points
Cultural
globalization refers to the transmission of ideas, meanings, and values around
the world to extend and intensify social relations.
One way in which
shared norms have reshaped the global landscape around the turn of the 21st
century is the liberalization of global society via the spread
of democratic norms.
With the
ascendancy of the United States as sole global superpower in the aftermath of
the Cold War, liberal democratic norms were spread throughout the world
via U.S. ability to attract and co-opt other countries using soft power.
Democratic peace
theory posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with
other identified democracies, thus making the liberalization of global society
in the aftermath of the Cold War a positive trend towards worldwide pacifism.
Capitalist peace
theory posits that once states reach certain criterion for capitalist economic
development, they are less likely to engage in war with each other and rarely
enter into even low-level disputes.
In Thomas L. Friedman’s 1999 book The
Lexus and the Olive Tree, Friedman observed that no two countries with
established McDonald’s franchises had fought a war against each other since
those franchises were established in both countries. In a later interview, he
admitted his theory was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Key Term
soft power
A concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard
University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt using means of
persuasion other than forceful coercion. The currency of soft power is culture,
political values, and foreign policies.
Cultural globalization
refers to the transmission of ideas, meanings, and values around the world to extend and intensify social relations. This process is marked
by the common consumption of cultures that have been diffused by the Internet,
popular culture media, and international travel. This has added to processes of
commodity exchange and colonization, which have a longer history of carrying
cultural meaning around the globe. The circulation of cultures enables
individuals to partake in extended social relations that cross national and
regional borders. The creation and expansion of such social relations is not
merely observed on a material level. Cultural globalization involves the
formation of shared norms and knowledge with which people associate their
individual and collective cultural identities. It brings increasing interconnection
among different populations and cultures.
Historical Background
One way in which shared
norms have reshaped the global landscape around the turn of the 21st
century is the liberalization of global society via the spread
of democratic norms. This trend began in the 1980s as economic malaise and
resentment of Soviet oppression contributed to the collapse of the Soviet
Union, paving the way for democratization across the Iron Curtain. The most
successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally
closest to western Europe, many of which are now members or candidate members
of the European Union. The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the
1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts at
liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer
Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution
in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip Revolution in
Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.
Number of nations scoring 8+ on Polity IV scale (1800-2003)
Data source: The Polity IV project. (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm) The y axis is the number of nations scoring 8 or higher on the combined Polity score.
Note that the Polity IV project only scores nations with greater than 500,000 total population.
The graph shows that 0 nations scored an 8 or higher in 1800, about 10 scored an 8 or higher in 1900, about 20 scored an 8 or higher in 1930, about 10 scored an 8 or higher in 1945, about 35 scored an 8 or higher in 1980, and about 60 scored an 8 or higher in 2003.
Additionally, with the
ascendancy of the United States of America as sole global superpower in the
aftermath of the Cold War, liberal democratic norms were spread further
throughout the world via U.S. ability to attract and co-opt other countries
using soft power. Both Europe and the U.S. have promoted human rights and
international law throughout the world based on the strength of their
international reputations, influence, and culture. For example, the U.S. is one
of the most popular destinations for international students, who in turn
transmit ideas about and enthusiasm about liberal democracy back to their home
countries. Additionally, American films, among other pieces of easily
transmittable culture, have contributed to the Americanization of other cultures
around the world. The information age has also led to the rise of soft power
resources for non-state actors and advocacy groups. Through the use of global
media, and to a greater extent the Internet, non-state actors have been able to
increase their soft power and put pressure on governments that can ultimately
affect policy outcomes.
Democratic and Capitalist
Peace Theories
Democratic peace theory
posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other
identified democracies, thus making the liberalization of global society in the
aftermath of the Cold War a positive trend towards worldwide pacifism. The state
of peace is not considered to be singularly associated with democratic states,
although there is recognition that it is more easily sustained between
democratic nations. Among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several
factors are held as motivating peace between democratic states:
Democratic leaders are
forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
Publicly accountable
states are inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving
international tensions;
Democracies are not inclined
to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
Democracies tend to possess
greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve
infrastructure and resources.
Those who dispute this theory
often do so on grounds that it conflates correlation with causation, and that
the academic definitions of democracy and war can be manipulated so as to
manufacture an artificial trend.
Capitalist peace theory was
developed in response to criticisms of democratic peace theory. The capitalist
peace theory posits that once states reach certain criterion for capitalist
economic development, they are less likely to engage in war with each other
and rarely enter into even low-level disputes. There are five primary theories
that have attempted to explain the capitalist peace.
Trade interdependence:
Capitalist countries that have deeply interconnected trade networks with one
another are hesitant to engage in hostilities that might threaten the health of
the existing trade relationship and thereby threaten benefits derived from that
relationship.
Economic norms theory: In
contract-intensive societies, individuals have a loyalty towards the state that
enforces the contracts between strangers. As a consequence, individuals in
these societies expect that their states enforce contracts reliably and
impartially, protect individual rights, and make efforts to enhance the general
welfare. Moreover, with the assumption of bounded rationality, individuals
routinely dependent on trusting strangers in contracts will develop the habits
of trusting strangers and preferring universal rights, impartial law, and
liberal democratic government. In contrast, individuals in contract-poor
societies will develop the habits of abiding by the commands of group leaders
and distrusting those from out-groups. As a result, theorists link causation of
peace with liberal economies rather than liberal political systems, with the proliferation
of democratic norms occurring only secondarily to the establishment of
contract-intensive economies.
Free capital markets/capital
openness: This theory, originally introduced by Eric Gartzke, Quan Li, and
Charles Boehmer, argues that nations with a high level of capital openness are
able to avoid conflict with each other and maintain lasting peace. In
particular, nations with freer capital markets are more dependent on
international investors because those investors are likely to withdraw if the
country is engaged in a war or interstate conflict. As a result, leaders of
states give greater credibility to threats made by countries with higher levels
of capital openness, causing the aforementioned countries to be more peaceful
than others by avoiding the possibility of misrepresentation of information.
Size of government: This explanation of capitalist peace relies
on a definition of capitalism that assumes capitalist states will also have
limited governments, and in turn, large private sectors. Given this definition,
the idea is that smaller governments are more dependent than larger or
socialist governments on raising taxes for fighting wars. This makes the
commitments of nations with smaller governments more credible than those with
larger ones, allowing for nations with smaller governments, and thus “capitalist”
economies, to be better positioned for avoiding conflicts.
Ruling others by force: This
theory adduces that if men want to oppose war, they must
oppose statism. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial
fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by
force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it, there can be
no peace within a nation and no peace among nations. Most definitions of
capitalism are opposed to the strictures of statism and therefore, capitalist
societies must tend towards peace.
Golden Arches Theory
In Thomas L. Friedman’s 1999
book The Lexus and the Olive Tree,
Friedman observed that no two countries with established McDonald’s franchises
had fought a war against each other since those franchises were established in
both countries. He supported that observation as a theory by stating that when
a country has reached an economic development where it has a middle class
strong enough to support a McDonald’s network, it would become a “McDonald’s
country” and will not be interested in fighting wars anymore. Shortly after the
book was published, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. On the first day of the bombing,
McDonald’s restaurants in Belgrade were demolished by angry protesters and were
rebuilt only after the bombing ended. In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman
argued that this exception proved the rule because the war ended quickly as a
result of the Serbian peoples’ desire to not lose their place in a global system
“symbolized by McDonald’s” (Friedman 2000: 252–253).
Critics have pointed to two
other conflicts fought before 2000 as counterexamples, depending on what one
considers a war:
The 1989 United States
invasion of Panama; and
The 1999 Indian-Pakistani
war over Kashmir, known as the Kargil War. Both countries had (and continue to
have) McDonald’s restaurants. Although the war was not fought in all possible
theaters (such as Rajasthan and Punjab borders), both countries mobilized their
military along common borders and both countries made threats involving their
nuclear capabilities.
In a 2005 interview with The
Guardian, Friedman said that he framed his theory “with tongue slightly in cheek.”
Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori strengthened his regime
to create the internal order necessary to foster economic development;
however, his authoritarian grasp on the presidency sparked the Mexican
Revolution.
Learning Objective
Describe the Porfiriato regime
Key Points
Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori was a Mexican
soldier and politician. As president, he served seven terms in office for
a total of 35 years (1876 to 1911).
Diaz initially served only one term in office in
light of his past resistance to Lerdo’s reelection policy. During his second
term, Diaz amended the constitution twice, initially allowing for two terms in
office, then removing all restrictions on re-election.
As a popular military hero and astute
politician, Diaz determined that his main goal as president was to create the
internal order necessary to foster economic development throughout the country.
His eventual establishment of peace, termed the Pax Porfiriana, became one of
his crowning achievements.
Diaz developed many pragmatic and personalist
approaches to the political conflicts that occurred during his first term in
office and was skilled at playing interest groups against each other to
create the illusion of democracy and quell rebellions before unrest began.
Diaz’s massive display of electoral fraud during
the election of 1911 sparked the Mexican Revolution.
Key Terms
Porfiriato
The
period during which Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori and his allies ruled
Mexico, from 1876 to 1911.
Plan de la Noria
A
revolutionary call to arms with the intent of ousting Mexican President Benito
Juarez.
Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori was a Mexican soldier and
politician, a veteran of the Reform War and the French intervention in
Mexico. As president, he served seven terms in office for a total of 35 years (1876 to 1911). The period during which he and his allies
ruled the country became known as the Porfiriato.
Porfirio Diaz
Diaz served as president of Mexico for 35 years.
The Campaign of “No Re-election”
In 1870, Diaz ran against President Juarez and Vice
President Lerdo de Tejada for president. Juarez won in July and
was confirmed by Congress in October, but Diaz claimed the election was fraudulent. Diaz launched the Plan de la Noria, a revolutionary call to arms
with the intent of ousting Mexican President Benito Juarez on November 8,
1871. The plan was supported by a number of local rebellions throughout the
country, but ultimately failed. Juarez died while in office in
1872, and when Vice President Lerdo succeeded him to the presidency, he offered
amnesty to the rebels, which Diaz accepted. Subsequently, Diaz took up
residency in Veracruz and served as the region’s representative in the
legislature.
Over time, opposition to Lerdo’s presidency grew as
anticlerical sentiment and labor unrest increased, and Diaz saw an
opportunity to plot a more successful rebellion. As a result, he left Mexico in
1875 for New Orleans and Brownsville, Texas, with his political ally Manuel
Gonzalez. A year later, he issued the Plan of Tuxtepec as a call to arms
against Lerdo, who was running for another presidential term. Lerdo was
re-elected in July 1876, but continued rebellion and political unrest before
and after the election forced him out of office. In November, Diaz occupied
Mexico City and Lerdo was exiled to New York. General Juan Mendez was named
provisional president, but Diaz was elected to the office in the beginning of
1877. One of Diaz’s government’s first actions was to amend the 1857 liberal
constitution to prevent re-election to the presidency.
Diaz initially served only one term in office in light of
his past resistance to Lerdo’s re-election policy. In order to side-step the
convention, he handpicked his successor, Manuel Gonzalez, with the intention of
maintaining his power in everything but name. During the four-year period of
Gonzalez’s rule, corruption and official incompetence abounded, so when Diaz
ran for office again in 1884, he was greeted with open arms by the public.
At that point, very few people remembered the “no re-election” promise
that had characterized his previous campaign, though some underground political
papers reversed his previous slogan, “Sufragio Efective, No Reeleccion”, to
“Sufragio Efectivo No, Reeleccion”. During his second term, Diaz amended the
constitution twice, initially allowing for two terms in office, then
removing all restrictions on re-election.
Political Career
As a popular military hero and astute politician, Diaz determined
that his main goal as president was to create the internal order necessary to
foster economic development throughout the country. His eventual establishment
of peace, termed the Pax Porfiriana, became one of his crowning achievements. To achieve this goal, Diaz created a systematic and methodical regime
with a staunch military mindset. He dissolved all local and federal-level
authorities that had once existed in order to ensure that all leadership
stemmed from his office. Legislative authorities that remained within Mexico
were stacked almost entirely with his closest and most loyal allies. Diaz also
suppressed the media and controlled the Mexican court system.
Diaz developed many pragmatic and personalist approaches to
the political conflicts that occurred during his first term in office. Although
known for standing with radical liberals, he made sure not to come across as a
liberal ideologue while in office and maintained control of his political
allies via generous systems of patronage. He was skilled at catering to interest groups and playing them off of one another to
create the illusion of democracy and quell rebellions before unrest began. He
maintained the structure of elections so that a facade of liberal democracy
remained during his rule, but his administration became famous for their
suppression of civil society and public revolts. He also paid the US $300,000
in settlement claims to secure recognition of his regime and met with
Ulysses S. Grant in 1878 while the latter visited Mexico.
Collapse
On February 17, 1908, Diaz gave an interview with an
American journalist, James Creelman of Pearson’s
Magazine, in which he stated that Mexico was ready for democracy and
elections. Diaz also stated that he would retire and allow other candidates to
compete for the presidency. Immediately, opposition groups began the search for
suitable candidates. As candidates began to campaign, Diaz decided he was not
going to retire, but instead run against a candidate he deemed appropriate. He
chose Francisco Madero, an aristocratic but democratically leaning reformer.
Madero was a landowner and very similar ideologically to Diaz, but hoped for
other Mexican elites to rule alongside the president. Ultimately, Diaz had Madero
jailed during the election.
Despite this, Madero gained substantial popular
support. However, when the results were announced, Diaz was proclaimed
re-elected almost unanimously in a massive display of electoral fraud, arousing
widespread anger throughout the country. Madero called for revolt against Diaz
and the Mexican Revolution began. Diaz was forced from office and fled the
country for Spain on
May
31, 1911.
36.1.2: The Mexican Revolution
The
Mexican Revolution took place over the course of a decade and radically
transformed Mexican culture and government.
Learning Objective
Outline
the events of the Mexican Revolution
Key Points
The outbreak of the Mexican Revolution is
attributed to Porfirio Diaz’s failure in resolving the problem of presidential
succession. In the short term, events were precipitated by the results of the
1910 presidential election in which Diaz committed massive electoral fraud and
declared himself the winner against his then-jailed opponent, Francisco Madero.
Despite Madero’s lack of political experience,
his election as president in October 1911 raised high expectations for positive
change. These expectations were tempered by the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez, which stipulated
that certain essential elements of the Diaz regime, such as the federal army,
remain in place.
New institutional freedoms under Madero’s
regime and his failure to reward the revolutionary leaders who
brought him to power led to his resignation and the beginning of the
Huerta dictatorship.
Although Huerta’s regime attempted to legitimize
his hold on power and demonstrate its legality by pursuing reformist policies
in the first several months of his presidency, after October 1913, he
dropped all attempts to rule within a legal framework and murdered political
opponents while battling revolutionary forces that had united against his
regime.
On October 26, 1913, Huerta dispensed with the
Mexican legislature, surrounding the building with his army and arresting
congressmen he perceived to be hostile to his regime. Following a number of
military defeats, Huerta stepped down from the presidency and fled the country
less than a year later.
Huerta’s resignation marked the dissolution of
the federal army and the beginning of an era of civil war among the
revolutionary factions that united to oppose Huerta’s regime.
Venustiano Carranza and Pancho Villa’s forces
fought each other at the Battle of Celaya in April 6-15, 1915, which ended in
victory for the Constitutionalists and Carranza’s election to the presidency.
As
revolutionary violence subsided in 1916, the leaders of Mexico met to draw up a
new, strongly nationalist constitution. Though Carranza was able to enact many
reforms, his regime remained vulnerable to Zapata in the south and Villa in the
north.
Key Terms
Plan de Ayala
A
document drafted by revolutionary Emiliano Zapata during November 1911,
denouncing President Madero for his perceived betrayal of revolutionary ideals
and setting out a vision of future land reform.
Treaty of Ciudad Juarez
A
peace treaty signed between then-President of Mexico Porfirio Diaz and
revolutionary Francisco Madero on May 21, 1911, ending the fighting
between their respective forces and ending the initial phase of the Mexican
Revolution.
The Mexican Revolution was a major armed struggle from 1910 through 1920 that radically transformed Mexican culture and
government. Its outbreak is attributed to Porfirio Diaz’s failure to resolve the problem of presidential succession. In the short term, events were
precipitated by the results of the 1910 presidential election in which Diaz
committed massive electoral fraud and declared himself the winner against his
then-jailed opponent, Francisco Madero. Armed conflict ousted Diaz from power
and a new election was held in 1911, in which Madero won the presidency.
The Madero Presidency, 1911-1913
President Francisco I. Madero
Constitutional President of Mexico 1911-1913
Portrait of President Francisco I. Madero
Despite Madero’s lack of political experience, his election
as president in October 1911 raised high expectations for positive change.
However, these expectations were tempered by the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez,
signed on May 21, 1911, between Diaz and Madero, which put an end to fighting
between the two factions but also stipulated that certain essential elements of
the Diaz regime, such as the federal army, stay in place. Madero called for the
rebels who had brought him to power to return to civilian life. In their place,
Madero increasingly relied upon the federal army to deal with armed rebellions
that broke out in Mexico from 1911 to 1912.
The press, newly unencumbered by Madero’s less authoritarian
regime, embraced their newfound freedoms by making the president himself the object of
criticism. Organized labor exercised their newfound freedoms under the
Madero regime by staging strikes, which foreign entrepreneurs found threatening
to their business concerns. A rise in anti-American sentiment
accompanied these developments. The anarcho-syndicalist Casa del Obrero Mundial
was founded in September 1912 and served primarily as a center of agitation and
propaganda rather than exclusively as a labor union. A number of
political parties also proliferated across the country, including the National
Catholic Party, which was particularly strong in a number of regions.
Madero, unlike Diaz, failed to reward those who had brought
him to power, though many revolutionary leaders expected personal rewards or major
reforms in return for their service. Emiliano Zapata, in particular, long
worked for land reform in Mexico and expected Madero to make some major
changes. However, during a personal meeting with the guerrilla leader, Madero
told Zapata that the agrarian question needed careful study, giving rise to the
belief that Madero, a member of a rich northern landholding family, was
unlikely to implement comprehensive agrarian reform. In response, Zapata
drafted the Plan de Ayala in November 1911, declaring himself in
rebellion against Madero. Zapata renewed guerrilla warfare in the state of
Morelos and Madero was forced to send the federal army to deal, unsuccessfully,
with his forces.
Likewise, the northern revolutionary general Pascual Orozco
felt slighted after being put in charge of large forces of rurales in Chihuahua
instead of being chosen as governor of the same region. After being passed over
and witnessing Madero’s refusal to agree to social reforms calling for better
working hours, pay, and conditions, Orozco assembled his own army to rebel
against the president, aggravating U.S. businessmen and other foreign investors
in the northern region. For many, these upheavals signaled Madero’s inability
to maintain the order that had underpinned Diaz’s 35-year long regime. Madero
dispatched General Victoriano Huerta of the federal army to put down Orozco’s
revolt in April 1912. Ultimately, Huerta was successful in ending the
rebellion, leading many conservative forces to tout him as a powerful
counter-force to Madero’s regime.
A number of other rebellions occurred during a period known
as the Ten Tragic Days. During this time, U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson
brokered the Pact of the Embassy, formalizing an alliance between Huerta and Felix
Diaz, a nephew of the former president and rebel leader. The treaty ensured
that Huerta would become provisional president of Mexico following the
resignations of Madero and his vice president. However, rather than being sent
into exile, the two were murdered during transport to prison, which though
shocking did not prevent recognition of Huerta’s regime by most world
governments. Following the assumption of Huerta of the presidency, former
revolutionaries had no formally organized opposition to the established
government.
The Huerta Dictatorship, 1913-1914
Although Huerta’s regime attempted to legitimize his hold on
power and demonstrate its legality by pursuing reformist policies in the first
several months of his presidency, after October 1913 he dropped all
attempts to rule within a legal framework and murdered political opponents
while battling revolutionary forces that had united against his regime. For
these reasons, Huerta’s presidency is usually characterized as a dictatorship.
Huerta’s regime was supported initially by foreign and domestic business
interests, landed elites, the Roman Catholic Church, and the German and British
governments, and Mexico was militarized to a greater extent than ever before. Within
a month of the coup that brought Huerta to power, several rebellions broke out
across the country. The Northern revolutionaries fought under the name of the
Constitutionalist Army and Zapata continued his rebellion in Morelos under the
Plan de Ayala, despite Huerta’s interest in land reform as an issue. Huerta
offered peace to Zapata, but he rejected it.
Incoming U.S. President Woodrow Wilson refused to recognize
Huerta’s government despite the urging of Ambassador Wilson, who played a
key role in the regime change. In the summer of 1913, President Wilson recalled
Ambassador Wilson and sent his own personal representative John Lind to
continue U.S.-Mexican diplomatic relations. Lind was a progressive who
sympathized with the Mexican revolutionaries and urged other European powers to
join America in non-recognition of the Huerta regime. He also urged Huerta to
call elections and not step up as a candidate, using economic and military
threats to back up his pleadings. Mexican conservatives were also seeking an
elected civilian alternative to Huerta’s regime and brought together a number
of candidates in a National Unifying Junta. The fragmentation of the
conservative political landscape reinforced Huerta’s belief that he would not
be removed from power, whereas the proliferation of political parties and
presidential candidates proved to the country’s conservative elite that there
was a growing disillusionment with Huerta and his regime.
On October 26, 1913, Huerta dispensed with the Mexican
legislature, surrounding the building with his army and arresting congressmen
he perceived hostile to his regime. Congressional elections went ahead,
but the fervor of opposition candidates decreased. The October 1913 elections
ended any pretension of constitutional rule within Mexico and civilian
political activities were banned. Additionally, many prominent Catholics were
arrested and Catholic periodicals were suppressed. Huerta’s position continued
to deteriorate and his army suffered several defeats during this time. Finally,
in mid-July 1914, he stepped down and fled the country. He died six months
after going into exile after having been arrested by US authorities and held at
Fort Bliss, Texas. Huerta’s resignation also marked the dissolution of the
federal army and the beginning of an era of civil war among the revolutionary
factions that united to oppose Huerta’s regime.
War of the Winners, 1914-1915
Venustiano Carranza
Photograph of Governor of Coahuila Venustiano Carranza (center), the tall and distinguished-looking “First Chief” of the Constitutionalist forces in northern Mexico opposing Huerta’s regime.
The revolutionary factions that remained in Mexico gathered
at the Convention of Aguascalientes in October 1914. During this time, there
was a brief break in revolutionary violence. Rather than facilitate a
reconciliation among the different factions, however, Venustiano Carranza and
Pancho Villa engaged in a power struggle, leading to a definitive break between
the two revolutionaries. Carranza expected to be named First Chief of the
revolutionary forces, but his supporters were overpowered during the convention
by Zapata and Villa’s supporters, who called on Carranza to resign executive
power. Carranza agreed to do so only if Villa and Zapata also resigned and went into exile. He also
stipulated that there be a pre-constitutionalist government to carry out the necessary political and social reforms the country needed
before a fully constitutional government was reestablished. As a result of these conditions, the
convention declared Carranza in rebellion and civil war resumed.
Northern general Villa formed an alliance with the southern
leader Zapata. The resultant combined forces were called the Army of the
Convention. In December 1914, their forces moved on Mexico City and captured
it, Carranza’s forces having fled shortly beforehand. In practice, however, the
Army of the Convention did not survive as an alliance beyond this initial
victory against the Constitutionalists. Shortly thereafter, Zapata returned to
his southern stronghold and Villa resumed fighting against Carranza’s forces in
the north. In the meantime, the United States sided with Carranza, who was based in American-occupied Veracruz. The United States timed its exit
from Veracruz to benefit Carranza, sending his forces munitions and
formally recognizing his government in 1915.
Villa’s forces met with those of Carranza’s allies at the
Battle of Celaya in April 6-15, 1915, which ended in a decisive
Constitutionalist victory due to their superior military tactics. As a result,
Carranza emerged as Mexico’s political leader with support from the army.
Constitutionalism Under Carranza, 1915-1920
As revolutionary violence subsided in 1916, the leaders of
Mexico met to draw up a new constitution. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 that
resulted was strongly national. Article 27 provided the government with the
right to expropriate natural resources from foreign interests, enabling land
reform. There were also provisions to protect organized labor and articles extending state power over the Roman Catholic Church within Mexico.
Carranza also pushed for women’s rights and equality during his presidency, which
helped to transform women’s legal status within the country.
Carranza, though able to enact many reforms, was
still vulnerable to revolutionary unrest. Zapata remained active in Morelos,
which due to its proximity to Mexico City remained a vulnerability for the
Carranza government. The Constitutionalist Army, renamed the Mexican National
Army, was dispatched to fight Zapata’s Liberating Army of the South, and government
agents assassinated Zapata in 1919. Carranza also sent generals to track down
Villa in the north, but they were only able to capture some of his men. Due to
the legacy of Diaz’s “no re-election” policy, it was politically untenable for
Carranza to seek re-election after his first term, so instead he endorsed political
unknown Ignacio Bonillas when his term in office was nearly finished. However,
some existing northern revolutionary leaders found the prospect of a civilian
Carranza puppet candidate untenable and hatched a revolt against Carranza
called the Plan of Agua Prieta. As a result, Carranza attempted to flee Mexico,
but died on his way to the Gulf Coast.
36.1.3: The National Revolutionary Party
The National Revolutionary Party held power
consistently from 1929 to 2000 by settling disputes among different
political interest groups within the framework of a single party machine.
Learning Objective
Describe the platform and political dominance of
the National Revolutionary Party
Key Points
Political
unrest, including continued violence after the armed phase of the Mexican
Revolution, led to the foundation of the National Revolutionary Party, or PNR.
The PNR would
undergo name changes over the years it remained in power. In 1938 its name was
changed to Partido de la Revolucion Mexicana (PRM), and in 1946, the party was
renamed Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).
The party was split
functionally into mass organizations that represented various interest
groups. Settling disputes within the framework of a single political party
helped prevent legislative gridlock and militarized rebellions, but only
provided an illusion of democracy to its constituents.
Over time, the party became synonymous with political corruption and
voter suppression, and the growth of opposition parties led to the PRI’s loss of
the presidency in 2000.
Key Terms
National Revolutionary Party
The Mexican political party founded in 1929 that
held executive power within the country for an uninterrupted 71 years. It
underwent two name changes during its time in power: once in 1938, to Partido
de la Revolucion Mexican (PRM), and again in 1946, to Partido Revolucionario
Institucional (PRI).
Democratic Current
A movement within the PRI founded in 1986 that
criticized the federal government for reducing spending on social programs to
increase payments on foreign debt. PRI members who participated in the
Democratic Current were expelled from the party and formed the National
Democratic Front (FDN).
History
Although the armed phase of
the Mexican Revolution ended in 1920, Mexico continued to experience political
unrest in the years that followed. In 1928, president-elect Alvaro Obregon was
assassinated, giving rise to a political crisis. This led to the founding
of the National Revolutionary Party (in Spanish, Partdio Nacional
Revolucionario, or PNR) the following year by sitting president Plutarco Elias
Calles. Calles’ intention in founding the PNR was to end the violent
power struggles taking place between factions of the Mexican
Revolution and guarantee the peaceful transmission of power across presidential
administrations. In the first years of the PNR’s existence, it was the
only political machine in existence. In fact, from 1929 until 1982, the PNR won
every presidential election by well over 70 percent of the vote.
Plutarco Elias Calles
Plutarco Elías Calles, president of Mexico (1924-28) and founder of the PNR in 1929.
In 1938, Lazaro Cardenas,
the president of Mexico at the time, renamed the PNR to Partdio de la
Revolucion Mexicana, or PRM. The PRM’s revised aim was to establish a socialist
democracy of workers. In practice, however, this was never achieved, and the
PRM was split functionally into many mass organizations that
represented different interest groups. Settling disputes within the framework
of a single political party helped to prevent legislative gridlock and
militarized rebellions, which were common during the Mexican
Revolution. For these reasons, its supporters maintained that the party itself
was crucial to the modernization and stability of Mexico as a whole. In fact,
the first four decades of PRM rule were dubbed the “Mexican Miracle” due to the
economic growth that occurred as a result of import substitution, low
inflation, and the implementation of successful national development plans. Between
1940 and 1970, Mexican GDP increased sixfold and peso-dollar parity was
maintained. Party detractors, however, pointed to the lack of transparency and
democratic processes, which ultimately made the lower levels of administration
subordinate to the whims of the party machine.
Lázaro Cárdenas
Lázaro Cárdenas, president of Mexico (1934-40).
Corruption and Opposing
Political Parties
As in previous regimes, the
PRM retained its hold over the electorate due to massive electoral fraud.
Toward the end of every president’s term, consultations with party leaders
would take place and the PRM’s next candidate would be selected. In other
words, the incumbent president would pick his successor. To support the party’s
dominance in the executive branch of government, the PRM sought dominance at
other levels as well. It held an overwhelming majority in the Chamber of
Deputies as well as every seat in the Senate and every state governorship.
As a result, the PRM became a symbol over time of corruption, including
voter suppression and violence. In 1986, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the former
Governor of Michoacan and son of the former president Lazaro Cardenas, formed
the Democratic Current, which criticized the federal government for reducing
spending on social programs to increase payments on foreign debt. Members of
the Democratic Current were expelled from the party, and in 1987, they formed
the National Democratic Front, or Frente Democratico Nacional (FDN). In 1989, the
left wing of the PRM, now called Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or PRI, went
on to form its own party called the Party of the Democratic Revolution. The
conservative National Action Party, likewise, grew after 1976 when it obtained
support from the business sector in light of recurring economic crises. The
growth of both these opposition parties resulted in the PRI losing the
presidency in 2000.
36.1.4: The Mexican Economic Miracle
The Mexican Economic Miracle refers to the
country’s inward-focused development strategy, which produced sustained
economic growth form the 1940s until the 1970s.
Learning Objective
Explain the Mexican
Economic Miracle
Key Points
The reduction of
political turmoil that accompanied national elections during and
immediately after the Mexican Revolution was an important factor in laying the
groundwork for economic growth.
During the
presidency of Lazaro Cardenas, significant policies were enacted in the social
and political spheres that had major impacts on the economic policies of the
country as a whole.
The Mexican
government promoted industrial expansion through public investment in
agricultural, energy, and transportation infrastructure.
Growth was
sustained by Mexico’s increasing commitment to provide quality education
options for its general population.
Mexico benefited
substantially from World War II due to its participation supplying labor and
materials to the Allies.
In the years following World War II, President Miguel Aleman Valdes
(1946-52) instituted a full-scale import-substitution program that stimulated
output by boosting internal demand.
Key Terms
Bracero Program
A series of laws and diplomatic agreements
initiated on August 4, 1942, that guaranteed basic human rights and a minimum
wage of 30 cents an hour to temporary contract laborers traveling from Mexico
to the United States.
import substitution industrialization
A trade and economic policy that advocates
replacing foreign imports with domestic production.
The Mexican Economic Miracle
refers to the country’s inward-focused development strategy, which produced
sustained economic growth of 3-4 percent with modest 3 percent inflation
annually from the 1940s until the 1970s.
Creating the Conditions for
Growth
The reduction of political
turmoil that accompanied national elections during and immediately after
the Mexican Revolution was an important factor in laying the groundwork for
economic growth. This was achieved by the establishment of a single,
dominant political party that subsumed clashes between various interest groups
within the framework of a unified party machine. During the presidency of
Lazaro Cardenas, significant policies were enacted in the social and political
spheres that had major impacts on the economic policies of the country. For instance, Cardenas nationalized oil concerns in 1938. He also
nationalized Mexico’s railways and initiated far-reaching land reform.
Some of these policies were
carried on, albeit more moderately, by Manuel Avila Camacho, who succeeded him
to the presidency. Camacho initiated a program of industrialization in early
1941 with the Law of Manufacturing Industries, famous for beginning
the process of import-substitution within Mexico. Then in 1946, President Miguel
Aleman Valdes passed the Law for Development of New and Necessary Industries,
continuing the trend of inward-focused development strategies.
Growth was sustained by
Mexico’s increasing commitment to primary education for its general population.
The primary school enrollment rate increased threefold from the late 1920s
through to the 1940s, making economic output more productive by the 1940s.
Mexico also made investments in higher education during this period, which
encouraged a generation of scientists and engineers to enable new levels of
industrial innovation. For instance, in 1936 the Instituto Politecnico Nacional
was founded in the northern part of Mexico City. Also in northern Mexico, the
Monterrey Institute of Technology and High Education was founded in 1942.
World War II
Mexico benefited substantially from World War II by supplying labor and materials to the
Allies. The Bracero Program was a series of laws and diplomatic agreements
initiated on August 4, 1942, that guaranteed basic human rights and a minimum
wage of 30 cents an hour to temporary contract laborers who came to the United
States from Mexico. Braceros, meaning manual laborer, literally “one who
works using his arms”, were intended to fill the labor shortage in agriculture
due to conscription. The program outlasted the war and offered employment
contracts to 5 million braceros in 24 U.S. states, making it the
largest foreign worker program in U.S. history. Mexico also received cash
payments for its contributions of materials useful to the war effort, which
infused its treasury with reserves. With these robust resources building up
after the war concluded, Mexico was able to embark on large infrastructure
projects.
Braceros
Some of the first Braceros arriving in Los Angeles by train in 1942.
Camacho used part of the
accumulated savings from the war to pay off foreign debts, which improved
Mexico’s credit substantially and increased investors’ confidence in the
government. The government was also in a better position to more widely distribute material
benefits from the Revolution given the robust revenues from the war
effort. Camacho used funds to subsidize food imports that affected urban
workers. Mexican workers also received high salaries during the
war, but due to the lack of consumer goods, spending did not increase
substantially. The national development bank, Nacional Financiera, was
founded under Camacho’s administration and funded the expansion of the
industrial sector.
Import-Substitution and
Infrastructure Projects
In the years following World
War II, President Miguel Aleman Valdes (1946-52) instituted a full-scale
import-substitution program that stimulated output by boosting internal demand.
The economic stability of the country, high credit rating, increasingly
educated work force, and savings from the war provided excellent conditions
under which to begin a program of import substitution industrialization. The
government raised import controls on consumer goods but relaxed them on capital
goods such as machinery. Capital goods were then purchased using international
reserves accumulated during the war and used to produce consumer goods
domestically. The share of imports subject to licensing requirements rose from
28 percent in 1956 to more than 60 percent on average during the 1960s and
approximately 70 percent during the 1970s. Industry accounted for 22 percent of
total output in 1950, 24 percent in 1960, and 29 percent in 1970. One industry
that was particularly successful was textile production. Mexico became a
desirable location for foreign transnational companies like Coca-Cola,
Pepsi-Cola, and Sears to establish manufacturing branches during this period. Meanwhile,
the share of total output arising from agriculture and other primary activities
declined during the same period.
The Mexican government
promoted industrial expansion through public investment in agricultural,
energy, and transportation infrastructure. Cities grew rapidly after 1940,
reflecting the shift of employment towards industrial and service centers
rather than agriculture. To sustain these population changes, the government
invested in major dam projects to produce hydroelectric power, supply drinking
water to cities and irrigation water to agriculture, and control flooding. By
1950, Mexico’s road network had also expanded to 21,000 kilometers, some 13,600
of which were paved.
Mexico’s strong economic performance continued into the 1960s when GDP
growth averaged around seven percent overall and approximately three percent
per capita. Consumer price inflation also only averaged about three percent
annually. Manufacturing remained the country’s dominant growth sector,
expanding seven percent annually and attracting considerable foreign
investment. By 1970, Mexico diversified its export base and became largely
self-sufficient in food crops, steel, and most consumer goods. Although imports
remained high, most were capital goods used to expand domestic production.
36.1.5: Art and Culture in 20th-Century Mexico
The Mexican Modernist School used large-scale
murals to reinforce political messages, especially those that emphasized
Mexican rather than European themes.
Learning Objective
Give examples of major works of art in Mexico
during the 20th century
Key Points
The Mexican
Revolution had a dramatic effect on Mexican art, and the Mexican government commissioned
murals for public buildings to reinforce political messages, especially those
that emphasized Mexican rather than European themes.
The Mexican muralist
movement reached its height in the 1930s with four main artists: Diego
Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Jose Clemente Orozco,and Fernando Leal. It is
now the most studied aspect of Mexico’s art history.
Diego Rivera’s murals
were greatly influenced by his leftist political leanings, dealing with Mexican
society and reflecting the country’s 1910 Revolution.
Frida Kahlo de Rivera was a Mexican painter known for her
self-portraits. Though she painted canvases instead of murals, she is still
considered part of the Mexican Modernist School due to the emphasis of Mexican
folk culture and use of color in her works.
Key Terms
Mexican Modernist School
The artistic movement within Mexico that was especially
prolific in the 1930s, glorifying the
Mexican Revolution and redefining the Mexican people vis-à-vis their
indigenous and colonial past. Large-scale murals were its preferred
medium.
surrealist
A cultural and artistic movement that mixed dream
and reality into one composition.
Mexican Muralism and
Revolutionary Art
The Mexican Revolution had a
dramatic effect on Mexican art. The government allied itself with
intellectuals and artists in Mexico City and commissioned murals for public
buildings to reinforce political messages, especially those that emphasized
Mexican rather than European themes. The production of art in conjunction with
government propaganda is known as the Mexican Modernist School, or the Mexican
Muralist Movement. Many such works glorified the Mexican Revolution or
redefined the Mexican people vis-à-vis their indigenous and colonial past. The
first of these commissioned works was done by Fernando Leal, Fermin Revueltas,
David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Diego Rivera at San Ildefonso, a prestigious Jesuit
boarding school.
The muralist movement
reached its height in the 1930s with four main artists: Diego Rivera,
David Alfaro Siqueiros, Jose Clemente Orozco, and Fernando Leal. It is now the
most studied aspect of Mexico’s art history. These four artists were
trained in classical European techniques and many of their early works were
imitations of then-fashionable European paintings styles. Many Mexican government buildings featured murals glorifying Mexico’s pre-Hispanic past and incorporating it into the
definition of Mexican identity. Many of these muralists also revived the fresco
technique in their mural work, although some like Siqueiros moved to industrial
techniques and materials such as the application of pyroxilin, a commercial
enamel used for airplanes and automobiles.
Diego Rivera
Rivera painted his first
significant mural, Creation, in the
Bolivar Auditorium of the National Preparatory School in Mexico City in January
1922 while guarding himself with a pistol against right-wing students. In the
autumn of 1922, Rivera participated in the founding of the Revolutionary Union
of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptors, and later that year he joined the
Mexican Communist Party. His murals were greatly influenced by his leftist political
leanings, dealing with Mexican society and reflecting the country’s 1910
Revolution. He developed his own native style based on large, simplified
figures and bold colors. A strong Aztec influence was present in his works, and much of his art emulated the Mayan steles
of the classical era.
Mural by Diego Rivera
Mural Sueño de una Tarde Dominical en la Alameda Central in Mexico City, featuring Rivera and Frida Kahlo standing by La Calavera Catrina.
Frida Kahlo
Frida Kahlo de Rivera was a Mexican painter known for her
self-portraits. While she painted canvases instead of murals, she is still
considered part of the Mexican Modernist School due to the emphasis of Mexican
folk culture and use of color in her works. She was married to muralist Diego
Rivera and like Rivera was an active communist. Kahlo was influenced by
indigenous Mexican culture as demonstrated by her use of bright colors,
dramatic symbolism, and primitive style. She often included monkeys in her
works; while this is usually a symbol of lust in Mexican mythology, Kahlo’s portrayal was tender and protective. Christian and Jewish themes
were often depicted in Kahlo’s work. She combined elements of classic
religious Mexican traditions with surrealist components in her paintings.
Frida Kahlo by Guillermo Kahlo
Kahlo in 1932, photographed by her father, Guillermo.
36.2: Argentina
36.2.1: Argentina Before the Great Depression
Argentina, a non-industrialized country,
experienced recession after World War I and before the global depression hit,
but unlike neighboring countries, maintained relatively healthy growth rates
throughout the 1920s.
Learning Objective
Describe Argentina’s economic status before the
global depression hit.
Key Points
Argentina was
not an industrialized country in the lead-up to the Great Depression and lacked the energy sources necessary to make it so.
One of Argentina’s
most lucrative industries was agriculture, and its exports of frozen beef,
especially to Great Britain, proved highly profitable.
Argentina, like
many other countries, entered a recession after the beginning of World War
I as the international flow of goods, capital, and labor declined.
Foreign
investment in Argentina came to a complete standstill from which the country
never fully recovered.
Nonetheless, Argentina maintained relatively healthy growth
throughout the 1920s, unlike neighboring countries, because it was relatively unaffected
by the worldwide collapse on commodity prices. However, the global depression
would eventually halt economic expansion within the country.
Key Term
Southern
Cone
A geographic region composed of the southernmost areas of South America, south of and around the Tropic of Capricorn.
Traditionally, it is comprised of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.
It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the south by the junction
between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Argentina was not an
industrialized country by the standards of Britain, Germany, or the United
States in the lead-up to the Great Depression, and lacked energy sources
such as coal or hydropower to make it so. Experiments in oil extraction during
the early 20th century had poor results. Yacimientos Petroliferos
Fiscales (YPF), the first state-owned oil company in Latin America, was founded
in 1922 as a public company responsible for 51% of oil production, with the
remaining 49% in the hands of private concerns. Moreover, one of Argentina’s
most lucrative industries was agriculture, and its exports of frozen beef,
especially to Great Britain, proved highly profitable following the invention
of refrigerated ships in the 1870s.
YPF workers (1923)
YPF workers are shown working on an oil well in 1923.
Argentina, like many other
countries, entered a recession following the beginning of World War I as the
international flow of goods, capital, and labor declined. Additionally,
following the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914, Argentina and other Southern
Cone economies declined as investors turned their sights to Asia and the
Caribbean. Even beef exports took a hit as Britain imposed new restrictions on
meat imports in the late 1920s. Argentinian ranchers responded by switching
from pastoral to arable production, but lasting damage had already been done to
the Argentine economy. The United States viewed Argentina, and to a lesser
extent Brazil, as a potential rival on the world markets, making collaboration
less likely between the two countries. In light of the United States’ emergence
from WWI as a political and financial superpower, this would prove particularly
harmful to Argentina.
Meanwhile, foreign
investment into Argentina came to a complete standstill from which the country
never fully recovered. As a result, investable funds became concentrated over
time at a single institution: the Banco de la Nacion Argentina (BNA). This made
Argentina’s financial system vulnerable to rent-seeking. Re-discounting and
non-performing loans grew steadily at the BNA after 1914 as a result of crony
loans to other banks and the private sector, polluting the bank’s balance
sheet. The state bank allowed private banks to shed their risks, using money
not backed by collateral as security, then lent the private banks cash at a
rate of 4.5%, below the rate the BNA offered to its customers on certificates
of deposit. Ultimately, neither the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange nor any of the
private domestic banks within the country would develop rapidly enough to
fully replace the loss of foreign capital, the bulk of which was sourced
from now heavily indebted Great Britain.
Nonetheless, Argentina maintained relatively healthy growth
throughout the 1920s, unlike neighboring countries like Brazil and Chile,
because it was relatively unaffected by the worldwide collapse on commodity
prices. Similarly, unlike many European countries that abandoned it, the
gold standard was still in place in Argentina during this time, contributing to
the country’s relative financial stability. Automobile ownership in the country
at 1929 was the highest in the Southern hemisphere, an indicator of the
healthy purchasing power of the middle class on the eve of the Great
Depression. However, the economic downturn would eventually
halt economic expansion within the country.
36.2.2: The Infamous Decade
The 1930s in Argentina is referred to as the
Infamous Decade due to rampant electoral fraud, persecution of political
opposition parties, and generalized government corruption.
Learning Objective
Explain why the 1930s were referred to as the
Infamous Decade
Key Points
Argentina’s
Infamous Decade refers to the period of time that began in 1930 with Jose Felix
Uriburu’s coup d’etat against standing President Hipolito Yrigoyen and ended
with Juan Peron’s rise to power after the military coup of 1943.
Lieutenant
General Uriburu’s regime was strongly supported by rightist intellectuals and
his government adopted severe measures to prevent reprisals and
counter-revolutionary tactics by friends of the ousted regime.
Agustin Pedro
Justo Rolon’s administration was tarnished by constant rumors of corruption and is best remembered for the outstanding diplomatic work of
his Foreign Minister.
One of the most
controversial successes of Justo’s presidency is the signing of the
Roca-Runciman Treaty in 1933.
Justo’s first
minister of the Treasury, Alberto Hueyo, took very restrictive measures against
the economy. Hueyo was eventually replaced by Frederico Pinedo, whose plan for
government intervention into the economy was even more significant.
Pinedo began
Argentinian industrial development via a policy of import substitution and
created Argentina’s Central Bank.
Roberto
Marcelino Ortiz was fraudulently elected president and assumed his office in
February 1938. He attempted to clean up the country’s corruption problem and
cancelled fraudulent elections won by conservative Alberto
Barcelo.
In June 1942,
Ortiz resigned the presidency due to sickness and died a month later. He was
replaced by Vice President Ramon S. Castillo.
On June 4, 1943,
a nationalist secret society within the army called the Grupo de Oficiales
Unidos (GOU) overthrew Castillo in a coup.
Key Terms
import substitution
A trade and economic policy that advocates
replacing foreign imports with domestic production.
Infamous Decade
The period of time in Argentina beginning in
1930 characterized by electoral fraud, the persecution of political opposition,
and generalized government corruption.
Argentina’s Infamous Decade
refers to the period of time that began in 1930 with Jose Felix Uriburu’s coup
d’etat against standing President Hipolito Yrigoyen and ended with Juan Peron’s rise to power after the military coup of 1943. The decade is marked by
a significant rural exodus as many small rural landowners were ruined by the
global depression, which ultimately pushed Argentina towards a policy of import
substitution industrialization. The poor economic results of this policy and
the popular discontent it engendered led directly to the coup in 1943. The
period was characterized by electoral fraud, the persecution of political
opposition, and generalized government corruption.
Uriburu’s Presidency
(1930-1932)
Lieutenant General Jose
Felix Benito Uriburu y Uriburu achieved the position of President of Argentina via
military coup, and his tenure lasted from September 6, 1930 until February 20,
1932. Known as the “father of the poor”, standing president Hipolito Yrigoyen
was overwhelmingly elected to his second non-consecutive term in office in
1928, but found himself increasingly surrounded by aides who hid the true
effects of the Great Depression on the country from him. As a result, fascist
and conservative sectors of the army plotted openly for regime change, as did
Standard Oil of New Jersey, an American company that opposed both the
president’s efforts to curb oil smuggling from Salta Province to Bolivia and
the dominance YPF held over the Argentinian oil market. These factors made the
timing perfect for Uriburu to stage Argentina’s first military coup since the
adoption of the Argentine constitution against Yrigoyen’s
democratically-elected administration with the help of the far-right Argentine
Patriotic League.
Jose Felix Uriburu
Jose Felix Uriburu was the 22nd president of Argentina.
Uriburu’s own regime was
strongly supported by rightist intellectuals such as Rodolofo and Julio
Irazusta and Juan Carulla, and the new government adopted severe measures to
prevent reprisals and counter-revolutionary tactics by friends of the ousted
regime. Anarchists in particular were considered public enemies by Uriburu’s
dictatorship. During Uriburu’s regime, three anarchists were given life
sentences for allegedly assassinating family members of conservative
politician Jose M. Blanch during a show trial in which the anarchists were
openly tortured. The show trial came on the heels of the Sacco and Vanzetti
case in the United States, in which two Italian-born American anarchists were
given the death penalty after being found guilty of murder in what was widely
regarded as a politically motivated sentencing. The Argentinian case drew many
parallels to Sacco and Vanzetti and raised international public indignation.
President Uriburu was
diagnosed with stomach cancer in early 1932 and died in Paris following surgery on April 29, 1932.
Justo’s Presidency
(1932-1938)
Agustin Pedro Justo Rolon
was president of Argentina from February 20, 1932, until February 20, 1938. He
was a military officer, diplomat, and politician. Justo earned the
Concordance’s nomination for the 1931 presidential campaign and won with the support
of an alliance created between the National Democratic Party, the Radical Civic
Union, and the Socialist Independent Party. Nonetheless, accusations of
electoral fraud abounded and Justo’s administration was tarnished by constant
rumors of corruption. His administration is best remembered for the outstanding
diplomatic work of his Foreign Minister, Carlos Saavedra Lamas.
Agustin P. Justo
Agustin P. Justo was the 23rd president of Argentina.
The Roca-Runciman Treaty
One of the most
controversial successes of Justo’s presidency is the signing of the
Roca-Runciman Treaty in 1933. Due to the UK’s adoption of measures favoring
imports from its own colonies and dominions, Justo sent his vice president,
Julio A. Roca Jr, as head of a technology delegation to negotiate a commercial
agreement that might benefit Argentina. The British were previously the
main buyers of Argentinian grain and meat, making their production
protectionism measures threatening to Argentinian landowners who traded in
these agricultural products. The Roca-Runciman Treaty
assured the UK a provision of fresh meat in exchange for important investment
in Argentina’s transportation, requiring certain concessions such as
handing over Buenos Aires’ public transport to a British company. The treaty
created a scandal because although the UK agreed to continue importing
Argentinian meat, they allotted Argentina an import quota less than any
of its dominions: 390,000 tons of meat per year, with 85% of Argentine exports
arranged via British refrigerated shippers. There were other far-reaching concessions as well; for instance, railways operated by the UK did not have regulated tariffs in
place, customs fees over coal remained unestablished, and British companies
with investments in Argentina were given a number of special dispensations,
such as reduced export pricing. Although the Roca-Runciman Treaty salvaged the
Argentinian-British trade in agricultural products, it exasperated those
already critical of British involvement in their country.
Hueyo and Pinedo’s Economic
Policies
Justo’s first minister of
the Treasury, Alberto Hueyo, took very restrictive measures against the economy.
Hueyo reduced public expenses and restricted the circulation of currency in
addition to applying other harsh fiscal measures. An emprestito patriotico, or
patriotic loan, was made in an attempt to strengthen the country’s budget.
Eventually, however, Justo sought to replace Hueyo with the socialist Frederico
Pinedo, whose plan for government intervention into the economy was even more
significant.
Pinedo began Argentinian
industrial development via a policy of import substitution. The Juntas Reguladores
Nacionales was created under Pinedo’s guidance to help develop private
and state industrial activity. The Juntas also oversaw quality and price control
for domestic consumption and export. For example, to avoid
overproduction, the Juntas destroyed entire loads of corn and millions of pesos
per year in wine products.
Pinedo also created the
Central Bank (BCRA), which was advised by Sir Otto Niemeyer, the director of
the Bank of England. Niemeyer’s involvement drew heavy criticism from those who
disavowed British involvement in Argentina. A national project of road
construction was launched that competed with the railway
system, which remained in the hands of mostly British companies. With national
roadways reaching 30,000 kilometers in 1938, U.S. automotive firms were able to
penetrate the Argentinian market and increase sales. U.S. foreign direct
investment grew under Pinedo’s policies with textile firms like Sudamtex,
Ducilo, and Anderson Clayton establishing themselves in Argentina. Tire
companies, electronics firms, and chemistry firms also began to migrate to
Argentina during this time.
The Ortiz and Castillo
Administrations (1938-1943)
Roberto Marcelino Ortiz and
Ramon S. Castillo’s candidacies for the 1938 elections, for president and vice
president respectively, were launched at the British Chamber of Commerce and
supported by its president, William McCallum. Ortiz was fraudulently elected
president and assumed his new office in February 1938. He attempted to clean up
the country’s corruption problem, ordering federal intervention in the Province
of Buenos Aires, which was governed by Manuel Fresco. He also cancelled
fraudulent elections won by conservative Alberto Barcelo.
Pinedo remained as the Minister
of the Economy during Ortiz’s administration. On November 18, 1940, he
presented an Economic Reactivation Plan, which would have implemented heavily
protectionist measures and advocated for the building of public housing to deal
with the influx of people into urban centers. Pinedo also proposed
nationalization of the British-operated railways and even agreed upon
advantageous terms with the railway owners before presenting his policy
publicly. Nevertheless, conservative factions voted against these measures,
and Pinedo resigned his office shortly thereafter.
During World War II,
Argentina maintained the same neutrality it adopted during the first World
War, which was advantageous for Great Britain. Although the USA attempted to
push Argentina into the war, the country was able to resist with support from
the British. In June 1942, Ortiz resigned the presidency due to sickness and
died a month later. He was replaced by Vice President Castillo. The same year,
the Democratic Union political coalition, which included the Radical Civic
Union, the Democratic Progressive Party, and the Socialist and Communist
parties, was formed. Their electoral platform aimed to tackle endemic
corruption, guarantee freedom of thought and assembly, and secure labor union
rights. The coalition also claimed active solidarity with people struggling
against Nazi-Fascist aggression.
On June 4, 1943, the nationalist secret society within the army called
the Grupo de Oficiales Unidos (GOU) overthrew Castillo in a coup. The GOU was organized under Colonel Miguel A. Montes and Urbano de la Vega and
included members such as Colonel Juan Domingo Peron and Enrique P. Gonzalez.
Their coup d’etat ended the Infamous Decade and established a military junta
that lasted until 1945. The group was sympathetic to the causes of Nazi Germany
and Fascist Italy. General Arturo Rawson was made president, but only held
office for a few days before the GOU replaced him with General Pedro Ramirez.
36.2.3: Peronism
The
Argentinian political movement Peronism is based on three main principles:
social justice, economic independence, and political sovereignty.
Learning Objective
Outline
the key characteristics of Peronism
Key Points
Peronism, or Justicialism, is an Argentine
political movement based on the political legacy of former President Juan
Domingo Peron and his second wife, Eva Peron.
The pillars of the Peronist ideal, known as the
“three flags,” are social justice, economic independence, and political
sovereignty.
Peron’s ideas were widely embraced by a variety
of groups in Argentina across the political spectrum, and since its
inception in 1946, Peronist candidates have won nine out of 12 presidential
elections from which they have not been banned.
Defenders of Peronism describe the doctrine as
populist in the sense that they believe it embodies the interests of the
masses, and in particular, the most vulnerable members of society.
Peron’s opponents, however, view Peronism was an
authoritarian ideology, compare Juan Peron to fascist dictators, accuse him of
demagoguery, and deride his policies as too populist.
Eva Peron, popularly known as Evita, was
instrumental as a symbol of hope to the common laborer during her husband’s
first five-year plan. Her strong ties to the poor lent credibility to Juan
Peron’s first presidential term and ushered in a new wave of supporters to his
regime.
Evita established the Eva Peron Foundation in
1948 and ran as the vice presidential candidate with Juan Peron during the 1951
election.
Key Terms
third position ideology
A
political ideology that emphasizes opposition to both communism and capitalism.
Proponents typically depict themselves as beyond the left or right wings of
politics while borrowing ideas from each end of the spectrum.
corporatism
Also
known as corporativism, corporatism is the sociopolitical organization of
society by major interest, or corporate, groups.
Peronism, or Justicialism, is an Argentine political
movement based on the political legacy of former President Juan Domingo Peron
and his second wife, Eva Peron. The Justicialist Party derives its name from
the concept of social justice. Since its inception in 1946, Peronist candidates
have won nine out of 12 presidential elections from which they have not been
banned. As of 2016, Peron was the only Argentinian to have been elected
president three times.
Juan Peron wearing the presidential sash
President Peron at his 1946 inaugural presidential parade.
Ideology
The pillars of the Peronist ideal, known as the “three
flags,” are social justice, economic independence, and political sovereignty.
Peronism is considered a third-position ideology because it rejects both
capitalism and communism. Peronism advocates corporatism as a means for
mediating tensions within society, with the state responsible for negotiating
compromises if conflicts arise. Traditionally, its adherents come primarily from
the working class and unions, and the ideology has been described as
proletarian in nature. Peronism, however, is a generally ill-defined ideology, with contradictory statements sometimes expressed in its name. The
legacy of Peron is thought to transcend the confines of any
political party in modern times and blend into the broader political
landscape of Argentina.
Peron’s ideas were widely embraced by a variety of groups in Argentina across the political spectrum. Peron’s personal views later
became a burden on the ideology, however. For example, his anti-clericalism did
not strike a sympathetic chord with upper-class Argentinians. Peron’s public
speeches were consistently nationalist and populist. In fact, Peronism draws
many parallels with corporate nationalism due to the nationalization of many
Argentinian corporations during Peron’s administrations. At the same time,
labor unions became more corporate in nature, ceding the right to strike in the
early to mid-1940s.
Defenders of Peronism describe the doctrine as populist in that they believe it embodies the interests of the masses,
especially the most vulnerable members of society. Admirers hold Peron
in esteem for his administration’s anti-imperialism, non-alignment, and
socially progressive initiatives. Peron’s governments made social security
universal, education free for all who qualified, and provisions for one paid
week off before every major examination for working students. Vast low-income
housing projects were created and paid vacations became standard. All workers
were guaranteed free medical care and mothers were given three paid months off
prior to and after giving birth. Workers’ recreation centers were constructed
all over the country , including a vast resort in the lower Sierras de Cordoba
that included eight hotels, riding stables, swimming pools, movie theaters, and
scores of cabins.
From the perspective of Peron’s opponents, however, Peronism
was an authoritarian ideology. Peron was often compared to fascist dictators,
accused of demagoguery, and his policies derided as too populist. Claiming
to be an embodiment of Argentinian nationality, Peron’s government often silenced
dissent by accusing opponents of being unpatriotic. Peron’s corporatism also
drew attack from socialists who accused his administration of preserving
capitalist exploitation and class division. Conservatives, on the other hand,
rejected his modernist ideology and felt their status was threatened by the
ascent of Peron’s governing officials. Liberals condemned Peron for his
regime’s arbitrariness and dictatorial tendencies.
Influence and Contributions of Eva Peron
Eva Peron, popularly known as Evita, was instrumental as a
symbol of hope to the common laborer during her husband’s first five-year plan.
Her strong ties to the poor lent credibility to Juan Peron’s first presidential
term and ushered in a new wave of supporters to his regime. She was loathed by
the elite due to her humble origins, but adored by the poor for her work with the
sick, elderly, and orphans. She was involved in behind-the-scenes work to
secure women’s suffrage in 1947 and supported a women’s movement that
concentrated on the rights of women, the poor, and the disabled. The extent of her
role in her husband’s first term remains disputed, although it is clear that
she was responsible for introducing social justice and equality into the
national discourse. It is speculated that Eva’s influence on her husband led to
the stipulations within the five-year plans that called for full employment,
public healthcare and housing, labor benefits, raises, and humanitarian relief
efforts.
Eva Peron
Eva Peron, known as Evita, worked to secure women’s suffrage, which was granted in 1947.
Evita established the Eva Peron Foundation in
1948. Enjoying an annual budget of approximately USD 50 million, which was
nearly equivalent to one percent of Argentinian GDP at the time, the Foundation
had 14,000 employees and founded hundreds of new schools, clinics, old-age
homes, and holiday facilities. It also distributed hundreds of thousands of
household necessities, physicians’ visits, scholarships, and other benefits. During
the 1951 presidential campaign, Evita replaced Juan Peron’s ailing running
mate, Hortensio Quijano, to become the official candidate for vice president.
Her political hopes, however, were defeated by her own health problems and
opposition to the Peron-Evita ticket from within the military. On September 28
of the same year, an attempted coup was launched against Peron by General
Benjamin Andres Menendez and elements within the Argentine Army. Though they
were unsuccessful, they proved the final nail in the coffin of the first lady’s
political ambitions. She died the following July.
36.2.4: National Reorganization and the Dirty War
The Dirty War began as the government became
increasingly fearful and repressive of leftist dissidents.
Learning Objective
Analyze the reasons for the outbreak of the
Dirty War
Key Points
The Dirty War
was the name used by the Argentina Military Government for a period of state
terrorism in Argentina from roughly 1974 to 1983.
The military,
supported by a significant number of the general populace involved in the
Radical and Socialist parties, opposed Juan Peron’s populist government and overthrew
his regime in 1955 during the Revolucion Libertadora. Afterwards, Peronism was
outlawed.
Peronists and
other revolutionary groups within Argentina began organizing and militarizing, with many groups combining forces.
By the early
1970s, guerrilla groups were kidnapping and assassinating high-ranking military
and police officers almost weekly, as well as bombing government buildings.
Juan Peron
returned from exile and after his death, his widow Isabel Martinez de Peron
held the presidency, only to be ousted from power during a military coup in
1976.
The resulting
junta, led by Jorge Rafael Videla until 1981 and subsequently by Roberto Viola
and Leopoldo Galtieri until 1983, organized and carried out strong repression
of political dissidents via the government’s military and security
forces, which they referred to as their National Reorganization Process.
The junta was forced to resign power in 1983 following their disastrous
defeat to Great Britain in the Falklands War, which paved the way for the
resumption of Argentine democracy.
Key Terms
disappeared
A person who is secretly abducted or imprisoned
by a state or political organization, or by a third party with the
authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization.
Following abduction, there is a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate or
whereabouts, essentially placing the victim outside the protection of the law.
Peronism
Also called Justicialism, an Argentine
political movement based on the political legacy of former President Juan
Domingo Peron and his second wife, Eva Peron.
The Dirty War, also known as
the Process of National Reorganization, was the name used by the Argentina
Military Government for a period of state terrorism in Argentina from roughly
1974 to 1983. During this time, the military, security forces, and right-wing
death squads such as the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (Triple A) hunted
down and killed left-wing guerrillas, political dissidents, and anyone believed
to be associated with the socialist movement. A total of 7,158 left-wing activities, terrorists, and militants, including trade
unionists, students, journalists, and Marxist and Peronist guerrillas, were
victimized. Official records account for 13,000 missing people, known as the
“disappeared.” Meanwhile, leftist guerrillas accounted for 6,000 casualties
among military and police forces as well as civilians.
Photos of the “disappeared”
Collections of photos from families whose children and grandchildren had disappeared.
Background
The military, supported by a
significant number of the general populace involved in the Radical and
Socialist parties, opposed Juan Peron’s populist government and attempted to
overthrow his regime once in 1951 and twice in 1955 before finally succeeding on a third attempt in 1955 during the Revolucion Libertadora. After taking
control, Peronism was outlawed. Peronists began organizing a resistance
movement centered around workplaces and trade unions, and the working classes
sought economic and social improvements. Over time, as democratic rule was
partially restored and promises to allow freedom of expression and other
political liberties to Peronists was not respected, resistance groups
militarized, forming guerrilla groups.
Jorge Ricardo Masetti, the leader
of the Guevarist People’s Guerrilla Army (EGP) that infiltrated Bolivia’s army in 1964, is considered by some to be Argentina’s first disappeared person. Prior to
1973, the major revolutionary groups within Argentina were the Peronist Armed
Forces (FAP), the Marxist-Leninist-Peronist Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR),
and the Marxist-Leninist Armed Forces of Liberation (FAL). Over time, many of
these guerrilla forces combined or were effectively eradicated by the
government. For example, FAR joined the Montoneros, formerly an urban group of
intellectuals and students, and FAP and FAL were absorbed into the Marxist
People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP). Meanwhile, the EGP and the Peronist
Uturuncos were small enough to be overcome by government forces and ceased to
exist.
A Decade of Violence
By the early 1970s, the
consolidated guerrilla groups that remained were kidnapping and assassinating
high-ranking military and police officers almost weekly. The extreme left
bombed and destroyed numerous military and police buildings in its campaign
against the government, but unfortunately a number of civilian
and non-governmental buildings were targeted as well. For instance, the
Sheraton Hotel in Buenos Aires was bombed in 1972, killing a woman and injuring
her husband. A crowded theater in downtown Buenos Aires was also bombed in
1975. In 1978, a powerful bomb meant to kill an Argentine admiral ripped
through a nine-story apartment building, killing three civilians and trapping many
others under the debris.
In 1973, as Juan Peron
returned from exile, the Ezeiza massacre marked the end of an alliance between
left- and right-wing factions of Peronism. In the subsequent year, Peron
withdrew his support of the Montoneros shortly before his death. During the presidency
of his widow Isabel Martinez de Peron, the far-right paramilitary death squad
Triple A emerged, increasing armed struggles. In 1975, Isabel signed a number
of decrees empowering the military and the police to step up efforts to destroy
left-wing subversion, particularly the ERP. Isabel was ousted from power the
subsequent year, 1976, by a military coup.
U.S. Involvement
In August 2016, the U.S. State
Department released 1,080 pages of declassified State Department documents that
revealed a growing hostility between the administration of US President Jimmy
Carter and the 1976 junta that overthrew Isabel. Carter took issue in
particular with Argentina’s growing list of human rights violations, although
the previous administration under Gerald Ford was strongly sympathetic to
the junta, with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger even advising Argentina’s
Foreign Minister, Cesar Guzzetti, to carry out anti-Communist policies before
Congress was back in session. Despite this, there is no documentation suggesting
that the U.S. government had direct involvement or knowledge of the developments
leading up to or following the coup that ousted Isabel.
The National Reorganization
Process
The juntas, led by Jorge
Rafael Videla until 1981 and subsequently by Roberto Viola and Leopoldo
Galtieri until 1983, organized and carried out strong repression of political
dissidents via the government’s military and security forces, which they
referred to as their National Reorganization Process. They were responsible for
illegal arrests, torture, killings, and the forced disappearance of an
estimated 9,000 to 30,000 people. Assassinations occurred via mass shootings
and throwing live citizens from airplanes to their death in the ocean
below. Additionally, 12,000 prisoners, many of whom had not been convicted via
any legal processes, were detained in a network of 340 secret concentration
camps located throughout Argentina. The government coordinated actions with
other South American dictatorships as well.
Memorial to the disappeared
Photographs of victims of the 1976-83 dictatorship.
Faced with increasing public opposition and severe economic problems, the
military tried to regain popularity by occupying the disputed Falkland Islands.
It suffered a lopsided defeat against Great Britain, which was in possession of
the territories, during the subsequent Falklands War, and was forced to resign
governing powers in disgrace, paving the way for the restoration of Argentinian
democracy.
36.2.5: Alfonsín’s Presidency
Although Alfonsín began his administration well-liked due to his prosecution of war crimes and consolidation of Argentina’s
democratic institutions, his inability to prevent worsening economic crises
caused his popularity to decline.
Learning Objective
Detail why Alfonsín was so unpopular by the end
of his presidency
Key Points
Raul Ricardo
Alfonsín Foulkes was an Argentine lawyer, politician, and statesman who served
as the President of Argentina from December 10, 1983, until July 8, 1989.
Three days after
assuming the office of president, Alfonsín sent a bill to Congress revoking the
self-amnesty law established by the military. The Trial of the Juntas began at
the Supreme Court in April 1985 and was the first time the leaders of a
military coup were put on trial in Argentina.
Alfonsín’s first
priority while in office was to consolidate democracy in the country,
incorporate the armed forces into their standard role within a civilian
government, and prevent further military coups.
Labor unions
were still controlled by Peronist elements, and Alfonsín sought to reduce their
influence, fearing they may become destabilizing forces for the fledgling
democracy.
Alfonsín began
his term with many economic problems. Argentina’s foreign debt was nearly $43
billion by the end of 1983, and the country narrowly prevented a
sovereign default in 1982.
The Austral plan
froze prices and wages, choking inflation for some time; put a temporary hold
on the printing of paper money; arranged for spending cuts; and established a
new currency, the Austral. However, inflation rose again by the end of 1985,
the CGT opposed the wage freeze, and the business community opposed the price
freeze.
In 1987,
Alfonsín’s government attempted new measures to improve the state of
Argentina’s economy, increasing taxes and privatizations while decreasing
spending. However, many measures could not be effectively enforced, and the
government lost the 1987 midterm elections as well as the general elections of
1989.
Key Terms
hyperinflation
In economics, when a country experiences very
high and accelerating rates of inflation, which erodes the real value of local
currency and causes the population to minimize their holdings of said money.
command
responsibility
Sometimes referred to as superior
responsibility, the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of
war crimes.
Raul Ricardo Alfonsin
Foulkes was an Argentine lawyer, politician, and statesman who served as the
President of Argentina from December 10, 1983 until July 8, 1989. He was
elected a deputy in the legislature of the Buenos Aires province in 1958 during the presidency of Arturo Frondizi and a national deputy during the presidency
of Arturo Umberto Illia. He opposed both sides of the Dirty War and filed
several writs of Habeas corpus,
requesting the freedom of victims of forced disappearances during the National
Reorganization Process. He denounced the crimes of the military dictatorships
of other countries and opposed actions of both sides of the Falklands War. He
became the leader of the Radical Civil Union (UCR) following Ricardo Balbin’s
death and was the Radical candidate for president during the 1983 elections,
which he won.
Alfonsin’s Official Presidential Portrait, 1984
Alfonsin’s presidential
inauguration was attended by Isabel Peron in a sign of support, despite
internal recriminations regarding the Peronist defeat. Left-wing terrorism had
been neutralized by this time, but both parties were eager to prevent the
return of military rule, and there were factions within the military
eager to reinstate an authoritarian government. Three days after assuming the
office of president, Alfonsin sent a bill to Congress to revoke the
self-amnesty law established by the military, as he had promised to do while on
the campaign trail. He also ordered the initiation of judicial cases against guerrilla
and military leaders, as well as the extradition of guerrilla leaders living
abroad. These acts were well-received by groups such as the Mothers of the
Plaza de Mayo that were seeking reparations for the actions of the military
during the Dirty War.
Raúl Alfonsín’s presidential inauguration, 1983
Alfonsin assumed the presidency after the darkest period of dictatorial rule in Argentina’s modern history.
Prosecution of the Military
The Trial of the Juntas
began at the Supreme Court in April 1985 and lasted the remainder of the year.
It was the first time the leaders of a military coup were put on trial in
Argentina. In December, the tribunal handed down life sentences for Jorge
Videla and former Navy Chief Emilio Massera, as well as a 17-year sentence for
Roberto Eduardo Viola. The trials were followed by bomb attacks and rumors of
military protests and coups. In order to appease the military, Alfonsin
proposed the full stop law, which set a deadline for Dirty War-related
prosecutions. The Congress approved the law despite strong public opposition.
Prosecutors rushed to start cases before the deadline, filing 487 charges
against 300 officers, 100 of whom were still in active service.
Two officers refused to
appear in court, starting mutinies in Cordoba and Campo de Mayo. The rebels
were referred to as Carapintadas, which is Spanish for “painted faces”, a
reference to their use of military camouflage. The General Confederation of
Labor (CGT) called a general strike in support of Alfonsin, and large masses
rallied in the Plaza de Mayo to support the government. Alfonsin negotiated
directly with the rebels and secured their surrender. However, the timing was
exploited by the military and opposition
parties, and they painted the outcome as a surrender by Alfonsin.
Alfonsin’s first priority
while in office was to consolidate democracy in the country, incorporate the
armed forces into their standard role within a civilian government, and prevent
further military coups. He used budget and personnel cuts to attempt to reduce the political
power of the military. Despite the revocation of
self-amnesty and prosecution of senior officers, Alfonsin was willing to dismiss
charges against lower-ranking military personnel under the principle of command
responsibility. He also created the National Commission on the Disappearance of
Persons (CONADEP), composed of several well-known personalities, to document cases
of forced disappearances, human rights violations, and abduction of children.
In its “Nunca mas” report, the CONADEP revealed the wide scope of crimes
committed during the Dirty War and how the Supreme Council of the military supported the military’s actions against guerrillas.
Relationship with Unions
Labor unions were still
controlled by Peronist elements, and Alfonsin sought to reduce their influence,
fearing they would become destabilizing forces for the fledgling democracy. He
rejected their custom of holding single-candidacy internal elections and felt
union administrations were totalitarian rather than a genuine reflection of
the demands of the workforce. He proposed changing the laws by which those
internal elections abided and removing union leaders appointed during the
military juntas. The CGT rejected the proposal, claiming it was too
interventionist, and prompted Peronist politicians to vote against it. The law
was approved by the Chamber of Deputies, but failed to pass in the senate by
one vote. A second bill was proposed that simply called for new internal
elections, without changing the laws by which they abided, and that bill was
approved. As a result, the labor unions remained largely Peronist.
Alfonsin made use of a
regulation established during the junta that allowed the president to regulate
the level of wages, and authorized wage increases every 3 months to keep up
with inflation. The CGT rejected this and proposed instead that wages should be
determined by free negotiations. Alfonsin allowed strike actions, forbidden during the junta, which also allowed the unions to expand their
influence. There were 13 general strikes and thousands of minor labor conflicts
during his administration. Conflicts centered around high inflation, and the
unions remained supportive of the president in the face of military rebellions
and despite political differences.
Economic Policy
Alfonsin began his term with
many economic problems. Argentina’s foreign debt was nearly 43 billion dollars
by the end of 1983, and the country narrowly prevented a sovereign default
in 1982. During that year, GDP fell by 5.6% and manufacturing profits fell by
55%. Unemployment was around ten percent and inflation was nearly 209%. It also
seemed unlikely the country would received badly needed foreign investment.
Many possible solutions, such
as devaluation of the currency, privatization of industry, or restrictions on
imports, would have proven unpopular. Instead, Bernardo Grinspun, the first
minister of the economy, arranged to increase wages, which caused inflation to
decrease significantly. Negotiations were also entered to obtain more favorable
terms on the country’s foreign debt, but those were unsuccessful. Grinspun
resigned in March 1985 when debt reached $1 billion. He was succeeded by Juan
Vital Sourrouille, who developed the Austral plan. This plan was a success in
the short term. It froze prices and wages, choking inflation for some time; put
a temporary hold on the printing of paper money; arranged for spending cuts,
and established a new currency, the Austral. However, inflation rose again by
the end of 1985, the CGT opposed the wage freeze, and the business community
opposed the price freeze.
With the support of the
World Bank, Alfonsin’s government attempted new measures to improve the state
of Argentina’s economy in 1987. The government increased taxes and privatizations
and decreased spending. However, many of these measures could not be
effectively enforced, and the government lost the 1987 midterm elections. Many
of the large unions that previously supported the government attempted to distance
themselves from it, and the business community was unable to suggest a clear
course of action to resolve the crisis that was unraveling. A “spring plan” was
proposed to keep the economy stable until general elections took place in 1989.
The plan consisted of freezing prices and wages as well as reducing the
federal deficit and received even worse public reception than the Austral
plan, with no political parties fully endorsing it. Meanwhile, the World Bank
and IMF refused to extend credit to Argentina, and many big exporters refused
to sell dollars to their central bank, depleting reserves. The austral was
devalued in February 1989 and the already high inflation evolved into hyperinflation. As a result, Alfonsin’s government
lost the general election to Peronist Carlos Menem.
36.3: Chile
36.3.1: Chile’s Presidential Era
The
early years of Chile’s Presidential Era were dominated by two political
figures: Arturo Alessandri Palma and Carlos Ibanez del Campo.
Learning Objective
Define
the “Presidential Era” in Chile
Key Points
On January 23, 1925, the Chilean military
overthrew the September Junta in a coup d’etat.
On March 20, 1925, Arturo Alessandri Palma,
former president of Chile, returned from exile and drafted a new constitution,
which was put in effect on September 18, 1925.
The new constitution reinforced presidential
powers over the legislature.
Alessandri’s government was composed of left-wing
and radical groups, but many began to distance themselves from
the President after he took power.
Alessandri began encountering internal
opposition from his own Minister of Defense, Colonel Carlos Ibanez del Campo,
after the government repressed a number of demonstrations, leading to massacres.
Alessandri resigned, and after a short interim period, Ibanez won the
presidency.
Ibanez’s cabinet remained popular until the
outbreak of the Great Depression in 1931 as a result of a high rate of economic
growth fueled by American loans.
Once the effects of the economic crisis began to
reach Chile, political unrest abounded and Ibanez resigned on July 26, 1931.
Key Terms
Presidential Era
The
period in Chilean history from the adoption of the 1925 constitution to the
fall of the Popular Unity government on September 11, 1973.
trade barriers
Government-induced
restrictions on international trade, usually involving some sort of cost on
trade that raises the price of traded products.
The Presidential Era is the period in Chilean history from
the adoption of the constitution on September 18, 1925, to the fall of the
Popular Unity government headed by President Salvador Allende on September 11,
1973. It coincides with what is known as the “development inwards” period in
Chilean economic history.
Arturo Alessandri Palma and a New Constitution
On January 23, 1925, the Chilean military
overthrew the September Junta in a coup d’etat. They handed power over to
General Pedro Dartnell as interim president, but Dartnell formed another junta,
the January Junta, during his time in power. On March 20, 1925, Arturo
Alessandri Palma, former president of Chile, returned from exile, ending the
January Junta. Alessandri drafted a new constitution, which was approved by
plebiscite on August 30 and put into effect on September 18. The new
constitution reinforced presidential powers over the legislature. Alessandri
also created a Central Bank, breaking from Chile’s adherence to classically
liberal economic policies.
Alessandri with his Great Dane, Ulk (1932)
Alessandri’s government was composed of a coalition of
left-wing and radical groups, but many of these groups began to distance
themselves from the President after he took power. Alessandri’s government
repressed demonstrations, leading to notable massacres such as Marusia and La
Coruna. As a result, Alessandri began encountering internal opposition from his
own Minister of Defense, Colonel Carlos Ibanez del Campo, who had a popular
following. Ibanez lent his support to a manifesto drafted across various
political parties calling for Ibanez to run as an official candidate for
president. As a result, Alessandri resigned.
Ibanez was prompted to find a candidate that all parties
could agree upon. Emiliano Figueroa Larrain from the Liberal Democratic Party
was chosen and elected in October 1925 with nearly 72% of the vote. Ibanez was
designated the Minister of the Interior in February 1927, meaning he would become vice president in the case of a
vacancy in the presidency.
Ibanez convinced President Figueroa to resign two months later, took his place
as vice president, and called for elections, which took place in May 1927.
Ibanez overwhelmingly won the presidency with 98% of the vote.
Carlos Ibanez (1827-1931)
Carlos Ibanez del Campo (1927)
Ibanez’s cabinet remained popular until the outbreak of the
Great Depression in 1931. As president, Ibanez exercised dictatorial powers and
enjoyed being compared to Benito Mussolini. Early in Ibanez’s
administration, Congress and various political parties did not protest against
his increasingly dictatorial leanings. In fact, Ibanez was granted decretos con fuerza de ley (or decrees
having forces of law) within a democratic framework. He suspended parliamentary
elections, naming politicians to the Senate and Chamber of Deputies himself.
Freedom of press was restricted with 200 politicians arrested or exiled,
including former president Alessandri. The Communist Party was proscribed and
the workers’ movement was strongly repressed.
Ibanez’s popularity drew heavily from American loans, which
helped promote a high rate of growth throughout the country. Using these funds,
Ibanez launched important public works, including the construction of canals,
bridges, prisons, ports, and restoration of the facade of the presidential palace
as well as the secondary presidential residence at Castillo Hill. His
popularity survived the Wall Street crash of 1929, the effects of which were felt in Chile by the end of 1930. In 1930, prices of saltpeter and
copper, on which the Chilean economy was strongly dependent, abruptly fell, at
which point all loans were halted and called. Without an influx of foreign
currency and with the U.S. and European implementation of high tariffs and
return to protectionism, the Chilean economy began to suffer. Unemployment in
northern mines affected tens of thousands of people. In 1931, the influx of
international credit into Chile also ended, pushing the state to the edge of
bankruptcy.
Although Ibanez’s government increased export
taxes to 71% and established trade barriers, he did not manage to make balance
of trade more equitable for Chile, which led to a depletion of gold reserves.
With the economic situation showing no sign of improvement, the exiled Alessandri
began to plan a comeback and a number of conspiracies were undertaken to oust
Ibanez from power, although they all proved unsuccessful. Public unrest
abounded. Students at the University of Chile and the Pontificia Universidad
Catolica de Chile initiated demonstrations. Physicians and lawyer groups also
joined in public demonstrations. In the midst of all the demonstrations, police
forces killed more than 10 people, and as a result, Ibanez was forced to resign
on July 26, 1931. Juan Esteban Montero, a member of the Radical Party, was
proclaimed president by Congress after Ibanez’s designated replacement also
resigned.
36.3.2: Instability and Coups
The various coups that rocked Chile increased
political divisiveness and instability throughout the country.
Learning Objective
Explain the effect of the various coups that
rocked Chile.
Key Points
Shortly after
President Juan Montero’s inauguration in December 1931, revolutionaries took
control of some military ships and sunk them in the Bay of Coquimbo in what
became known as the Escuadra uprising.
Shortly
thereafter, on June 4, 1932, planes from El Bosque Air Base flew over La
Moneda, the presidential palace, causing Montero’s government to resign,
leading to the proclamation of a socialist republic.
After a period
of political instability under the socialist republic, during which time leadership
of the country exchanged hands frequently, the Radical Party came to power in
1938.
Internal discord within the Radical Party and associated coalitions eventually
led to the re-election of General Carlos Ibanez as an independent candidate.
Key Terms
import substitution
industrialization
A trade and economic policy that advocates
replacing foreign imports with domestic production.
Ibanistas
A movement aimed at creating a dictatorship
under General Carlos Ibanez during his presidency in the mid-1950s, consisting
mainly of young army officers. It was inspired in large part by Argentinian
President Juan Domingo Peron’s rise to power.
Ariostazo
A brief revolt that occurred on August 25, 1939,
led by General Ariosto Herrera, in what turned out to be a non-violent attempt
against the government of Chilean President Pedro Aguirre Cerda.
Shortly after President Juan
Montero’s inauguration in December 1931, revolutionaries took control of some
military ships and sunk them in the Bay of Coquimbo in what became known as the
Escuadra uprising. Although the uprising was peacefully resolved, the string of
events demonstrated to the public how fragile the new government was. Shortly
thereafter, on June 4, 1932, planes from El Bosque Air Base flew over La
Moneda, the presidential palace, causing Montero’s government to resign rather
than call upon the army to put down the coup. That same night, the victorious
revolutionaries, including Marmaduque Grove, Carlos Davila, and Eugenio Matte,
proclaimed the Socialist Republic of Chile.
The Socialist Republic
(1931-1932)
Socialist Republic March
March in support of the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Chile, in front of La Moneda Palace (June 12, 1932). Source: El Nuevo Sucesos.
The proclamation of a
socialist republic took the country by surprise and divided public opinion
immediately. The Communist Party of Chile (PCCh) and many trade unions opposed
the Republic because they believed it to be militarist. The business community
and many students also heatedly opposed the new political entity on ideological
grounds. Ultimately, the new republic only received the guarded support of
other socialists and some employees’ associations.
A few days following the
establishment of the new republic, the junta dissolved Congress and, among
other measures, stopped evictions from low-rental properties, decreed a
three-day bank holiday, placed strict limits on bank withdrawals, and ordered
the Caja de Credito Popular, a savings and loan bank for Chileans of modest
means, to return pawned materials. Half-a-million free meals were ordered to be
served daily to Chile’s unemployed. The government quickly ran short of funds,
however, and ordered the police to raid all jewelry shops in Santiago,
providing jewelers receipts that could be used to cash in for paper pesos by
means of compensation in order to avoid the act being termed a confiscation.
Credits and deposits in foreign currency in national and foreign banks
operating within the country were also declared property of the state.
Meanwhile, a General Commissariat of Subsistence and Prices was also
established with the authority to fix the price of staple foods.
Within the junta,
differences of opinion began to sharpen. Followers of General Ibanez opposed
the radicalization of the socialist movement, which was headed by Marmaduque
Grove and Eugenio Matte. On June 13, 1932, Carlos Davila resigned in protest,
and three days later on June 16, he expelled the socialist members of
government and replaced them with his own supporters with the support of the
army. Grove and Matte were arrested and exiled to Easter Island and Davila
proclaimed himself provisional president of the socialist republic. He also
declared a state of emergency, press censorship, and a number of
centrally-planned economic measures.
However, Davila did not have
enough support from the public or the military to remain in his position
indefinitely, and he was forced to resign on September 13, 1932. The presidency
then passed on to General Bartolome Blanche, who was subsequently replaced due
to the threat of a military uprising by President of the Supreme Court Abraham
Oyanedel. Oyanedel immediately called for presidential and congressional
elections. Tired of political instability, the Chilean people voted
center-right candidate and former president Arturo Alessandri into office.
Alessandri relied upon republican forces during the first four years of his
presidency to repress revolts and asked Congress on several occasions to
declare a state of emergency in order to act against perceived insubordination
before it could turn violent. These precautions were not unwarranted either,
with the rise of the Nazi-inspired National Socialist Movement of Chile and a
number of rural rebellions occurring.
Meanwhile, economic recovery
in the wake of the Great Depression was under way. Treasury Minister Gustavo
Ross, a pragmatic liberal, balanced the fiscal deficit with new taxes and
resumed payments of external debts. When a surplus was achieved, public works
became the new focus of the government, and projects like the construction of
the National Stadium in Santiago began.
The Radical Governments
(1938-1952)
The Radical Party of Chile was
founded during the mid-19th century based upon the principles of the
1789 French Revolution, upholding values of liberty, equality, solidarity,
participation, and well-being. It finally succeeded in achieving power from
1938 to 1952 due to the Popular Front left-wing coalition, although its
cabinets were haunted by ongoing parliamentary instability. The first Radical
President, Pedro Aguirre Cerda, was a teacher and lawyer from University of
Chile. He was elected in 1938 as a candidate from the Popular Front, narrowly
defeating conservative Gustavo Ross due to the political backlash caused by the
Seguro Obrero massacre, which followed an attempted coup d’etat by the National
Socialist Movement of Chile.
Cerda promoted the development
of technical-industrial schools as a means of promoting the industrialization
of the country and created thousands of new primary, secondary, and higher
education schools. Following a devastating earthquake that hit Chile on January
24, 1939, Cerda’s cabinet created the Corporacion de Fomento de la Produccion
(CORFO) to encourage an ambitious program of import substitution
industrialization. During this time, the Empresa Nacional del Petoleo (ENAP)
state oil company was created, as well as a state electricity company, steel
holding,and sugar company. He faced military opposition to his plans,
particularly in the first year of his presidency. Opposition boiled over with
the Ariostazo in August 1939, an attempted putsch led by General Ariosto Herera
and General Carlos Ibanez del Campo. General Herera had been strongly
influenced by Italian fascism.
The German-Soviet Non
Aggression Pact of 1939 led to a dismantling of left-wing coalitions and the
Comintern denounced the Popular Front strategy. However, following the German
invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Chilean Communist Party joined the
government again and the left-wings’ coalition remained intact following
Cerda’s resignation and death. An election was held in February 1942 and Juan
Antonio Rios, a member of the conservative wing of the Radical Party, won with
55.7% of the votes. Rios’ presidency was marked by parliamentary instability
and rivalries among cabinet members who held different political stances. The
Chilean Communist Party opposed Rios on the grounds that he chose neutrality in
the Second World War and refused to break off diplomatic relations with Axis
Powers. Meanwhile, members of the right-wing accused him of complacency in
dealing with left-wing infractions. The Chilean Socialist Party accused Rios of
going too easy on large firms and criticized his refusal to pass labor
legislation protecting workers.
The Radical Party itself
touted policy in 1944 that Rios found unacceptable. Their propositions included
an end to relations with Francoist Spain, political recognition of the USSR,
and stacking Rios’ cabinet with Radical members. Rios had already been forced
via economic and diplomatic pressure to break off relations with Axis Powers in
1943, which made Chile eligible for the U.S. Lend-Lease program, aiding in
economic recovery. Unfortunately, the close relations with the United States that this
entailed created further problems for Rios at home, and his continued refusal
to implement Radical Party policies caused the entirety of his cabinet to
resign, effectively leaving the President without a party. As a result, the
Radical Party lost a number of parliamentary seats in the legislative elections
of 1945, and the right-wing gained in congressional representation. Faced with a
diagnosis of terminal cancer and unrest at home, Rios gave up his presidential
powers in January 1946, and for the second time in five years, a presidential
election was held on September 4, 1946.
Left-wing Radical Party
candidate Gabriel Gonzalez Videla won the September 1946 election, this time
with the Radical Party allying itself with the Communist Party instead of the
Democratic Alliance. However, because Gonzalez only received 40% of the votes,
Congress had to confirm his appointment, which led to various party
negotiations and the creation of a composite cabinet of liberals, radicals, and
communists. Once in office, Gonzalez had a fall out with the communists when he
refused to grant them more cabinet seats following their success in municipal
elections. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, threatened by the successes of the
Communist Party, withdrew from the cabinet. Eventually, due to pressure from
the United States, President Gonzalez enacted a Law of Permanent Defense of the
Democracy, which outlawed the Communist Party and banned more than 20,000
people from electoral lists. These actions gleaned new supporters for
Gonzalez’s government from among conservatives and liberals.
Detention centers were
re-opened and used to jail communists, anarchists, and other revolutionaries,
though no detainee was executed during this period. Many prominent communists,
such as Senator Pablo Neruda, fled into exile, and a number of pro-communist
strikes and demonstrations were suppressed. In fact, a number of strikes in the
sectors of public transportation and mining throughout the year 1947 prompted
Gonzalez to make increasing use of emergency laws, which in turn led to further
protest demonstrations. On the far right of the spectrum, the pig trotters’
conspiracy attempted a military coup to
bring Carlos Ibanez back to power. The coup was unsuccessful and an
investigation was ordered on the coup leaders, leading to many arrests. Ibanez
himself was absolved of all responsibility, however.
In the parliamentary
elections of 1949, pro-government parties triumphed, however, the unity between
right-wing parties and radicals and socialists did not last long. Radicals were
unhappy with the economic policies of the right-wing finance minister Jorge
Alessandri, though they were moderately successful in controlling inflation.
When a protest by government employees erupted in 1950, radicals immediately
sided with the protesters and right-wingers resigned en masse from Gonzalez’s
cabinet. As a result, Gonzalez lost the pro-government majority in Congress and
was unable to achieve much policy-wise thereafter. Nonetheless, he remained a
champion for women’s rights, installing the first woman cabinet minister, the
first woman ambassador, and creating the Oficina de la Mujer.
The Birth of Mass Politics
(1952-1964)
Due to the protectionist
policies of the radical governments and their predecessors, Chile had developed
a strong, national industry, which led to a renewal of the economic and social
structure of the country. For the first time in its history, agriculture ceased
being the primary productive sector, and mining and the service sector became
increasingly important to the national economy. At the same time, Chile’s
political climate was becoming increasingly divided. The 1952 presidential
election was carved up among many competing parties, including conservatives,
liberals, socialists, radicals, and an emerging centrist Christian Democrat
Party, which had support from a large specter of personalities. Additionally,
for the first time in Chile’s history, women’s suffrage was legalized.
Allende supporters
A crowd of people marching to support the election of Salvador Allende for president in Santiago, Chile.
Four candidates stood up in
the 1952 election. Arturo Matte was the centrist candidate presented by the
Conservative and Liberal parties; Salvador Allende served as the Socialist
Party’s candidate in his first candidacy to the presidency; the Radical Party
supported Pedro Enrique Alfonso; and General Carlos Ibanez ran for the office
as an independent. Ibanez campaigned on a platform of eliminating political
corruption, but remained vague in his proposals and provided no clear position
as to his position within the political spectrum. He won the election on
September 5, 1952, with 46.8% of the popular vote. Ibanez’s election was
ratified by Congress and he took office on December 4.
Once in office, Ibanez
focused on rallying his supporters to win a majority in the 1953 legislative
elections. His supporters consisted of the right-wing Partido Agrario Laborista
(PAL) and dissidents within the Socialist Party, which had formed the Popular
Socialist Party. Some feminist political unions also lent their support to
Ibanez. Many such supporters stacked Ibanez’s initial cabinet, which despite
its internal fragility, helped to win some seats in the 1953 elections.
Nonetheless, Ibanez remained at the mercy of an unified opposition during his
tenure as president.
Ibanez left much of the
governing during his second term to his cabinet, and indeed his second term
progressed as a modest political success. Ibanez won the support of many
left-wingers by repealing the Ley de Defensa de la Democracia (Law for the
Defense of Democracy), which had banned the Communist Party. However, in 1954,
a copper mine strike spread across the country, and Ibanez proclaimed a state
of siege in response. Congress immediately opposed this executive measure and
put an end to it. Ibanez also froze wages and prices in order to put an end to
the chronic inflation of the Chilean economy. Unfortunately, these same
policies stopped growth and inflation continued to skyrocket, leading to
relative civil unrest.
A movement of Ibanistas, consisting mainly of young army officers and
inspired by the movement surrounding Argentine President Juan Domingo Peron,
formed groups aimed at creating a new dictatorship under Ibanez. Controversy
erupted when the public learned that Ibanez met with these conspirators.
Additionally, Ibanez’s hostility towards the Federacion de Estudiantes de la
Universidad de Chile student trade union led to outbreaks of violence during
demonstrations. As a result, PAL withdrew itself from Ibanez’s government,
leaving him isolated. Meanwhile, the Radicals, Socialists, and Communists
organized the Frente de Accion Popular (Front for Popular Action) and
concentrated their efforts around presidential candidate Salvador Allende.
36.3.3: Allende and Popular Unity
The United States was distrustful of Chile’s
President Salvador Allende due to his Marxist beliefs and policies, leading to
a military coup ousting Allende from power that was strongly encouraged by the
CIA.
Learning Objective
Evaluate why the United States was distrustful
of Allende’s policies
Key Points
Salvador Allende
was the president of Chile from 1970 until 1973 as well as the head of the
Popular Unity government. He was the first Marxist to be elected to the
national presidency of a democratic country.
There was an
active campaign against Allende’s presidential confirmation within Chile’s Congress,
including clandestine efforts to prevent Allende from being
inaugurated. In the end, his presidency was only ratified once he signed a
Statute of Constitutional Guarantees.
While in office,
Allende pursued a policy he called “La via chilena al socialismo”, or “the
Chilean way to socialism”, which included nationalization of certain
large-scale industries such as copper and healthcare, land redistribution, the
continuation of the educational policies of his predecessor Eduardo Frei
Montalva, and a program guaranteeing free milk for children.
The Popular
Unity coalition was not perfectly united around Allende’s platform due to the
president’s more moderate leanings and commitment to the principles of
democracy.
During his first
year in office, Allende’s government achieved economic growth, reductions in
inflation and unemployment, redistribution of income, and increases in
consumption.
Despite his
predecessor’s deepening of Chile’s relations with the USSR, Allende attempted
to maintain normal relations with the United States. However, after the United States cut
off credits and increased its support to Allende’s opposition, the government
was forced to seek alternative sources of trade and finance from the USSR.
The U.S. government
encouraged Allende’s resignation, overthrow, or electoral defeat due to a fear
of .Marxism and dissatisfaction with the nationalization of U.S copper concerns
within Chile.
On August 22, 1973,
the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of
Deputies voted 81 to 47 in favor of a resolution that asked the authorities
to preserve Chilean democracy in face of the threat Allende’s government
presented.
Two days later, Allende responded point-by point to the accusations and accused
Congress in return of encouraging sedition, civil war, and even a coup.
The Chilean military seized the opportunity created by the Chamber of
Deputies’ August 22nd Resolution to oust Allende on September 11, 1973.
As the Presidential Palace was surrounded and bombed, Allende committed
suicide.
Salvador Allende was the
president of Chile from 1970 until 1973 and the head of the Popular Unity
government. He was the first ever Marxist to be elected to the national
presidency of a democratic country. Although the 1970 Chilean presidential
election was lawful, the Chilean Senate declared the Allende government unlawful in August 1973 due to its practice of unconstitutional expropriation
of private property. Allende’s presidency was cut short by a military coup
shortly thereafter.
Salvador Allende Gossens
President of Chile from 1970 to 1973
Photo portrait of Salvador Allende Gossens
Chilean Presidential
Election, 1970
Allende ran with the Popular
Unity coalition during the 1970 presidential election. Succeeding the FRAP
left-wing coalition, it was comprised primarily of leftist political parties,
including the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Radical Party, the
Party of the Radical Left (until 1972), the Social Democratic Party, MAPU, or
Movimient de Accion Popular Unitario, and the Christian Left, which joined the
coalition in 1971. Allende won a plurality of the popular vote at 36.2% with a
platform promising nationalization of the mineral industry as well as income
and land redistribution. Conservative former president Jorge Alessandri, the
candidate from the National Party, received slightly fewer votes, approximately 34.9%. According the Chilean constitution, Congress had to decide
between the two candidates with the most votes, and according to precedent,
Congress tended to choose the candidate with the largest number of votes.
However, there was an active
campaign against Allende’s confirmation within Congress at the
time, including clandestine efforts to prevent Allende from being
inaugurated. In the end, his presidency was only ratified once he signed a
Statute of Constitutional Guarantees, convincing the majority of Christian
Democratic senators who favored Alessandri of Allende’s allegiance to
democracy. Having signed this statute, members of the Christian Democratic
Party in the Senate were willing to vote in favor of granting the presidency to
Allende.
“The Chilean Way to Socialism”
While in office, Allende
pursued a policy he called “La via chilena al socialismo,” or “the Chilean way
to socialism,” which included nationalization of certain large-scale industries
such as copper and healthcare, land redistribution, the continuation of the
educational policies of his predecessor Eduardo Frei Montalva, and a program
guaranteeing free milk for children. Eduardo Frei’s government already
partially nationalized the copper industry by acquiring a 51% share in
foreign-owned mines, but copper remained the primary U.S. business in Chile
during this time. Early on, Congress supported Allende’s extensive vision for
government involvement in the economy, especially since the Popular Unity and
Christian Democratic parties combined had a clear majority in the legislature.
However, the government’s efforts to pursue these policies led to strong
outpouring of opposition from landowners, some middle class sectors,
financiers, the Roman Catholic Church, and the rightist National Party. Eventually,
the Christian Democrats united with the National Party in Congress as
opposition grew.
The Popular Unity coalition
itself was far from perfectly united around the platform of the president. Allende
himself was a more moderate representative of the Socialist Party and was
committed to the principles of democracy. He was supported by the Communist
Party, which, although less committed to the principles of representative
democracy, favored a cautious and gradual approach to the vast reforms that had
been proposed. By contrast, the radical left wing of the Socialist Party wanted
an immediate disruption to the existing capitalist system, even if it meant
resorting to violent means.
During his first year in
office, Allende’s government achieved economic growth, reductions in inflation
and unemployment, redistribution of income, and increases in consumption. The
government also significantly increased salaries and wages, reduced taxes, and
introduced free distribution of certain items deemed necessities. Groups
previously excluded from the state labor insurance scheme, such as the
self-employed or those employed by small businesses, were included for the
first time. Additionally, pensions were increased for widows, invalids,
orphans, and the elderly. The National Milk Plan provided more than 3 million
liters of milk per day in 1970, free of charge.
Foreign Relations
Soviet Union
Allende’s predecessor,
Eduardo Frei, had improved relations with the USSR, and in February 1970,
Frei’s government signed Chile’s first cultural and scientific agreement with
the Soviet Union. When Allende assumed the presidency, he attempted to maintain
normal relations with the United States. However, as a result of Chile’s nationalization
of the copper industry, the US cut off credits and increased its support to the
opposition. As a result, Allende’s government was forced to seek alternative
sources of trade and finance. Chile gained commitments from the USSR to invest
approximately $400 million in Chile over the course of the next six years,
though that number was smaller than the amount Allende hoped to receive. Trade between
the two countries did not significantly increase and mainly involved the
purchase of Soviet equipment. When Allende visited the USSR in late 1972 to request more aid and additional lines of credit, he was turned down.
In mid-1973, the USSR
approved the delivery of weaponry to the Chilean army. However, when news of an
attempted army coup to overthrow Allende reached Soviet officials, the shipment
was redirected to another country.
U.S. Opposition to Allende
U.S. opposition to Allende began several years
before he was elected President of Chile, but escalated once the prospect of a
second Marxist regime being established in the Western Hemisphere became more
likely (the first being Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba). The administration
of U.S. President Richard Nixon was already embroiled in the Vietnam War and the broader Cold War with the Soviet Union. The U.S. government intended to encourage Allende’s resignation, overthrow, or defeat by the
presidential election of 1976. To this end, the Nixon administration
clandestinely funded independent and non-state media and labor unions within
Chile and directed other governmental entities that no new bilateral economic
aid commitments should be undertaken with the government of Chile. The United States did however
provide humanitarian aid to Chile in addition to forgiving old loans valued at
$200 million from 1971 to 1972. The United States also did not invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment, which would have required an immediate
cut-off of U.S aid due to Allende’s nationalizations. Allende received new
sources of credit valued between $600 million and $950 million in
1972 and $547 million by June 1973. The International
Monetary Fund also loaned $100 million
to Chile during the Allende years.
The U.S. government used two tactics when countering Allende’s
government. “Track I” was a State Department initiative designed to
thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the
Chilean constitution. This tactic excluded the CIA. Track I expanded to
encompass a number of policies with the ultimate goal of creating conditions
that would encourage a coup. “Track II” was
a CIA operation overseen by Henry Kissinger and the CIA’s director of covert operations,
Thomas Karamessine. Track II excluded the State Department and Department of
Defense. The goal of Track II was to find and support Chilean military
officers who would engage in a coup.
Crisis
Congressional Resolutions
On August 22, 1973, the Christian Democrats and
the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies voted 81 to 47 in favor
of a resolution that asked the authorities to preserve Chilean democracy
in face of the threat Allende’s government presented. They believed
Allende’s policies infringed upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Chilean constitution
and accused Allende of attempting to establish a totalitarian order upon the
country. Most accusations centered around a perceived disregard for the
separation of powers and the erosion of legislative and judicial prerogatives in
favor of granting these powers to the executive branch of government. Finally,
the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected armed
forces. President Allende’s efforts to reorganize the military and police
forces were characterized as nefarious attempts to use the armed and police
forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and
politically infiltrate their ranks.
Two days later on August 24,
1973, Allende responded point-by point to the accusations. He accused Congress
of encouraging sedition, civil war, and even a coup. He also pointed out that
the declaration failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority
constitutionally required to bring an accusation against the president and
argued that the legislature was trying to usurp the executive role.
1973 Chilean Coup D’etat
In early September 1973, Allende floated the idea of resolving the congressional
resolution crisis with a referendum. However, the Chilean military seized the opportunity
created by the Chamber of Deputies’ August 22nd Resolution to oust
Allende on September 11, 1973. As the Presidential Palace was surrounded and
bombed, Allende committed suicide.
A September 2000
report released by the CIA using declassified documents related to the military
coup found that the CIA had probably approved of and encour.aged the 1973 coup,
but there was no evidence that the U.S actually participated in it.
This
view has been challenged by some historians, such as Tim Weiner and Peter
Kornbluh, who have stated that the covert support of the United States was
crucial to the preparation for the coup, the coup itself, and the consolidation
of the regime afterward.
36.3.4: The Pinochet Years
Pinochet’s regime
represented a violent swing to authoritarianism following Allende’s Marxist administration.
Learning Objective
Contrast the Pinochet
regime with Allende’s before it
Key Terms
military junta
An oligarchic form of
government that differs from a civilian dictatorship in a number of ways,
including motivations for seizing power, the institutions through which rule is
organized, and the ways in which leaders leave positions of power. Many
military juntas have viewed themselves as saving the nation from corrupt or
myopic civilian politicians. Military leaders often rule as a junta, selecting
one as the head.
disappeared
A person who is secretly
abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization, or by a third
party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political
organization. Following abduction, there is a refusal to acknowledge the
person’s fate or whereabouts, essentially placing the victim outside the
protection of the law.
Examples
Augusto Jose Ramon
Pinochet Ugarte was President of Chile (1973- 1990) as well as
Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army (1973- 1998) and president of the
Government Junta of Chile (1973-1981). His rule of Chile is considered a
dictatorship.
According
to the Rettig and Valech Commissions,
the number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile during the
government junta accounts for at least 35,000 people: 28,000 tortured, 2,279
executed, and 1,248 missing. In addition, some 200,000 people suffered exile
and an unknown number went through clandestine centers and illegal detention.
The government junta
formally banned socialist, Marxist, and other leftist parties that comprised
former President Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity coalition.
On September 13, 1973,
the junta dissolved Congress and outlawed or suspended all political
activities, including suspension of the 1925 constitution.
Given
support from Pinochet, the United States., and international financial institutions, a
group of Chilean economists referred to as the Chicago Boys advocated
laissez-faire, free-market, neo-liberal, and fiscally conservative policies in
stark contrast to the extensive nationalization and centrally-planned economic
programs supported by Allende.
The
economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta
initially caused several economic indicators to decline for Chile’s lower
classes, while financial conglomerates were major beneficiaries.
The United States maintained significantly friendlier
relations with Pinochet than it did with Allende.
Augusto Jose Ramon Pinochet Ugarte was the
President of Chile between 1973 and 1990 as well as Commander-in-Chief of the
Chilean Army from 1973 to 1998. He was also the president of the Government Junta
of Chile between 1973 and 1981. His rule of Chile is considered a dictatorship.
Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a U.S.-backed coup d’etat on September
11, 1973, which overthrew the democratically elected Popular Unity government
of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. In December 1974, the
ruling military junta appointed Pinochet the Supreme Head of the Nation by
joint decree.
Official portrait of Augusto Pinochet
Circa 1974
Human Rights Violations
Human rights
violations during the military government of Chile refer to human
rights abuses, persecution of opponents, political repression, and state
terrorism committed by the Chilean armed forces and the police, government
agents, and civilians in the service of security agencies. According to the
Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig Commission) and the National
Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), the
number of direct victims of human rights violations in Chile accounts for at
least 35,000 people: 28,000 tortured, 2,279 executed, and 1,248 missing. In
addition, some 200,000 people suffered exile and an unknown number went through
clandestine centers and illegal detention. The systematic human rights
violations committed by the military government of Chile under Pinochet
included gruesome acts of physical and sexual abuse as well as psychological
damage. From September 11, 1973, to March 11, 1990, Chilean armed forces, the
police, and those aligned with the military junta were involved in
institutionalizing fear and terror in Chile.
Political Suppression
Following its assumption of power in
1973, the government junta formally banned socialist, Marxist, and other
leftist parties that comprised former President Salvador Allende’s Popular
Unity coalition. On September 13, 1973, the junta dissolved Congress and
outlawed or suspended all political activities, including suspension of the
1925 constitution. Eduardo Frei, Allende’s predecessor as president, initially
supported the coup along with other Christian Democratic politicians. Later,
however, they assumed opposition roles to the military rulers, though by that
time many of them already lost much of their public influence. The Catholic Church, which first expressed its approval of military rule
over Allende’s Marxist government, was now led by Cardinal Raul
Silva Henriquez, one of the most outspoken critics of the regime’s social and
economic policies.
From 1974 to
1977, the DINA (National Intelligence Directorate) and other agencies such as
the Joint Command were the main institutions that committed acts of repression.
It was during this period that most forced disappearances took place. In DINA-established interrogation and detention camps, former members of
Allende’s Marxist government and Leftist movements like Movimiento de Izquierda
Revolucionario were incarcerated and brutally tortured. A large proportion of
the Chilean population was vulnerable to government surveillance.
Disappearances
The Politically Executed
Funeral urns of political activists executed under the Chilean military regime (1973-1990) in a cemetery in Santiago.
“Disappearing
subversives” was a central instrument of state terror administered by the
Chilean military regime. According to the Rettig Report, 1,248 people were
“disappeared” by the Pinochet regime. This number remains a source of
contention, however, as hundreds of bodies have yet to be discovered. Many who disappeared
were neither given the chance to escape nor to become asylum seekers elsewhere,
and their bodies were deliberately hidden in undisclosed locations. Many people
were last seen in detention or torture centers run by intelligence agencies of
the military regime.
Following
General Pinochet’s arrest in 1998, Chile made a renewed effort to uncover the
atrocities of the past. For the first time in several decades, human rights
lawyers and members of the armed forces investigated where the bodies
of the disappeared were buried. On January 7, 2000, Chilean President Ricardo
Lagos made a 15-minute nationwide address, revealing that the armed forces had
uncovered information on the fate of approximately 180 people who had
disappeared. According to Lagos, the bodies of at least 150 of these people
were thrown into lakes, rivers, and the Pacific Ocean. The whereabouts of
hundreds of more bodies remain unknown.
Economy and
Free Market Reforms
After the
military took over the government in 1973, a period of dramatic economic
changes began. The Chilean economy was still faltering in the months following
the coup. As the military junta itself was not particularly skilled in
remedying the persistent economic difficulties, it appointed a group of Chilean
economists who were educated at the University of
Chicago. Given financial and ideological support from Pinochet, the United States, and
international financial institutions, the Chicago Boys advocated laissez-faire,
free-market, neo-liberal, and fiscally conservative policies in stark contrast
to the extensive nationalization and centrally-planned economic programs
supported by Allende. Chile was drastically transformed from an economy isolated
from the rest of the world with strong government intervention into a liberalized,
world-integrated economy where market forces were left free to guide most of
the economy’s decisions.
From an
economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first,
from 1973 to 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were
implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the
collapse of the Chilean economy. Unemployment was extremely
high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become
bankrupt. The following period was characterized by new reforms and economic
recovery. Some economists argue that the recovery was due to a turnaround of
Pinochet’s free market policy; during this time he nationalized many of the
industries that were nationalized under Allende and fired the Chicago Boys
from their government posts.
Social Consequences
The economic
policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially
caused several economic indicators to decline for Chile’s lower classes. Between
1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages
decreased by eight percent. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had
been in 1970 and budgets for education, health, and housing dropped more than 20% on
average. Massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public
services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment. The
junta relied on the middle class, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans
to maintain itself.
Financial
conglomerates became major beneficiaries of the liberalized economy. Large
foreign banks reinstated the credit cycle, and international lending
organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and
Inter-American Development Bank also lent vast sums to Pinochet’s regime.
Additionally, many foreign multinational corporations such as International
Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), Dow Chemical, and Firestone, which was previously expropriated by Allende, returned to Chile.
Relationship
with the United States
Overall, the
United States maintained significantly friendlier relations with Pinochet than it did with
Allende. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in
2000 titled “CIA Activities in Chile” revealed that the CIA actively supported
the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and made many of
Pinochet’s officers paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military despite records
detailing human rights abuses. The United States provided substantial support to the
military regime between 1973 and 1979, although it criticized Chile in public. In
1976, the United States went beyond verbal condemnation of the regime and placed an
embargo on arms sales to Chile that remained in effect until the restoration of
democracy in 1989. Presumably, as international concerns grew surrounding
Chilean repression, the United States did not want to be seen as an accomplice to the
junta. Other prominent U.S. allies like the UK , France, and West Germany,
however, did not block arms sales to Pinochet and benefited from the lack of
American competition.
36.3.5: The Chilean Constitution of 1988
Due to pressure from big business, the
international community, and general unease with his rule, Pinochet was denied
a second eight-year term as president during the 1988 national plebiscite.
Learning Objective
Describe the circumstances of the 1988 national
plebiscite
Key Points
Following the
September 11, 1973, coup d’etat, General Pinochet was designated president of
the newly established military junta government on what was supposed to be a
rotating basis with three other junta members.
Shortly
thereafter, the junta established an advisory committee and Pinochet staffed it
with his loyal Army officers. One of the first recommendations brought
forward by the committee was to do away with the idea of a rotating presidency.
On September 11,
1980, a constitutional referendum took place in which the new Chilean constitution
was approved by 67% of voters.
The new
constitution established a transition period of eight years during which
Pinochet would continue to exercise executive power. Before the end of that
period, a candidate for president was to be proposed and ratified by registered
voters in a national plebiscite.
On August 30,
1988, Pinochet was declared the presidential candidate, and on October 8, 1988,
Pinochet was denied a second eight-year term by 54.5% of the vote.
Open
presidential and congressional elections were held in December 1989, and the
new democratically elected president, Patricio Aylwin of the Christian
Democratic Party, assumed power on March 11, 1990.
Key Terms
military junta
An oligarchic form of government that differs
from a civilian dictatorship in a number of ways, including motivations for
seizing power, the institutions through which rule is organized, and the ways
in which leaders leave positions of power. Many military juntas have viewed
themselves as saving the nation from corrupt or myopic civilian politicians.
Military leaders often rule as a junta, selecting one as the head.
plebiscite
A type of voting or method for proposing laws,
often to change the constitution or government of a country.
Leadership and the 1980
Constitution
Following the September 11,
1973, coup d’etat, Army General Augusto Pinochet was designated president of the
newly established military junta government. He and Air Force General Gustavo
Leigh, Navy Admiral Jose Toribio Merino, and Carabinero Chief General Cesar Mendoza
verbally agreed to rotate presidential duties, but shortly thereafter, the
junta established an advisory committee and Pinochet staffed it with his loyal Army
officers. One of the first recommendations brought forward by
the advisory committee was to do away with a rotating presidency,
arguing it would lead to too many administrative problems and confusion. In
March 1974, Pinochet verbally attacked the Christian Democratic Party and
stated there was no set timetable for the country’s return to civilian rule.
Concurrently, a commission set up by the junta was working on drawing up a new
constitution. By October 5, 1978, the commission had finished its work. During
the next two years, the proposed outline was studied by the Council of State,
presided over by former president Jorge Alessandri. In July 1980, a
draft of the constitution was presented to Pinochet and the governing junta.
On September 11, 1980, seven
years after the coup d’etat that brought the military junta to power, a constitutional
referendum took place in which the new constitution was approved by 67% of
voters. Some observers, however, argued that the referendum was carried out in
a highly irregular way and the outcome was thus fraudulent.
Nonetheless, the new constitution took effect on March 11, 1981, and
established a transition period of eight years during which Pinochet would
continue to exercise executive power and the junta would yield legislative
powers. Before the end of that period, a candidate for president was to be
proposed by the Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces and Carabinero Chief
General for a subsequent term of eight years, and the proposed candidate would
need to be ratified by registered voters in a national plebiscite. On August
30, 1988, Pinochet was declared the presidential candidate.
Original ballot from the 1988 plebiscite
Plebiscite of October 8, 1988
The military junta began to shift leadership tactics in the late 1970s. Due to increasing resistance and
attendant problems with General Pinochet’s rule, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh
was expelled from the junta in 1978 and replaced by General Fernando Matthei.
Throughout the 1980s, the government gradually permitted greater freedom of
assembly, speech, and association, including trade union activities. In 1985,
Cesar Mendoza, a member of the junta since 1973, was forced to resign as a
result of the Caso Degollados (“slit throats case”) in which three Communist
Party members were assassinated. The following year, Carmen Gloria Quintana, a
woman detained by an army patrol during a street demonstration against Pinochet,
was burned alive in what became known as the Caso Quemado (“burnt alive case”),
rallying those who believed the country should move towards a more democratic
form of governance. It was in this context that the 1988 Chilean national
plebiscite took place, in which voters would accept or reject a single
candidate proposed by the military junta.
Carmen Gloria Quintana in 1987
Quintana, a Chilean woman detained during a street demonstration against Pinochet,
was burned alive in what became known as the Caso Quemado (“burnt alive case”).
The plebiscite presented two choices to voters: vote yes and extend
Pinochet’s mandate for another eight years, or vote no and Pinochet and the
junta would continue in power for only one more year. The outcome was that
Pinochet was denied a second eight-year term by 54.5% of the vote. Presidential
and parliamentary elections would take place three months before Pinochet’s
term expired, with the newly elected president and Congress taking office March
11, 1990. The fact that the dictatorship respected the results is attributed to
pressure from big business, the international community, and general popular unease
with Pinochet’s rule. Open presidential and congressional elections were held in
December 1989, and the new democratically-elected president, Patricio Aylwin of
the Christian Democratic Party, assumed power as planned in March. Due to the
transitional provisions of the constitution, Pinochet remained as
Commander-in-Chief of the Army until March 1998.
36.4: Brazil
36.4.1: The Old Republic
Governance in Brazil’s Old Republic wavered
between state autonomy and centralization.
Learning Objective
Describe the regime of the Old Republic
Key Points
The Old Republic
covers a period of Brazilian history from 1889 to 1930, during which Brazil was a nominal constitutional democracy.
The history of
the Old Republic is dominated by a quest to find a viable form of government to
replace the preceding monarchy. This quest swung Brazil back and
forth between state autonomy and centralization.
The federal
government in Rio de Janeiro was dominated and managed by a combination of the
more powerful Brazilian states: Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and
to a lesser extent Pernambuco and Bahia.
Brazil’s Army
developed as a national regulatory and interventionist institution within the
Old Republic.
The Constituent
Assembly that drew up the constitution of 1891 was a battleground between those
seeking to limit executive power, which was dictatorial in scope under
President Deodoro da Fonseca, and radical authoritarians who opposed the coffee
oligarchy and wanted to preserve and intensify presidential authority.
Around the start
of the 20th century, the vast majority of Brazil’s population lived in semi-feudal communities.
Brazil’s
dependence on factory-made goods and loans from technologically, economically,
and politically advanced North Atlantic countries retarded its domestic
industrial base, and its economy was not nationally integrated until pressure
was put on the government to become more interventionist during the 1920s.
With manufacturing on the rise and the coffee oligarchs imperiled by the
growth of trade associated with World War I, the old order of café com leite and coronelismo eventually gave way to the political aspirations of new
urban groups: professionals, government and white-collar workers, merchants,
bankers, and industrialists.
Key Terms
coronelismo
The Brazilian political machine during the Old
Republic that was responsible for the centralization of political power in the
hands of locally dominant oligarchs, known as coronels, who would dispense
favors in return for loyalty.
latifúndios
An extensive parcel of privately owned land,
particularly landed estates that specialized in agriculture for export.
The First Brazilian Republic,
or Old Republic, covers a period of Brazilian history from 1889 to 1930 during
which it was governed a constitutional democracy. Democracy, however,
was nominal in the republic. In reality, elections were rigged and voters in
rural areas were pressured to vote for their bosses’ chosen candidates. If that method did not work, the election results could still be changed by one-sided decisions of Congress’ verification of powers commission (election authorities in the República Velha were not independent from the executive and the Legislature, but dominated by the ruling oligarchs). As a result, the presidency of Brazil during this period
alternated between the oligarchies of the dominant states of Sao Paulo and
Minas Gerais. The regime is often referred to as “café com leite,” or “coffee
with milk,” after the respective agricultural products of the two states.
Brazil’s Old Republic was
not an ideological offspring of the republics of the French or American
Revolutions, although the regime would attempt to associate itself
with both. The republic did not have enough popular support to risk open
elections and was born of a coup d’etat that maintained itself by
force. The republicans made Field Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca president
(1889-91) and after a financial crisis, appointed Field Marshal Floriano
Vieira Peixoto the Minister of War to ensure the allegiance of the military.
Flag of Brazil, November 15-19, 1889
The first Brazilian flag used after the monarchy’s fall.
Rule of the Landed
Oligarchies
The history of the Old
Republic is dominated by a quest to find a viable form of government to replace
the preceding monarchy. This quest swung Brazil back and forth
between state autonomy and centralization. The constitution of 1891 established
the United States of Brazil and granted extensive autonomy to the provinces,
now called states. The federal system was adopted and all powers not explicitly
granted to the federal government in the constitution were delegated to the
states. Over time, extending as far as the 1920s, the federal government in Rio
de Janeiro was dominated and managed by a combination of the more powerful
Brazilian states: Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and to a lesser
extent Pernambuco and Bahia.
As a result, the Army
developed as a national regulatory and interventionist institution within the
republic. The sudden elimination of the monarchy left it as Brazil’s only viable, dominant
institution. Although the Roman Catholic Church
maintained a presence, it remained primarily international in its personnel,
doctrine, liturgy, and purposes. The Army even began to eclipse other military
institutions such as the Navy and the National Guard. The armed forces,
however, were divided over their status, relationship to the political regime,
and institutional goals. Therefore, the lack of military unity and disagreement
among civilian elites regarding the military’s role in society prevented the
establishment of a long-term military dictatorship within the country.
The Constituent Assembly
that drew up the constitution of 1891 was a battleground between those seeking
to limit executive power, which was dictatorial in scope under President
Deodoro da Fonseca, and the Jacobins, radical authoritarians who opposed the
coffee oligarchy and wanted to preserve and intensify presidential
authority. The constitution established a federation governed supposedly by a
president, a bicameral National Congress, and a judiciary. However, real power
rested in the hands of regional patrias and local potentates, called
“colonels”. There was a constitutional system as well as the real system of
unwritten agreements (coronelismo)
among the colonels. Under coronelism, local oligarchies chose
state governors, who selected the president.
This informal but real
distribution of power emerged as a result of armed struggles and bargaining.
The system consolidated the state oligarchies around families that were members of the old monarchical elite, and to provide a check to the Army, the
state oligarchies strengthened the navy and state police. In larger states,
state police evolved into small armies.
In the final decades of the
19th century, the United States, much of Europe, and neighboring
Argentina expanded the right to vote. Brazil, however, moved to restrict access
to the polls under the monarchy and did not correct the situation under the
republic. By 1910, only 627,000 eligible voters could be counted among a total
population of 22 million. Throughout the 1920s, only between 2.3% and 3.4% of
the total population could vote. The middle class was far from active in
political life. High illiteracy rates went hand in hand with the absence of
universal suffrage or a free press. In regions far from major urban centers,
news could take four to six weeks to arrive. In this context, a free press
created by European immigrant anarchists started to develop during the 1890s
and 1900s and spread widely, particularly in large cities.
Latifundio
Economies
Around the start of the 20th
century, the vast majority of Brazil’s population lived in semi-feudal communities. Because of the legacy of Ibero-American
slavery, abolished as late as 1888 in Brazil, there was an extreme
concentration of landownership reminiscent of feudal aristocracies: 464 great
landowners held more than 270,000 km² of land (latifúndios), while 464,000 small and medium-sized farms occupied
only 157,000 km². Large estate owners used their land to grow export products
like coffee, sugar, and cotton, and the communities who resided on his land
would participate in the production of these cash crops. For instance, most
typical estates included the owner’s chaplain and overseers, indigent peasants,
sharecroppers, and indentured servants. As a result, Brazilian producers tended
to neglect the needs of domestic consumption, and four-fifths of the country’s
grain needs were imported.
Brazil’s dependence on
factory-made goods and loans from technologically, economically, and
politically advanced North Atlantic countries retarded its domestic industrial
base. Farm equipment was primitive and largely non-mechanized. Peasants tilled
the land with hoes and cleared the soil through the inefficient slash-and-burn
method. Meanwhile, living standards were generally squalid. Malnutrition,
parasitic diseases, and lack of medical facilities limited the average life
span in 1920 to 28 years. Without an open market, Brazilian industry could not
compete against the technologically advanced Anglo-American economies. In this
context, the Encilhamento (a “boom
and bust” process that first intensified, and then crashed, in the years
between 1889 and 1891) occurred, the consequences of which were felt in all
areas of the Brazilian economy for many decades following.
During this period, Brazil
did not have a significantly integrated national economy. The absence of a big
internal market with overland transportation, except for mule trains, impeded
internal economic integration, political cohesion, and military efficiency.
Instead, Brazil had a grouping of regional economies that exported their own
specialty products to European and North American markets. The Northeast
exported its surplus cheap labor, but saw its political influence decline in
the face of competition from Caribbean sugar producers. The wild rubber boom in
Amazônia declined due to the rise of efficient Southeast Asian colonial
plantations following 1912. The national-oriented market economies of the South
were not dramatic, but their growth was steady, and by the 1920s, that growth
allowed Rio Grande do Sul to exercise considerable political leverage. Real
power resided in the coffee-growing states of the Southeast—São Paulo, Minas
Gerais, and Rio de Janeiro—that produced the most export revenue. Those three
and Rio Grande do Sul harvested 60% of Brazil’s crops, turned out 75% of its
industrial and meat products, and held 80% of its banking resources.
Struggles for Reform
Support for
industrial protectionism increased during the 1920s. Under considerable pressure
from the growing middle class, a more activist, centralized state adapted to
represent the new bourgeoisie’s interests. A policy of state intervention,
consisting of tax breaks, lowered duties, and import quotas, expanded the
domestic capital base. During this time, São Paulo was at the forefront of Brazil’s
economic, political, and cultural life. Known colloquially as a “locomotive
pulling the 20 empty boxcars” (a reference to the 20 other Brazilian states)
and Brazil’s industrial and commercial center to this day, São Paulo led the
trend toward industrialization with foreign revenues from the coffee industry.
With manufacturing on the
rise and the coffee oligarchs imperiled by the growth of trade associated with
World War I, the old order of café com
leite and coronelismo eventually
gave way to the political aspirations of the new urban groups: professionals,
government and white-collar workers, merchants, bankers, and industrialists. Prosperity
also contributed to a rapid rise in the population of working class Southern
and Eastern European immigrants—a population that contributed to the growth of
trade unionism, anarchism, and socialism. In the post-World War I period,
Brazil was hit by its first wave of general strikes and the establishment of
the Communist Party in 1922. However, the overwhelming majority of the
Brazilian population was composed of peasants with few if any ties to the
growing labor movement. As a result, social
reform movements would crop up in the 1920s, ultimately culminating in the
Revolution of 1930.
36.4.2: Years Under the Military Regime
Brazilian society experienced extreme oppression
under the military regime despite general economic growth during the Brazilian Miracle.
Learning Objective
Give examples of daily life under the military
regime in Brazil.
Key Points
The Brazilian
military government was an authoritarian military dictatorship that ruled
Brazil from April 1, 1964 to March 15, 1985. It began with the 1964 coup d’etat
led by the armed forces against President Joao Goulart.
The military
dictatorship lasted for almost 21 years despite initial pledges to the
contrary.
On April 9,
1964, the coup leaders published the First Institutional Act, which greatly
limited the freedoms of the 1946 constitution, by granting the President authority
to remove elected officials from office, dismiss civil servants, and revoke
political rights of those found guilty of subversion or misuse of public funds
for up to 10 years.
On October 27,
1965, President Castelo Branco signed the Second Institutional Act, which set
the stage for a purge of Congress, removing objecting state governors and
expanding the President’s arbitrary powers at the expense of the legislative
and judiciary branches.
On December 13,
1968, in response to increasing resistance to the regime, Costa e Silva signed
the Fifth Institutional Act, which gave the president dictatorial powers,
dissolved Congress and the state legislatures, suspended the constitution, ended
democratic government, suspended habeas corpus, and imposed censorship.
During General Emilio Garrastazu Medici’s presidency, the greatest human
rights abuses were committed. However, Medici remained a popular president due
to the economic growth that occurred during the Brazilian Miracle.
Key Terms
habeas corpus
A legal recourse whereby a person can report
unlawful detention and imprisonment before a court.
Brazilian Miracle
A period of exceptional economic growth in
Brazil during the rule of the Brazilian military government, which reached its
peak during the tenure of President Emilio Garrastazu Medici from 1969 to 1973.
During this time, average annual GDP growth was close to 10%.
The Brazilian military
government was an authoritarian military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from
April 1, 1964 to March 15, 1985. It began with the 1964 coup d’etat led by
armed forces against the administration of the President Joao Goulart, who had
previously served as Vice President and assumed the office of the presidency
following the resignation of democratically-elected Janio Quadros. The military
revolt was fomented by the governors of Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, and Guanabara.
The coup was supported by the Embassy and State Department of the United
States. The fall of President Goulart worried many citizens. Many students,
Catholics, Marxists, and workers formed groups that opposed military rule. A
minority even engaged in direct armed struggle, although the vast majority of
the resistance supported political solutions to the mass suspension of human
rights. In the first few months after the coup, thousands of people were
detained, and thousands of others were removed from their civil service or
university positions.
The military dictatorship
lasted for almost 21 years despite initial pledges to the contrary. In 1967, it
enacted a new, restrictive constitution that stifled freedom of speech and
political opposition. The regime adopted as its guidelines nationalism,
economic development, and anti-communism.
Establishing the Regime
Within the Army, agreement
could not be reached as to a civilian politician who could lead the government
after the ouster of President Joao Goulart. On April 9, 1964, the coup leaders
published the First Institutional Act, which greatly limited the freedoms of
the 1946 constitution. Under the act, the President was granted authority to
remove elected officials from office, dismiss civil servants, and revoke
political rights of those found guilty of subversion or misuse of public funds
for up to 10 years. Three days after the publication of the act, Congress
elected Army Chief of Staff, Marshal Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco to
serve as president for the remainder of Goulart’s term. Castelo Branco had
intentions of overseeing radical reforms to the political-economic system, but
refused to remain in power beyond the remainder of Goulart’s term or to
institutionalize the military as a governing body. Although he intended to
return power to elected officials at the end of Goulart’s term, competing
demands radicalized the situation.
Military hardliners wanted
to completely purge the left-wing and populist influences for the duration of
Castelo Branco’s reforms. Civilians with leftist leanings criticized Castelo
Branco for the extreme actions he took to implement reforms, whereas the military
hardliners felt Castelo Branco was acting too lenient. On October 27, 1965,
after two opposition candidates won in two provincial elections, Castelo Branco
signed the Second Institutional Act, which set the stage for a purge of
Congress, removing objecting state governors and expanding the President’s
arbitrary powers at the expense of the legislative and judiciary branches. This
not only provided Castelo Branco with the ability to repress the left, but also
provided a legal framework for the hard line authoritarian rules of Artur da
Costa e Silva (1967-69) and Emilio Garrastazu Medici (1969-74).
Tanks occupy President Vargas Avenue
A column of M41 Walker Bulldog tanks along the streets of Rio de Janeiro in April 1968.
These events were part of a series of building-up tensions between the people and the regime that led to further repressive polices in December 1968.
Rule of the Hardliners
Castelo Branco was succeeded
to the presidency by General Artur da Costa e Silva, a hardliner within the
regime. Experimental artists and musicians formed the Tropicalia movement
during this time, and some major popular musicians such as Gilberto Gil and
Caetano Velsos were either arrested, imprisoned, or exiled. Widespread student
protests also abounded during this period. In response, on December 13, 1968, Costa
e Silva signed the Fifth Institutional Act, which gave the president
dictatorial powers, dissolved Congress and the state legislatures, suspended
the constitution, ended democratic government, suspended habeas corpus, and
imposed censorship. The military government had already been using various
forms of torture as early as 1964 in order to gain information as well as
intimidate and silence potential opponents. This radically increased after
1968.
“Tortura Nunca Mais”
Monument to the victims of torture in Recife.
On August 31, 1969, Costa e Silva
suffered a stroke. Instead of his vice president assuming the office of the
presidency, all state power was assumed by the military, which then chose
General Emilio Garrastazu Medici, another hardliner, as president. During his
presidency, Medici sponsored the greatest human rights abuses of the time
period. Persecution and torture of dissidents, harassment against journalists,
and press censorship became ubiquitous. A succession of kidnappings of foreign
ambassadors in Brazil embarrassed the military government. Reactions such as
anti-government manifestations and guerrilla movements generated increasing
repressive measures in turn. By the end of 1970, the official minimum wage went
down to US $40 a month, and as a result, the more than one-third of the Brazilian
workforce that made minimum wage lost approximately half their purchasing power
in relation to 1960 levels.
Nevertheless, Medici was
popular because his term was met with the largest economic growth of any
Brazilian President, a period of time popularly known as the Brazilian Miracle.
The military entrusted economic policy to a group of technocrats led by Minister
of Finance Delfim Netto. During these years, Brazil became an urban society
with 67% of people living in cities. The government became directly involved in
the economy, investing heavily in new highways, bridges, and railroads. Steel
mills, petrochemical factories, hydroelectric power plants, and nuclear
reactors were also built by large state-owned companies like Eletrobras and
Petrobras. To reduce reliance on imported oil, the ethanol industry was heavily
promoted.
By 1980, 57% of Brazil’s exports were industrial goods compared to 20%
in 1968. Additionally, average annual GDP growth was close to 10%. Comparatively,
during President Goulart’s rule, the economy had been nearing a crisis, with
annual inflation reaching 100%. Additionally, Medici presented the First
National Development Plan in 1971, which aimed at increasing the rate of
economic growth, particularly in the Northeast and Amazonia. Brazil also won
the 1970 Football World Cup, promoting national pride and Brazil’s
international profile.
36.4.3: Brazil’s Growing Economy
Brazil’s economy is
characterized by moderately free markets and an inward-oriented approach to development.
Learning Objective
Detail some of the reasons for Brazil’s economic
growth in the latter 20th century
Key Points
From 2000 to
2012, Brazil was one of the fastest growing major economies of the world, with
an average annual GDP growth rate of over five percent. And from roughly 1968
to 1980, Brazil’s average annual GDP growth rate was approximately ten percent
during what was dubbed the Brazilian Miracle.
Much of Brazil’s
economic growth during the Brazilian Miracle can be attributed to a group of
technocrats led by Minister of Finance Antonio Delfim Netto, to whom the
military government entrusted economic policy.
The government
became directly involved in the economy, investing heavily in infrastructure,
building, and reducing reliance on imports.
As a result of
this industrial growth and investment in infrastructure, Brazil became an urban
society, with 67% of its population living in cities.
However, to continue fueling its economic growth, Brazil needed
more imported oil, and in the 1970s, a series of international energy crises
contributed to a deceleration in growth.
Key Terms
recession
In economics, a business cycle contraction that
results in a general slowdown in economic activity. Macroeconomic indicators
such as GDP (gross domestic product), investment spending, capacity
utilization, household income, business profits, and inflation fall, while
bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise.
hyperinflation
In economics, when a
country experiences very high and often accelerating rates of inflation,
rapidly eroding the real value of the local currency and causing the population
to minimize their holdings of local money, normally switching to
relatively stable foreign currencies.
From 2000 to 2012, Brazil
was one of the fastest growing major economies of the world, with an average
annual GDP growth rate of over five percent. In 2012, Brazil’s economy temporarily
became the world’s sixth largest economy, surpassing that of the United
Kingdom. However, Brazil’s economic growth decelerated in 2013 and the country
entered a recession in 2014. Similarly, Brazil’s development during the 1960s
was so impressive it was dubbed the Brazilian Miracle. During that time, Brazil
opened its markets and took an inward-looking approach to economic development.
Its economic growth was only impeded by a series of international energy crises
during the 1970s.
Central Rio de Janeiro
Central business district of Rio de Janeiro.
The Brazilian Miracle
The Brazilian Miracle refers
to a period between 1968 and 1980 during which Brazil experienced exceptional
economic growth during the rule of its military government. During that time,
the average annual GDP growth was close to ten percent. Economic growth was
particularly strong from 1969 to 1973 during the tenure of President Emilio
Garrastazu Medici. Perception of the so-called golden age of Brazilian
development was strengthened in 1970 when Brazil won the FIFA World Cup for the
third time and the military government adopted the official slogan, “Brasil,
ame-o ou deixe-o” (“Brazil, love it or leave it”).
Much of Brazil’s economic
growth can be attributed to a group of technocrats led by Minister of Finance,
Agriculture, and Planning Antonio Delfim Netto, to whom the military government
entrusted economic policy. The government became directly involved in the
economy, investing heavily in new highways, bridges, and railroads. Steel
mills, petrochemical factories, hydroelectric power plants, and nuclear
reactors were also built by large state-owned companies such as Eletrobras and
Petrobras. Additionally, to reduce reliance on imported oil, the ethanol
industry was heavily promoted. By 1980, 57% of Brazil’s exports were industrial
goods compared to just 20% in 1968.
Energy Crises and
Deceleration of Growth
As a result of this
industrial growth and investment in infrastructure, Brazil became an urban
society, with 67% of its population living in cities. Sao Paulo, in particular,
grew quickly due to a population influx from the poorer countryside. However,
to continue fueling its economic growth, Brazil needed more imported
oil. In the early to mid-1970s, President Ernesto Geisel removed long-time
Minister of Finance Netto and opened Brazil to oil prospecting by foreign firms
for the first time since the 1950s, fending off nationalist objections. Although
its growth and borrowing were sustainable during the early years of the
Brazilian Miracle, the 1973 global oil crisis required the military government
to borrow increasingly from international lenders to cover the rising
costs of fuel, and the resultant debt became unmanageable. By the end of the decade,
Brazil had the largest debt in the world at approximately US $92 billion.
Sao Paulo at Night
The Itaim Bibi Financial District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, shot by Rodrigo Ono.
As a result of the energy
crises of the 1970s, Brazil experienced a 14-year period of hyperinflation from
1980 until 1994. During this time, the republic cycled through several
short-lived currencies, including the cruzado, cruzado novo, cruzeiro, and
cruzeiro real. In 1994, the Brazilian real was introduced and proved stable
and enduring. Brazil also suffered drastic reductions in its terms of
trade as a result of the 1973 oil crisis. In the early 1970s, the performance
of the export sector was undermined by Brazil’s overvalued currency. With the
trade balance under pressure, the oil shock led to a sharply increased import bill,
raising import requirements and the already large
current-account deficit.
Brazil shifted its foreign policy to meet its economic needs. Due to its
reliance on foreign oil, Geisel shifted its strict alignment with the U.S. and its
allies to a more pragmatic approach, including a more neutral stance on
Middle Eastern political affairs. His government also recognized the People’s
Republic of China and the new socialist governments of Angola and Mozambique,
both former Portuguese colonies. The government moved closer to Japan and Latin
American and European countries as well.
36.5: Conflict Across Latin America
36.5.1: Cuba and the Castros
The Castros rose to power against a backdrop of
widespread dissatisfaction with Fulgencio Batista’s corrupt and repressive regime.
Learning Objective
Discuss the rise of the Castros
Key Points
Fidel Alejandro
Castro Ruz was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who governed the Republic
of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to
2008. Under his administration, Cuba became a one-party socialist state, industry
and business were nationalized, and state socialist reforms were implemented
throughout society.
In the decades
following its independence from Spain in 1902, Cuba experienced a period of
significant instability, enduring a number of revolts, coups, and periods of U.S. military intervention.
Fulgencio
Batista, a former soldier who served as the elected president of Cuba from
1940 to 1944, became president for the second time in March 1952 after seizing
power in a military coup. Although Batista was supported by the Communist
Party of Cuba during his first term as President, he became strongly
anti-communist during his second term, gaining him political and military support
from the United States.
Fidel Castro
petitioned for the overthrow of Batista, whom he accused of corruption and
tyranny; however, Castro’s constitutional arguments were rejected by the Cuban
courts. After deciding that the Cuban regime could not be replaced via legal
avenues, Castro resolved to launch an armed revolution.
Castro’s Movement
attacked a number of military installations, after which he and his brother Raul
were imprisoned. Upon release, he took his Movement to Mexico to regroup.
At the end of
1956, the Movement returned to Cuba, using the Sierra Maestra mountain range as its base.
Fighting between the Movement and the Batista regime would continue off and on through
the beginning of 1959.
The US imposed
an economic embargo on the Cuban government and recalled its ambassador during
the conflict, further weakening the Batista government’s mandate. Batista’s
support among Cubans began to fade, with former supporters either joining the
revolutionaries or distancing themselves from the regime.
On August 21,
1958, Castro’s forces began an offensive in the Oriente province, proceeding
west from the Sierra Maestra mountain range toward Santa Clara. On January 2, 1959, the
military stopped resisting their progress and Castro took the city, ending the
revolution in a victory for his Movement.
The Cuban
Revolution was a crucial turning point in U.S.-Cuban relations, with the American
establishment fearing further Communist insurgencies would spread throughout
Latin America as they had in Southeast Asia.
As the Americans took a harder line against the Cuban revolutionary
government, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main ally and ideological influence.
Key Terms
embargo
An embargo (derived from the Spanish word embargo) is the partial or complete
prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country or group of
countries. Embargoes are considered a strong diplomatic measure to elicit
a specific result from the country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are
similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to
trade as opposed to blockades, which are acts of war.
escopeteros
Scouts and pickets from the Sierra Maestra and
other mountain ranges during the Cuban Revolution. They were responsible for
semi-continuously holding terrain against smaller sized Batista patrols, as
well as providing first alerts, communications, protected supply routes,
essential intelligence, and captured weapons to the mainline Castro forces in
the high mountains.
Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz
was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who governed the Republic of Cuba as
Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008.
Politically a Marxist-Leninist and Cuban nationalist, he also served as the
First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba from 1961 until 2011. Under his
administration, Cuba became a one-party socialist state, industry and business
were nationalized, and state socialist reforms were implemented throughout
society.
Background and Causes of the
Cuban Revolution
In the decades following its
independence from Spain in 1902, Cuba experienced a period of significant instability,
enduring a number of revolts, coups, and periods of U.S. military intervention.
Fulgencio Batista, a former soldier who served as the elected president of
Cuba from 1940 to 1944, became president for the second time in March 1952 after
seizing power in a military coup and canceling the planned 1952 elections.
Although Batista was relatively progressive during his first term, he
proved far more dictatorial and indifferent to popular concerns in the 1950s.
While Cuba remained plagued by high unemployment and limited water
infrastructure, Batista antagonized the population by forming lucrative links to
organized crime and allowing American companies to dominate the Cuban economy. Throughout
the 1950s, Havana became the setting for the American mafia, corrupt law
enforcement officials, and their political elected cronies to profit off
gambling, prostitution, and the drug trade. By the
end of the 1950s, Havana had about 270 brothels. Additionally, marijuana and cocaine
were as plentiful as and sometimes similarly priced to alcohol.
Although Batista was supported by the Communist Party of Cuba during his first term as President, he
became strongly anti-communist during his second term, gaining him political
and military support from the United States. Batista also developed a powerful
security infrastructure to silence political opponents during his second
term. In the months following the March 1952 coup, Fidel Castro, then a young
lawyer and activist, petitioned for the overthrow of Batista, whom he accused
of corruption and tyranny; however, Castro’s constitutional arguments were
rejected by the Cuban courts. After deciding that the Cuban regime could not be
replaced via legal avenues, Castro resolved to launch an armed revolution. To
this end, he and his brother Raul founded a paramilitary organization known as
“The Movement,” stockpiling weapons and recruiting around 1,200 followers from
Havana’s disgruntled working class by the end of 1952.
The Revolution
Fidel and Raul gathered
Movement fighters and attacked a number of military installations, including
the Moncada Barracks in Santiago. Many rebels were captured and executed by the
military, and Fidel and Raul were imprisoned following a highly political trial
in which Fidel defended himself for nearly four hours, ending with the infamous
words, “Condemn me, it does not matter. History will absolve me.” The brothers
were sentenced to more than 10 years each, but released in 1955 as a result of broad
political pressure placed upon the Batista government. Soon after
their release, the brothers traveled to Mexico with a group of exiles to
prepare for Batista’s overthrow. In June 1955, Fidel met with the Argentine
revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, who joined his cause. The revolutionaries
named themselves the 26th of July Movement in reference to the
attack on the Moncada Barracks that took place on that date in 1953.
Che and Fidel
Revolutionary leaders Che Guevara (left) and Fidel Castro (right) in 1961.
On November 25, 1956, the 26th
of July Movement departed Veracruz, Mexico for Cuba, arriving a week later.
They took to the Sierra Maestra mountains, a range in southeastern Cuba, and
were attacked three days after beginning their trek by Batista’s army. No more
than 20 of the original 82 participants survived. On March 13, 1957, a separate
group of revolutionaries, the anticommunist Student Revolutionary Directorate
(RD), stormed the Presidential Palace in Havana, attempting to assassinate
Batista and decapitate the government. The attack failed and the RD’s leader
was killed during a shootout.
After this, the United States imposed an economic embargo on the Cuban government and recalled its
ambassador, further weakening the Batista government’s mandate. As a result,
Batista’s support among Cubans began to fade, with former supporters either
joining the revolutionaries or distancing themselves from the regime.
Nonetheless, the mafia and U.S. businessmen maintained their support for the
regime. Batista’s government resorted to brutal methods to keep Cuba’s cities
under control.
Meanwhile, Castro’s forces
in the Sierra Maestra mountains staged successful attacks on small garrisons of
Batista’s troops. Additionally, poorly armed irregular forces not associated
with Castro known as escopeteros
harassed Batista’s forces in the foothills and plains of Oriente Province.
Eventually the escopeteros provided
direct military support to Castro’s main forces by protecting supply lines and
sharing intelligence. Over time, the Sierra Maestra mountains came under
Castro’s complete control. In addition to armed resistance, the rebels used
propaganda to their advantage. A pirate radio station called Radio Rebelde
(“Rebel Radio”) was set up in February 1958, allowing Castro and his forces to
broadcast their message nationwide within enemy territory.
Although Castro’s forces
remained fairly small, they were continuously successful in forcing
Batista’s army to retreat whenever the two forces met. Finally, Batista
responded to Castro’s successes with an attack on the mountains called
Operation Verano, or to the rebels, la Ofensiva. The operation was close for
some time, but the tide turned in Batista’s favor on July 29, 1958, when his
troops almost completely destroyed Castro’s 300-man army at the Battle of Las
Mercedes. Castro asked for and was granted a cease-fire on August 1. Within a
week, Castro’s forces escaped back into the mountains.
Raúl Castro and Che Guevara
Raúl Castro (left) with his arm around his second-in-command, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, in their Sierra de Cristal mountain stronghold in Oriente Province, Cuba, in 1958.
On August 21, 1958, Castro’s
forces began their own offensive in the Oriente province, proceeding west
toward Santa Clara. As a column of rebels led by Guevara entered territory where the
RD had been fighting Batista’s forces, the two groups, seeing past initial
friction, joined together to rout the army. By December 31, 1958, both groups
of rebels met with the 26th of July Movement troops headed by Camilo
Cienfuegos in Santa Clara, and the city fell to their combined forces. News of
his defeat in Santa Clara caused Batista to panic, and he fled to the Dominican
Republic hours later. When Castro learned of Batista’s flight from Cuba, he
began negotiations to take over Santiago de Cuba. On January 2, 1959, the
military commander in the city ordered troops not to fight, and Castro’s forces
took the city. Castro then arrived in Havana on January 8 after a long victory
march.
International Reactions and
Foreign Policy
The Cuban Revolution was a
crucial turning point in U.S.-Cuban relations. Although John F. Kennedy expressed
sympathy for the initial goals of Castro’s rebel movement and the U.S. government initially intended to recognize the new regime, the fear that
further Communist insurgencies would spread throughout Latin America as they
had in Southeast Asia caused a reverse in tactics. After the revolutionary
government nationalized all U.S. property in Cuba in August 1960, the Eisenhower
administration froze all Cuban assets on American soil, severed diplomatic
ties, and tightened its embargo of Cuba. In 1961, the U.S. government backed an
armed counter-revolutionary assault on the Bay of Pigs with the aim of ousting
Castro, but the counter-revolutionaries were swiftly defeated by the Cuban
military. Castro, meanwhile, resented the Americans for providing aid to
the Batista government during the revolution and attempting to subvert
the Cuban revolutionary government militarily and economically in subsequent
years.
Following the American embargo, the Soviet Union became Cuba’s main ally
and ideological influence. The two Communist countries quickly developed close
military and intelligence ties, culminating in the stationing of Soviet nuclear
weapons in Cuba in 1962, an act that triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis. Influenced
by the expansion of the Soviet Union into Europe after the 1917 Russian
Revolution, Castro sought to export his revolution to other countries in the Caribbean
and beyond, sending weapons to Algerian rebels as early as 1960. In the
following decades, Cuba became heavily involved in supporting Communist
insurgencies and independence movements in many developing countries, sending
military aid to insurgents in Ghana, Nicaragua, and Yemen, among others. Cuba continued
to maintain close links to the Soviets until the Soviet Union’s collapse in
1991. The end of Soviet economic aid led to an economic crisis and famine
throughout Cuba known as the Special Period.
36.5.2: The Guatemalan Civil War
The Guatemalan Civil War spanned nearly four
decades, stemmed from a number of institutionalized grievances among different
social classes, and included a large-scale, one-sided campaign of violence
against the civilian population by the state.
Learning Objective
Explain the controversy surrounding the
Guatemalan Civil War
Key Points
The Guatemalan
Civil War took place from 1960 to 1996 between the government of
Guatemala and various leftist rebel groups supported chiefly by ethnic Maya
indigenous people and Ladino peasants, who together made up the rural poor.
Guatemalan
society was composed of three sharply defined classes throughout this period:
Criollos, Ladinos, and indigenous peoples.
Democratic
elections during the Guatemalan Revolution in 1944 and 1951 brought popular
leftist governments to power, but a U.S.-backed coup in 1954 installed the
military regime of Carlos Castillo Armas, who was followed by a series of
conservative military dictators.
On November 13,
1960, a group of left-wing officers from the national military academy led a
failed revolt against the autocratic government of General Ydigoras Fuentes. The
surviving officers fled into the hills of eastern Guatemala and established an
insurgent movement known as the MR-13 (Movimiento Revolucionario 13 Noviembre).
As well as
fighting between government forces and rebel groups, the conflict included a
large -scale, coordinated campaign of one-sided violence by the Guatemalan state
against the civilian population.
In 1970, Colonel
Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio became the first of a series of military dictators
representing the Institutional Democratic Party or PID that would rule the
country for the next 12 years.
Starting in
1983, de facto president Mejía Victores allowed a gradual return to democracy
in Guatemala.
Under de Leon,
the peace process, now brokered by the United Nations, took on new life. The
government and the URNG signed agreements on human rights (March 1994),
resettlement of displaced persons (June 1994), historical clarification (June
1994), and indigenous rights (March 1995).
Under the Arzú administration, peace negotiations were concluded, and
the government and URNG, which became a legal party, signed peace accords
ending the 36-year internal conflict in December 1996.
Key Terms
disappeared
A person who is secretly abducted or imprisoned
by a state or political organization, or by a third party with the
authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization.
Following abduction, there is a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate or
whereabouts, essentially placing the victim outside the protection of the law.
genocide
The intentional act to destroy a people (usually
defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in
part.
The Guatemalan Civil War took
place from 1960 to 1996. It was fought between the government of Guatemala and
various leftist rebel groups supported chiefly by ethnic Maya indigenous people
and Ladino peasants, who together make up the rural poor. The government forces
of Guatemala have been condemned for committing genocide against the Maya
population of Guatemala during the civil war and for widespread human rights
violations against civilians.
Background
After the 1871 revolution,
the Liberal government of Justo Rufino Barrios escalated coffee production in
Guatemala, which required much land and many workers. To support these needs, Barrios established the Settler Rule Book, which forced the
native population work for low wages for Criollo and German settler
landowners. Barrios also confiscated the native population’s land, which had
been protected during Spanish rule and the Conservative government of Rafael
Carrera. Barrios redistributed the confiscated land to his Liberal friends, who
in turn became important landowners.
Societal Structure
Guatemalan society was
composed of three sharply defined classes throughout this period. Criollos were
a minority group who descended from both the ancient families of the Spaniards
that conquered Central America and the Indians who had been conquered by
the Spaniards. As of the 1920s, the Criollos led the country both politically
and intellectually by virtue of their education, which, although poor by
European standards of the time, remained superior to that of the
rest of the people in the country. That was partially because Criollo families controlled
or owned most of the cultivated areas of Guatemala and were the only group
allowed in either of the main political parties. The Guatemalan middle class,
Ladinos, was composed of people with heritage from the native and black populations
as well as Criollos. Ladinos held almost no political power in the 1920s and
made up the bulk of artisans, storekeepers, tradesmen, and minor officials. In
the eastern part of the country, many Ladinos were agricultural laborers.
The majority of the
Guatemalan population was composed of indigenous peoples referred to as
Indians. Many had no formal education and served as
soldiers or agricultural workers. Within the indigenous population were further
categories: “Mozos colonos” settled on plantations and were given a
small piece of land to cultivate on their own in return for their work on the
plantation itself, while “mozos jornaleros” were day-laborers who were contracted to
work for certain periods of time and paid a daily wage in return.
Both of these categories typically worked to pay off debts to higher
class individuals, who in turn encouraged the assumption of further debt on the
part of the indigenous person. Often, due to the large amount of debt and small
amount of pay, a mozo essentially became an indentured servant to the owner of
their debt. If a mozo refused to work or attempted to run away, the owner of
their debt could have them pursued and even imprisoned. Nonetheless, some
indigenous people remained independent tillers, who lived
in remote provinces and survived by growing a subsistence crop of maize, beans,
or wheat. Occasionally a small margin of their crop would be available for sale
in town markets, but the travel to get to these markets could be arduous.
Initial Phases of the Civil
War
Democratic elections during
the Guatemalan Revolution in 1944 and 1951 brought popular leftist
governments to power, but a United States backed coup d’état in 1954 installed
the military regime of Carlos Castillo Armas, followed by a series of
conservative military dictators. On November 13, 1960, a group of left-wing
junior military officers from the national military academy led a failed revolt
against the autocratic government of General Ydigoras Fuentes, who usurped
power in 1958 following the assassination of incumbent Armas. The surviving
officers fled into the hills of eastern Guatemala and later established
communication with the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. By 1962, those
surviving officers had established an insurgent movement known as the MR-13
(Movimiento Revolucionario 13 Noviembre), named after the date of the initial officers’
revolt. Through the early phase of the conflict, the MR-13 was a principal
component of the insurgent movement in Guatemala.
The MR-13 later initiated
contact with the outlawed PGT (Guatemalan Labour Party), composed and led by
middle-class intellectuals and students, and a student organization called the
Movimiento 12 de Abril (April 12 Movement). These groups merged into an
coalition guerrilla organization called the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR) in December
1962. Also affiliated with the FAR was the FGEI (Edgar Ibarra Guerrilla Front).
The MR-13, PGT, and FGEI each operated in different parts of the country as
three separate “frentes” (fronts). The MR-13 established itself in
the mostly Ladino departments of Izabal and Zacapa. The FGEI established itself
in Sierra de las Minas, and the PGT operated as an urban guerrilla front. Each
of these three “frentes” (comprising no more than 500 combatants)
was led by former members of the 1960 army revolt who has been
trained in counterinsurgency warfare by the United States.
As well as fighting between
government forces and rebel groups, the conflict included a large-scale,
coordinated campaign of one-sided violence by the Guatemalan state against the
civilian population from the mid-1960s onward. The military intelligence
services (G2 or S2) and an affiliated intelligence organization known as La
Regional or Archivo, headquartered in an annex of the presidential palace, were
responsible for coordinating killings and “disappearances” of
opponents of the state, suspected insurgents, and those deemed by the
intelligence services to be collaborators. The Guatemalan state was the first
in Latin America to engage in widespread use of forced disappearances against
its opposition, with the number of disappeared estimated at between 40,000 and
50,000 from 1966 until the end of the war. In rural areas where the insurgency
maintained its strongholds, the repression amounted to wholesale slaughter of
the peasantry and massacres of entire villages, starting in Izabal and Zacapa (1966–68)
and later in the predominantly Mayan western highlands. In the
early 1980s, the killings reached the scale of
genocide.
Exhumation in the Ixil triangle in Guatemala
Queqchí people carrying their loved one’s remains after an exhumation in Cambayal in Alta Verapaz department, Guatemala in February 2012. Since 1997, the Centre of Forensic Anthropology and Applied Sciences (CAFCA) has been helping to heal the deep wounds caused by Guatemala’s internal conflict.
Domination by Military
Rulers
In 1970, Colonel Carlos
Manuel Arana Osorio became the first of a series of military dictators
representing the Institutional Democratic Party, or PID. The PID dominated
Guatemalan politics for 12 years via electoral fraud favoring two of Arana’s
proteges: General Kjell Eugenio Laugerud Garcia in 1974 and General Romeo Lucas
Garcia in 1978. Also during the 1970s, continuing social discontent gave rise
to an insurgency among large populations of indigenous people and peasants, who
traditionally bore the brunt of unequal land tenure.The PID lost its grip on Guatemalan
politics when General Efraín Ríos Montt, together with a group of junior army
officers, seized power in a military coup on March 23, 1982. During the 1980s,
the Guatemalan military assumed almost absolute government power for five
years. It successfully infiltrated and eliminated enemies in every
socio-political institution of the nation, including the political, social, and
intellectual classes. In the final stage of the civil war, the military
developed a parallel, semi-visible, low profile, but high-effect, control of
Guatemala’s national life.
Mejia Victores Regime and
Democratic Transition
Ríos Montt was deposed on
August 8, 1983, by his own Minister of Defense, General Óscar Humberto Mejía
Victores. Mejía Victores became de facto president and justified the coup by characterizing
Montt’s regime as corrupt and its officials as abusing their positions of power
within the government. Montt remained in politics, founding the Guatemalan
Republican Front party in 1989. He was elected President of Congress in 1995
and 2000. By the time Mejia Victores assumed power, the counterinsurgency under
Lucas Garcia and Montt had largely succeeded in its objective of detaching the
insurgency from its civilian support base. Additionally, G2 had infiltrated most political institutions, eradicating opponents in the
government through terror and selective assassinations. The counterinsurgency
program had militarized Guatemalan society, creating a fearful atmosphere that suppressed most public agitation and insurgency. The military had
consolidated its power in virtually all sectors of society.
Due to international
pressure as well as pressure from other Latin American nations, Mejía Victores
allowed a gradual return to democracy in Guatemala. On July 1, 1984, an election
was held for representatives to a Constituent Assembly to draft a democratic
constitution. On May 30, 1985, the Constituent Assembly finished drafting a new
constitution, which took effect immediately. General elections were scheduled
and civilian candidate Vinicio Cerezo was elected as president. The gradual
revival of democracy did not end the disappearances and death squad killings,
however, as extrajudicial state violence had become an integral part of the
political culture.
The Democratic Era
Cerezo Administration
Vinicio Cerezo, a civilian
politician and the presidential candidate of the Guatemalan Christian
Democracy, won the first election held under the new constitution with almost
70% of the vote. Upon its inauguration in January 1986, President Cerezo’s
civilian government announced that its top priorities would be to end the
political violence and establish rule of law. Reforms included new laws of
habeas corpus and amparo
(court-ordered protection), the creation of a legislative human rights
committee, and the establishment in 1987 of the Office of Human Rights
Ombudsman. The Supreme Court also embarked on a series of reforms to fight
corruption and improve legal system efficiency.
With Cerezo’s election, the
military moved away from governing and returned to the more traditional role of
providing internal security, specifically by fighting armed insurgents. The
first two years of Cerezo’s administration were characterized by a stable
economy and a marked decrease in political violence. Dissatisfied military
personnel made coup attempts in May 1988 and May 1989, but military
leadership supported the constitutional order. The government was heavily
criticized for its unwillingness to investigate or prosecute cases of human
rights violations, however.
Presidential and
congressional elections were held on November 11, 1990. After the second-round
ballot, Jorge Antonio Serrano Elías was inaugurated on January 14, 1991, completing the first transition from one democratically elected civilian
government to another. Because his Movement of Solidarity Action (MAS) Party
gained only 18 of 116 seats in Congress, Serrano entered into a tenuous
alliance with the Christian Democrats and the National Union of the Center
(UCN).
Serrano Administration
The Serrano administration’s
record was mixed. It had some success in consolidating civilian control over
the army, replacing a number of senior officers and persuading the military to
participate in peace talks with the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, or
URNG, an umbrella organization representing leftist beliefs among the
Guatemalan people, particularly the poor. He took the politically unpopular
step of recognizing the sovereignty of Belize, which until then was officially though fruitlessly claimed by Guatemala. The Serrano government
reversed the economic slump it inherited, reducing inflation and creating real growth. Then on May 25, 1993, Serrano illegally dissolved Congress and
the Supreme Court and attempted to restrict civil freedoms, allegedly in
order to fight corruption. The auto-coup failed due to the unified efforts of
most elements of Guatemalan society to protest Serrano’s actions, international
pressure, and the army’s enforcement of the decisions of the Court of
Constitutionality, which ruled against the attempted takeover.
Subsequently, Serrano fled
the country and pursuant to the provisions of the 1985 constitution, the
Guatemalan Congress elected the Human Rights Ombudsman, Alfonso Guillermo de
León Marroquín, to complete Serrano’s presidential term as of June 5, 1993. De
Leon was not a member of any political party and lacked a political base. Nonetheless,
he enjoyed strong popular support. During his time in office, he launched an
ambitious anti-corruption campaign within Congress and the Supreme Court,
demanding the resignations of all members of the two bodies.
Renewed Peace Process (1994
to 1996)
Under de Leon, the peace
process, now brokered by the United Nations, took on new life. The government
and the URNG signed agreements on human rights (March 1994), resettlement of
displaced persons (June 1994), historical clarification (June 1994), and
indigenous rights (March 1995). They also made significant progress on a socioeconomic
and agrarian agreement.
National elections for
president, Congress, and municipal offices were held in November 1995. With
almost 20 parties competing in the first round, the presidential election came
down to a January 7, 1996, run-off in which National Advancement Party (PAN)
candidate Álvaro Arzú Irigoyen defeated Alfonso Portillo Cabrera of the Guatemalan
Republican Front (FRG) by just over two percent of the vote. Arzú won because
of his strength in Guatemala City, where he previously served as mayor, and
in the surrounding urban area. Portillo won all of the rural departments except
Petén. Under the Arzú administration, peace negotiations were concluded, and
the government and URNG, which became a legal party, signed peace accords
ending the 36-year internal conflict in December 1996. The General Secretary of
the URNG, Comandante Rolando Morán, and President Álvaro Arzú jointly received
the UNESCO Peace Prize for their efforts to end the civil war and attain the
peace agreement. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1094 on
January 20, 1997, deploying military observers to Guatemala to monitor the
implementation of the peace agreements.
Legal Charges of Crimes
Against Humanity
In total, an estimated
200,000 civilians were killed or “disappeared” during the
conflict, most at the hands of the military, police, and intelligence services.
Victims of the repression included indigenous activists, suspected government
opponents, returning refugees, critical academics, students, left-leaning
politicians, trade unionists, religious workers, journalists, and street
children. The “Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico” has
estimated that 93% of the violence committed during the conflict was carried
out by government forces and 3% by guerrillas. In 2009, Guatemalan courts
sentenced the first person to be convicted of the crime of ordering forced
disappearances, Felipe Cusanero. This was followed by the 2013 trial of former
president Montt for the killing and disappearances of more than 1,700 indigenous
Ixil Maya during his 1982-83 rule. The accusations of genocide derived from the
“Memoria del Silencio” report written by the UN-appointed Commission
for Historical Clarification, which held that genocide could have occurred in
Quiché between 1981 and 1983.
The first former head of state to be tried for genocide by his own
country’s judicial system, Montt was found guilty the day following the
conclusion of his trial and sentenced to 80 years in prison. A few days
later, however, the sentence was reversed and the trial was rescheduled due to alleged judicial anomalies. The trial began again in 2015. The
court decided, due to his alleged senility, that a closed door trial would resume
in January 2016, and that if Montt were found guilty, a jail sentence
would be precluded given his health condition.
Ex-General Efrain Rios Montt testifying during his trial on March 19, 2013
Montt
declared himself innocent: “I am innocent. I never had the intention of destroying any national ethnic group. My role as head of State was specifically to bring the nation back on track, after it had gone astray.”
36.5.3: From the Somozas to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua
In the 20th century, Nicaragua
transitioned from an oligarchic dictatorship to the revolutionary government of
a democratic socialist political party.
Learning Objective
Outline events in Nicaragua moving from the
Somozas to the Sandinistas
Key Points
The longest dictatorship
in Nicaragua’s history was the hereditary dictatorship of the Somoza family,
who ruled for 43 years during the 20th century.
The Somoza
family was among a few families or groups of influential firms that reaped most
of the benefits of the country’s growth from the 1950s to the 1970s.
In 1961, Carlos
Fonseca and two others founded the Sandinista National Liberation
Front (FSLN).
On December 27,
1974, a group of nine FSLN guerrillas invaded a party at the home of a former
Minister of Agriculture, killing him and three guards and taking
several leading government officials and prominent businessmen hostage. Anastasio
Somoza Debayle, in his memoirs, refers to this action as the beginning of a
sharp escalation of Sandinista attacks and government reprisals.
The country
tipped into full-scale civil war with the 1978 murder of Pedro Chamorro, a
Nicaraguan journalist and publisher who opposed violence against the
regime.
In May 1979,
another general strike was called and the FSLN launched a major push to take
control of the country. As Nicaragua’s government collapsed and the National
Guard commanders escaped with Somoza, the rebels advanced on the capital
victoriously.
On July 19,
1979, a new government was proclaimed under a provisional junta headed by
33-year-old Daniel Ortega. Then, the Sandinistas were victorious in the
national election of November 4, 1984, gathering 67% of the vote.
American support
for the Somoza family soured diplomatic relations with Nicaragua, and the FSLN
government was committed to a Marxist ideology, with many leading Sandinista individuals
continuing long-standing relationships with the Soviet Union and Cuba. With the
election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, relations between the US and the Sandinista
regime became an active front in the Cold War.
The first
challenge to the Sandanistas’ powerful new army came from the Contras, groups
of Somoza’s National Guard that had fled to Honduras and were organized,
trained, and funded by CIA elements.
Mutual exhaustion, Sandinista fears of Contra unity and military
success, and mediation by other regional governments led to a ceasefire between
the Sandinistas and the Contras on March 23, 1988. Subsequent agreements were
designed to reintegrate the Contras and their supporters into Nicaraguan
society.
Key Terms
embargo
An embargo (derived from the Spanish word embargo) is the partial or complete
prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country or group of
countries. Embargoes are considered a strong diplomatic measure to elicit
a specific result from the country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are
similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade
as opposed to blockades, which are acts of war.
Sandinista National Liberation
Front (FSLN)
Now a democratic socialist political party, but
previously a Nicaraguan resistance organization opposed to the hereditary Somoza
dictatorship.
Somoza Dynasty (1927-1979)
Over the course of its
history, Nicaragua has experienced several military dictatorships; the longest
was the hereditary dictatorship of the Somoza family, who ruled for 43 years
during the 20th century. The Somoza family came to power as part of
a U.S.-engineered pact in 1927 that stipulated the formation of the Guardia
Nacional (National Guard) to replace the marines who had long reigned in
Nicaragua. Anastasio Somoza slowly eliminated officers in the National Guard
who might have stood in his way, then deposed President Juan Bautista Sacasa to
become Nicaragua’s new president on January 1, 1937, in a rigged election. When
Anastasio was shot and mortally wounded by Liberal Nicaraguan poet Rigoberto
Lopez Perez on September 21, 1956, his eldest son, Luis Somoza Debayle, was
appointed president by Congress and officially took charge of the country. He
is remembered as moderate, but was only in power for a few years
before dying of a heart attack. His successor as president was Rene Schick
Gutierrez, widely considered a puppet of the Somoza family.
Somoza and Trujillo (1952)
Dictator-General Anastasio Somoza (left) with Dominican President Rafael Trujillo in 1952.
The Somoza family was among
a few families or groups of influential firms that reaped most of the benefits
of the country’s growth from the 1950s to the 1970s. When Anastasio Somoza
Debayle was deposed by the Sandinistas in 1979, the family’s worth was
estimated between U.S. $500 million and $1.5 billion. In 1972 when an
earthquake destroyed nearly 90% of Managua, Anastasio Somoza Debayle siphoned
off relief money instead of helping to rebuild the city. Even the economic
elite were reluctant to support Somoza following his actions as he had acquired
monopolies in industries that were key to rebuilding the nation.
Nicaraguan Revolution
(1960s-1990)
In 1961, Carlos Fonseca
turned back to the historical figure of Augusto Cesar Sandino, the charismatic
leader of Nicaragua’s nationalist rebellion against the U.S. occupation of the
country, and along with two others, founded the Sandinista National Liberation
Front (FSLN). The December 1972 Managua earthquake was a major turning point in
the revival of the Sandinistas, stoking violent opposition to the government
during a time of heightened international attention. The Sandinistas even
received some support from Cuba and the Soviet Union during this period.
On December 27, 1974, a
group of nine FSLN guerrillas invaded a party at the home of a former Minister
of Agriculture, killing him and three guards in the process of taking several
leading government officials and prominent businessmen hostage. In return for
the hostages, they succeeded in getting the government to pay U.S. $2 million
ransom, the broadcast of an FSLN declaration on the radio and in the opposition
newspaper La Prensa, the release of
14 FSLN members from jail, and flights for the raiders and the released FSLN
members to Cuba. The incident humiliated the government and greatly enhanced
the prestige of the FSLN. Anastasio Somoza Debayle, in his memoirs, refers to
this action as the beginning of a sharp escalation in terms of Sandinista
attacks and government reprisals. Martial law was declared in 1975, and the
National Guard began to raze villages in the jungle suspected of supporting the
rebels. Human rights groups condemned the actions, but U.S. President Gerald Ford
refused to break the alliance with Somoza.
The country tipped into
full-scale civil war with the 1978 murder of Pedro Chamorro, a Nicaraguan
journalist and publisher who opposed violence against the regime. Fifty
thousand people turned out for his funeral. Many assumed that Somoza
ordered his assassination because there was evidence implicating Somoza’s
son and other members of the National Guard. A nationwide strike commenced in
protest, demanding an end to the dictatorship. At the same time, the
Sandinistas stepped up their rate of guerrilla activity. Several towns,
assisted by Sandinista guerrillas, expelled their National Guard units. Somoza
responded with increasing violence and repression. When León became the first
city in Nicaragua to fall to the Sandinistas, he responded with aerial
bombardment.
The U.S. media grew
increasingly unfavorable in its reporting on the situation in Nicaragua.
Realizing that the Somoza dictatorship was unsustainable, the Carter
administration attempted to force him to leave Nicaragua. Somoza refused and
sought to maintain his power through the National Guard. At that point, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be
“ill-advised” to call off the bombing, because such an action would
help the Sandinistas gain power. When ABC reporter Bill Stewart was executed by
the National Guard and graphic film of the killing was broadcast on TV, the
American public became more hostile to Somoza. In the end, President Carter
refused Somoza further military aid, believing that the repressive nature of
the government led to popular support for the Sandinista uprising.
Beginning of the Sandinista
Period
In May 1979, another general
strike was called, and the FSLN launched a major push to take control of the
country. By mid-July, they had Somoza and the National Guard isolated in
Managua. As Nicaragua’s government collapsed and the National Guard commanders
escaped with Somoza, the rebels advanced on the capital victoriously. On July
19, 1979, a new government was proclaimed under a provisional junta headed by
33-year-old Daniel Ortega. The FSLN took over a nation plagued by malnutrition,
disease, and pesticide contamination. Lake Managua was considered dead because
of decades of pesticide runoff, toxic chemical pollution from lakeside
factories, and untreated sewage. Soil erosion and dust storms were also a
problem in Nicaragua due to deforestation. To tackle these crises,
the FSLN created the Nicaraguan Institute of Natural Resources and the
Environment.
The Sandinistas were
victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984, gathering 67% of the
vote. The election was certified “free and fair” by the majority of
international observers, although the Nicaraguan political opposition and the
Reagan administration claimed political restrictions were placed on the
opposition by the government. The primary opposition candidate was the U.S.-backed
Arturo Cruz, who succumbed to pressure from the United States government not to
take part in the 1984 elections. Other opposition parties such as the Conservative
Democratic Party and the Independent Liberal Party were free to denounce
the Sandinista government and participate in the elections. Later, historians
such as Christopher Andrews did find evidence that the FSLN was actively
suppressing right-wing opposition parties while leaving moderate parties alone.
Communist Leanings and U.S. Contras
American support for the Somoza
family soured diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. The FSLN government
was committed to a Marxist ideology, with many leading Sandinista individuals continuing
long-standing relationships with the Soviet Union and Cuba. U.S. President Carter
initially hoped that continued American aid to the new government would keep
the Sandinistas from forming a Marxist-Leninist government aligned with the
Soviet bloc, but the Carter administration allotted the Sandinistas minimal
funding, and the Sandinistas resolutely turned away from the United States, investing
Cuban and East European assistance into a new army of 75,000. The buildup
included T-55 heavy tanks, heavy artillery, and HIND attack helicopters, an
unprecedented military buildup that made the Sandinista Army more powerful than
all of its neighbors combined.
The first challenge to the
powerful new army came from the Contras, groups of Somoza’s National Guard that
had fled to Honduras and were organized, trained, and funded by CIA elements
involved in cocaine trafficking in Central America. The Contra chain of command
included some ex-National Guardsmen, including Contra founder and commander
Enrique Bermúdez. One prominent Contra commander, however, was ex-Sandinista
hero Edén Pastora, aka “Commadante Zero”, who rejected the Leninist orientation
of his fellow commandantes. The Contras operated out of camps in neighboring Honduras
to the north and Costa Rica to the south. They engaged in a systematic campaign
of terror among the rural Nicaraguan population er to disrupt the
social reform projects of the Sandinistas. The Contra campaign and supporting Reagan administration came under criticism for the brutality and
numerous human rights violations related to these operations, including the
destruction of health centers, schools, and cooperatives at the hands of the
rebels.
With the election of Ronald
Reagan in 1980, relations between the United States and the Sandinista regime became an
active front in the Cold War. The Reagan administration insisted that the
Sandinistas posed a Communist threat, reacting particularly to the support
provided to them by Cuban president Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas’ close
military relations with the Soviets and Cubans. Opposition to the Sandanistas also
furthered the Reagan administration’s desire to protect U.S. interests in the
region, which were threatened by the policies of the Sandinista government. The
U.S. quickly suspended aid to Nicaragua and expanded the supply of arms and
training to the Contra rebels in neighboring Honduras, as well as allied groups
based in Costa Rica. American pressure against the government escalated
throughout 1983 and 1984. The Contras began a campaign of economic sabotage and
disrupted shipping by planting underwater mines in Nicaragua’s Port of Corinto,
an action condemned by the International Court of Justice as illegal. The U.S. refused to pay restitution and claimed that the ICJ was not competent to judge
the case. The UN General Assembly also passed a resolution in order to pressure
the U.S. to pay the fine.
On May 1, 1985, Reagan issued an executive order that imposed a full
economic embargo on Nicaragua, which remained in force until March 1990.
However, in 1982, legislation was enacted by the U.S. Congress to prohibit
further direct aid to the Contras. Reagan’s officials attempted to illegally
supply them out of the proceeds of arms sales to Iran and third-party
donations, triggering the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986–87. Mutual exhaustion,
Sandinista fears of Contra unity and military success, and mediation by other
regional governments led to the Sapoa ceasefire between the Sandinistas and the
Contras on March 23, 1988. Subsequent agreements were designed to reintegrate
the Contras and their supporters into Nicaraguan society in preparation for
general elections.
36.5.4: Colombia and the FARC
FARC’s
guerrilla movement against the Colombian government, an active conflict since
1964, has been fraught with violence, human rights abuses, and numerous
attempts to broker a lasting peace.
Learning Objective
Summarize
the history of conflict between the FARC and the Colombian government
Key Points
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s
Army (FARC) is a guerrilla movement involved in the continuing Colombian armed
conflict since 1964. It was formed by Manuel Marulanda Vélez in the aftermath
of the Lleras government’s unsuccessful attacks on communist communities.
Initially, FARC rejected any involvement in the
emerging phenomenon of drug growing and trafficking, but during the 1980s, the
group gradually came to accept it as a burgeoning business.
La Uribe Agreement called for a ceasefire
between the government and FARC, which lasted from 1984 until 1987. In 1985,
members of FARC-EP, along with a large number of other leftist and communist
groups, formed a political party known as the Union Patriótica.
Towards the end of 1990, the army attacked
a compound known as Casa Verde, which houses the National Secretariat of the
FARC-EP, justifying the attack by FARC-EP’s lack of commitment to the peace
process.
On June 3, 1991, dialogue resumed between the
Simon Bolivar Guerrilla Coordinating Board and the government. However, armed attacks by both sides continued. The negotiations
were broken off in 1993 when no agreement could be reached.
Another round of negotiations began on November
7, 1998, under President Andres Pastrana, who granted FARC-EP a 42,000-square-kilometer safe
haven as a confidence-building measure. Unfortunately, the peace
talks ended on February 21, 2002, due to a series of high-profile guerrilla
actions.
For most of the period between 2002 and 2005, FARC-EP
was believed to be in strategic withdrawal due to the increasing military and
police actions of President Alvaro Uribe.
Military offensives carried out under former
President Uribe and President Santos have significantly reduced the
number of FARC combatants and reduce FARC territorial control.
The Colombian government under President Santos and
FARC signed a peace deal on November 24, 2016, and Congress approved it on
November 30, 2016.
Key Terms
ceasefire
A temporary
stoppage of war in which each side agrees with the other to suspend aggressive
actions.
guerrilla
A
participant in an irregular form of warfare in which small groups engage in military
tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run
tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less mobile traditional military.
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army (FARC)
is a guerrilla movement involved in the continuing Colombian armed conflict
since 1964. It employs a variety of military tactics in
addition to more unconventional methods, including terrorism. The FARC-EP,
formed during the Cold War as a Marxist-Leninist peasant force, promotes
a political line of agrarianism and anti-imperialism. The operations of the FARC-EP
were funded by kidnap and ransom, illegal mining, extortion or taxation of
various forms of economic activity, and the taxation, production, and
distribution of illegal drugs. The United Nations has estimated that 12% of all
killings of civilians in the Colombian conflict have been committed by FARC and
ELN guerrillas, with 80% committed by right-wing paramilitaries, and the
remaining eight percent committed by security forces.
History of the Conflict
Communists were active throughout rural and urban Colombia
immediately following World War I. The Colombian Communist Party
(PCC) began establishing “peasant leagues” in rural areas and “popular fronts”
in urban areas, calling for improved living and working conditions, education, and
rights for the working class. However, many of the PCC’s attempts at organizing
peasants were met with violent repression by the Colombian government and the
landowning class. These groups began networking together to present a defensive
front against the state-supported violence of large landholders. Members
organized strikes, protests, and land seizures, and organized
communist-controlled “self-defense communities” in southern Colombia that were
able to resist state military forces while providing for the subsistence needs
of the populace.
In 1961, a guerrilla leader and long-time PCC organizer
named Manuel Marulanda Vélez declared an independent “Republic of
Marquetalia.” The Lleras government attempted unsuccessfully to drive out the guerrillas, due to fear that a revolution similar
to that of Cuba’s may develop. Several army outposts were set up in the area
and the Colombian government began routinely attacking communist groups in an
attempt to reassimilate territories under the influence of communists. In 1964,
Manuel Marulanda Vélez and other PCC members formed FARC. Sixteen thousand
Colombian troops attacked the community, which only had 48 armed fighters.
Marulanda and 47 others fought against government forces at Marquetalia and
then escaped into the mountains along with other fighters. These 48 men formed
the core of FARC, which later grew in size to hundreds of fighters.
Initially, FARC rejected any involvement in the emerging
phenomenon of drug growing and trafficking, but during the 1980s, the group
gradually came to accept it as it became a burgeoning business. Taxes on drug
producers and traffickers were introduced as a source of funding and increased
income from the “coca boom” allowed them to expand into an irregular army able
to stage large-scale attacks on Colombian troops. This in part led to the Seventh
Guerrilla Conference held by FARC in 1982, which called for a major shift in
FARC’s strategy. FARC had historically been doing most of its fighting in rural
areas and was limited to small-scale confrontations with Colombian military
forces. FARC began sending fighters to Vietnam and the Soviet Union for
advanced military training. They also planned to move closer to middle-sized
cities, as opposed to only remote rural areas, and closer to areas rich in
natural resources to create a strong economic infrastructure. It was
also at this conference that FARC added the initials “EP”, for
“Ejército del Pueblo” or “People’s Army”, to the
organization’s name.
Uribe Agreement and the Union Patriótica
Also in the early 1980s, President Belisario Betancur began
discussing the possibility of peace talks with the guerrillas. This led to the
1984 La Uribe Agreement, which called for a ceasefire that lasted
from 1984 until 1987. In 1985, members of the FARC-EP, along with a large
number of other leftist and communist groups, formed a political party known as
the Union Patriótica (“Patriotic Union”, UP). The UP sought constitutional
reform, more democratic local elections, political decentralization, and the end
of the two-party system dominated by Liberal and Conservative parties. They
also pursued socioeconomic reforms such land redistribution, greater health and
education spending, the nationalization of foreign businesses, Colombian banks,
transportation, and greater public access to mass media.
While many members of the UP were involved with the FARC-EP,
the large majority of them were not and came from a wide variety of backgrounds
such as labor unions and socialist parties. In the cities, the FARC-EP began
integrating itself with the UP and forming Juntas Patrióticas (or
“solidarity cells”) – small groups of people associated with labor
unions, student activist groups, and peasant leagues, who traveled into the
barrios discussing social problems, building support for the UP, and
determining the sociopolitical stance of the urban peasantry. The UP performed
better in elections than any leftist party in Colombia’s history. In
1986, UP candidates won 350 local council seats, 23 deputy positions in departmental
assemblies, nine seats in the House, and six seats in the Senate. The 1986
Presidential candidate, Jaime Pardo Leal, won 4.6% of the national vote.
During the ceasefire, the Colombian government continued its
negotiations with the FARC-EP and other armed groups, some of which were
successful. Some groups that demobilized during this period include the EPL,
the ERP, the Quintin Lame Armed Movement, and the M-19. Towards the end of
1990, however, the army, with no advance warning and while negotiations were
still ongoing, attacked a compound known as Casa Verde, which houses the
National Secretariat of the FARC-EP. The Colombian government argued that the attack
was caused by the FARC-EP’s lack of commitment to the peace process.
Peace Negotiations
On June 3, 1991, dialogue resumed between the Simon Bolivar
Guerrilla Coordinating Board and the government. The conflict did not halt,
however, and armed attacks by both sides continued. The renewed negotiations
were broken off in 1993 when no agreement could be reached. A letter written by
a group of Colombian intellectuals, including Gabriel Garcia Marquez, to the
Coordinating Board was published denouncing the approach taken by the FARC-EP
and the dire consequences it was having on the country. The Coordinating Board disappeared
not long afterwards and the guerrilla groups continued their activities
independently.
FARC guerrillas
FARC guerrillas marching in formation during the Caguan peace talks (1998–2002).
Renewed negotiations began on November 7, 1998, under
President Andres Pastrana, who granted FARC-EP a 42,000-square-kilometer (16,200-square-mile)
safe haven as a confidence-building measure. Unfortunately, the
peace talks ended on February 21, 2002, due to a series of high-profile
guerrilla actions, including the hijacking of an aircraft, sieges on a number
of small towns and cities, several political kidnappings, and the arrest of the
Irish Colombia Three, a group of IRA members who allegedly were training FARC-EP
militants to make bombs. Pastrana ordered the armed forces to start retaking
the FARC-EP controlled zone.
The Uribe and Santos Administrations
For most of the period between 2002 and 2005, the FARC-EP
was believed to be in strategic withdrawal due to the increasing military and
police actions of President Alvaro Uribe, which led to the capture or desertion
of many fighters and medium-level commanders. Uribe ran for office on an
anti-FARC-EP platform and was determined to defeat the guerrillas in a bid to
restore confidence in the country. Uribe’s own father was killed by FARC-EP
in an attempted kidnapping in 1983. Nonetheless, FARC interventions and
violence continued throughout Uribe’s administration and well into that of his
successor, Juan Manuel Santos.
Álvaro Uribe
President Álvaro Uribe intensified military operations against the FARC-EP, seeking to defeat them.
Military offensives carried out under former President Uribe
and President Santos have significantly reduced the number of FARC
combatants and FARC territorial control, pushing guerrillas to more
remote and sparsely populated regions, often close to territorial or internal
borders. On June 23, 2016, a ceasefire accord was signed between the FARC-EP
and Colombian government. Under the accord, the Colombian government agreed to
support massive investment for rural development and facilitate the FARC’s
reincarnation as a political party. FARC promised to help to eradicate illegal
drug crops, remove landmines in areas of conflict, and offer reparations to
victims. FARC leaders can avoid prosecution by acts of reparation to victims
and other community work. However, during a referendum held October 2, 2016,
Colombians voted to reject the peace deal with FARC by 50.2% to 49.8%.
The government met with victims and peace opponents after
the referendum was rejected, receiving over 500 proposed changes, and continued
to negotiate with FARC. A revised agreement was announced on November 12, 2016,
which would require parliamentary approval rather than a nationwide referendum.
Among the reported 60 new or modified terms was a provision for FARC assets to
be distributed for victim compensation. FARC members would be able to establish
a political party and be granted full immunity for full confession and
cooperation, although drug trafficking would be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Peace terms would be enforced by a Special Justice for the Peace, who
would report to the Constitutional Court and not to an international body.
Additionally, both Parliament and the Special Justice would have the ability to
modify terms of the agreement as seen necessary.
The Colombian government and FARC signed the
revised peace deal on November 24, 2016, and Congress approved it on November
30, 2016.
Throughout its short existence, the Republic of China (1912-1949)
experienced a nearly continuous power struggle. The eventual war between the nationalists and the communists ended with the Nationalist government retreating to
Taiwan and the communists taking control of the mainland China and establishing the
People’s Republic of China.
Learning Objective
Outline the successes and failures of the Republic of China during its decades in power.
Key Points
The
Republic of China was a state in East Asia that existed from 1912 to
1949. It largely occupied the present-day territories of China, Taiwan, and,
for some of its history, Mongolia. As an era of Chinese history, it was
preceded by the last imperial dynasty of China and the Qing dynasty, and ended
with the Chinese Civil War.
The
Republican Era of China began with the outbreak of revolution on October 10,
1911, in Wuchang among discontented modernized army units whose anti-Qing plot
was uncovered. This would become known as the Wuchang Uprising, celebrated as Double Tenth Day in Taiwan. It was preceded by numerous
abortive uprisings and organized protests in China.
After a power struggle, on March 10, 1912, in Beijing, Yuan Shikai was sworn in as the second provisional president of the Republic of China. Yuan proceeded to abolish the national and provincial assemblies and declared himself emperor in late 1915, but his imperial ambitions were fiercely opposed by his subordinates. Faced with the prospect of rebellion, he abdicated in 1916 and died the same year. His death left a power vacuum in China and ushered in what would become known as the Warlord Era, during which much of the country was ruled by shifting coalitions of competing provincial military leaders.
During the Nanjing Decade of 1928-37, which followed the Warlord Era, the Nationalists under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek attempted to consolidate the divided society and reform the economy. The KMT was criticized as instituting totalitarianism, but claimed it was attempting to establish a modern democratic society.
The
bitter struggle between the KMT and the CPC continued, openly or clandestinely,
through the 14-year-long Japanese occupation of various parts of the country
(1931–1945). The two Chinese parties nominally formed a united front to oppose
the Japanese in 1937, during the Second Sino-Japanese
War (1937–1945), which became part of World War II.
Following the
defeat of Japan in 1945, the war between the Nationalist forces and the CPC
resumed after failed attempts at reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. By
1949, the CPC had established control over most of the country. When the
Nationalist government forces were defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in
1949, the Nationalist government retreated to Taiwan along with
Chiang and most of the KMT leadership, and a large number of their supporters.
Key Terms
Nanjing Decade
An informal name for the decade from 1927 (or 1928) to 1937 in the Republic of China. The period began when Nationalist Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek took Nanjing from Zhili clique warlord Sun Chuanfang halfway through the Northern Expedition in 1927. Chiang declared it the national capital despite the left-wing Nationalist government in Wuhan.
Kuomintang
A major political party in the Republic of China, currently the second-largest in the country,
often translated as the Nationalist Party of China or Chinese Nationalist Party. Its predecessor, the Revolutionary Alliance, was one of the major advocates of the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of a republic. The party was founded by Song Jiaoren and Sun Yat-sen shortly after the Xinhai Revolution of 1911.
Beiyang Government
The government of the Republic of China, in place in the capital city of Beijing from 1912 to 1928. It was internationally recognized as the legitimate Chinese government but lacked domestic legitimacy.
Northern Expedition
A 1926-1928 military campaign led by Chiang Kai-shek. Its main objective was to unify China, ending the rule of the Beiyang government and that of the local warlords. It led to the end of the Warlord Era, the reunification of China in 1928, and the establishment of the Nanjing government.
Warlord Era
In the history of the Republic of China, the period when the control of the country was divided among its military cliques in the mainland regions. The era lasted from the death of Yuan Shikai in 1916 until 1928.
Wuchang Uprising
The Chinese uprising that served as the catalyst to the Xinhai Revolution, ending the Qing Dynasty – and two millennia of imperial rule – and ushering in the Republic of China (ROC). It began with the dissatisfaction of the handling of a railway crisis, which escalated to an uprising in which the revolutionaries went up against Qing government officials.
The Republic of
China was a state in East Asia that existed from 1912 to 1949. It
largely occupied the present-day territories of China, Taiwan, and, for some of
its history, Mongolia. As an era of Chinese history, it was preceded by the
last imperial dynasty of China, the Qing dynasty, and ended with the Chinese
Civil War. After the war, the losing Kuomintang retreated to the island of
Taiwan to found the modern Republic of China, while the victorious Communist
Party of China established the People’s Republic of China on the
Mainland.
Early Republic
The Republican Era of
China began with the outbreak of revolution on October 10, 1911, in Wuchang
among discontented modernized army units whose anti-Qing plot had been uncovered.
This would be known as the Wuchang Uprising, celebrated as Double
Tenth Day in Taiwan. It was preceded by numerous abortive uprisings and
organized protests in China. The revolt quickly spread to neighboring
cities, and members of underground resistance movement Tongmenghui throughout the country rose in support of the
Wuchang revolutionary forces. After a series of failures of the revolutionary forces, during the 41-day Battle of Yangxia 15 of 24 provinces declared their
independence from the Qing empire. On January 1, 1912, delegates from the
independent provinces elected Sun Yat-sen as the first provisional president
of the Republic of China. The last emperor of China, Puyi, was forced to
abdicate on February 12.
Although Sun was
inaugurated in Nanjing as the first provisional president, power in Beijing
already had passed to Yuan Shikai, who had effective control of the Beiyang
Army, the most powerful military force in China at the time. To prevent civil
war and possible foreign intervention from undermining the infant republic, Sun
agreed to Yuan’s demand for China to be united under Yuan’s Beijing government.
On March 10 in Beijing, Yuan Shikai was sworn in as the second provisional president of the Republic of China.
Although many
political parties were vying for supremacy in the legislature, the revolutionists
lacked an army, and Yuan soon revised the constitution and revealed dictatorial
ambitions. In August 1912, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) was founded by
Song Jiaoren, one of Sun’s associates. It was an amalgamation of small political
groups, including Sun’s Tongmenghui. In the national elections held in February
1913 for the new bicameral parliament, Song campaigned against the Yuan
administration and the Kuomintang won a majority of seats.
Over
the next few years, however, Yuan proceeded to abolish the national and
provincial assemblies and declared himself emperor in late 1915, but his imperial
ambitions were fiercely opposed by his subordinates. Faced with the prospect of
rebellion, he abdicated in 1916 and died the same year. His death left a power
vacuum in China and ushered in what would be known as the Warlord
Era, during which much of the country was ruled by shifting coalitions of
competing provincial military leaders.
Yuan Shikai (left) and Sun Yat-sen (right) with flags representing the early republic.
The History of the Republic of China begins after the Qing dynasty in 1912, when the formation of the Republic of China as a constitutional republic put an end to 4,000 years of Imperial rule. The Qing dynasty ruled from 1644–1912. The Republic experienced many trials and tribulations after its founding, including domination by warlord generals and foreign powers.
The poster commemorates the permanent President of the Republic of China Yuan Shikai and the provisional President of the Republic Sun Yat-sen. The text on the poster reads, “Chinese Republic forever,” an unconventional English translation of “Long Live the Republic of China.”
The Warlord Era
Despite the fact that various warlords gained control of the
government in Beijing during the Warlord Era, a new
form of control or governance did not emerge at the time because other warlords did not acknowledge the
transitory governments of the period. These military-dominated governments were
collectively known as the Beiyang Government. The name derives from the Beiyang
Army, which dominated its politics. Although the government and the state
were nominally under civilian control with a constitution, the Beiyang
generals were effectively in charge, with various factions vying for
power. Although the Beiyang Government’s legitimacy was challenged
domestically, it had international diplomatic recognition and access to the tax and customs revenue, and could apply for foreign
financial loans.
In 1917, China declared war on Germany in the hope of
recovering its lost province, then under Japanese control. On May 4, 1919,
there were massive student demonstrations against the Beijing government and
Japan. The political fervor, student activism, and iconoclastic and reformist
intellectual currents set in motion by the protest developed into a
national awakening known as the May Fourth Movement. The intellectual milieu in
which this movement developed was known as the New Culture Movement. The student
demonstrations of May 4, 1919, were the high point of the New Culture Movement
and the terms are often used as synonyms. Chinese representatives refused to
sign the Treaty of Versailles due to intense
pressure from both the student protesters and public opinion.
The discrediting of liberal Western philosophy among
leftist Chinese intellectuals led to radical lines of thought inspired by
the Russian Revolution and supported by agents of the Comintern sent to China
by Moscow. This created the seeds for the irreconcilable conflict between the
left and right in China that would dominate Chinese history for the rest of the
century.
In the 1920s, Sun Yat-sen established a revolutionary base
in south China and set out to unite the fragmented nation. With assistance
from the Soviet Union, he entered into an alliance with the
fledgling Communist Party of China. After Sun’s
death from cancer in 1925, one of his protégés, Chiang
Kai-shek, seized control of the Kuomintang (Nationalist
Party or KMT) and succeeded in bringing most of south and central China under
its rule in a military campaign known as the Northern Expedition (1926–1927). Having
defeated the warlords in south and central China by military force, Chiang was
able to secure the nominal allegiance of the warlords in the North. In 1927,
Chiang turned on the CPC and chased the CPC armies and its leaders from their
bases in southern and eastern China. In 1934, driven from their mountain bases,
the CPC forces embarked on the Long March across
China’s most desolate terrain to the northwest, where they established a
guerrilla base at Yan’an in Shaanxi Province. During the Long March, the
communists reorganized under a new leader, Mao Zedong (Mao
Tse-tung).
The Nanjing Decade
During the Nanjing Decade of 1928-37, the Nationalists
attempted to consolidate the divided society and reform the economy. The
KMT was criticized for instituting totalitarianism,
but claimed it was attempting to establish a modern democratic society by creating the Academia
Sinica (today’s national academy of Taiwan), the Central Bank of China, and
other agencies. In 1932, China sent its first team to the Olympic Games. Laws
were passed and campaigns mounted to promote the rights of women. Improved
communication also allowed a focus on social problems, including those of the
villages (for example the Rural Reconstruction Movement). Simultaneously,
political freedom was considerably curtailed because of the Kuomintang’s
one-party domination through “political tutelage” and violent shutting
down of anti-government protests.
At the time, a series of massive wars also took place in
western China, including the Kumul
Rebellion, the Sino-Tibetan War, and the Soviet invasion of Xinjiang. Although
the central government was nominally in control of the entire country, large
areas remained under the semi-autonomous rule of local warlords,
provincial military leaders, or warlord coalitions. Nationalist rule was
strongest in the eastern regions around the capital Nanjing, but regional
militarists retained considerable local authority.
The Fall of the Republic and Its Legacy: Taiwan
The bitter struggle between the KMT and the CPC continued,
openly or clandestinely, through the 14-year-long Japanese occupation of
various parts of the country (1931–1945). The two Chinese parties nominally
formed a united front to oppose the Japanese in 1937 during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945),
which became part of World War II. Following the defeat of Japan in 1945, the
war between the Nationalist forces and the CPC resumed after failed attempts at
reconciliation and a negotiated settlement. By 1949, the CPC had established
control over most of the country. When the Nationalist government forces
were defeated by CPC forces in mainland China in 1949, they retreated to Taiwan along with Chiang and most of the KMT leadership
and a large number of their supporters. The Nationalist government had taken
effective control of Taiwan at the end of World War II as part of the overall
Japanese surrender, when Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Republic of
China troops.
Until the early 1970s, the Republic of China was recognized
as the sole legitimate government of China by the United Nations and most
Western nations, refusing to recognize the People’s Republic of China. However,
in 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the
UN General Assembly and “the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” (and
thus the ROC) were expelled from the UN and replaced as “China” by
the PRC. In 1979, the United States switched recognition from Taipei to
Beijing. The KMT ruled Taiwan under martial
law until the late 1980s, with the stated goals of vigilance against Communist infiltration and preparation to retake mainland China.
Therefore, political dissent was not tolerated.
Since the 1990s, the ROC went from one-party rule to a
multi-party system thanks to a series of democratic and governmental reforms
implemented in Taiwan. The first election for provincial
governors and municipality Mayors was in 1994. Taiwan held the first direct presidential election
in 1996.
35.1.2: China in WWII
The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) dominated China’s war efforts and although the Republic of China emerged from the war as a member of the victorious Allied forces, the country was ravaged by the economic crisis and continuous conflicts between the Nationalists and the Communists.
Learning Objective
Discuss China’s role as one of the Allied countries during WWII.
Key Points
The chaotic internal situation in China and the effort the Chinese government was required to put into the civil wars provided opportunities for Japanese expansionism. Japan saw Manchuria as a source of raw materials, a market for its manufactured goods, and as a protective buffer state against the Soviet Union in Siberia. Japan invaded Manchuria after the 1931 Mukden Incident. With appeasement being the predominant policy of the day, no country was willing to take action against Japan beyond tepid censure. Incessant fighting between Japanese and Chinese forces followed.
The Chinese resistance stiffened after July 7,
1937, when a clash occurred between Chinese and Japanese troops outside Beijing.
This skirmish led to open, although undeclared, warfare between China and
Japan, which turned into the Second Sino-Japanese War. Shanghai fell after a three-month battle and the capital of Nanking fell in
December 1937, which was followed by the Nanking Massacre.
The United States and the Soviet Union put an end to the Second Sino-Japanese War by attacking the Japanese with atomic bombs (on America’s part) and an incursion into Manchuria (on the Soviet Union’s part). Japanese Emperor Hirohito officially capitulated to the Allies on August 15, 1945. The Chinese-Japanese conflict lasted for over eight years and its casualties were more than half of total casualties of the Pacific War.
During World War II, the United States emerged
as a major player in Chinese affairs. As an ally it embarked in late 1941 on a
program of massive military and financial aid to the hard-pressed Nationalist Government. In 1943, the United States
and Britain led the way in revising their treaties with China, bringing to an
end a century of unequal treaty relations.
After the end of the war in August 1945, the
Nationalist Government moved back to Nanking. With American help, Nationalist
troops moved to take the Japanese surrender in North China. The Soviet Union,
as part of the Yalta agreement allowing a Soviet sphere of influence in
Manchuria, dismantled and removed more than half the industrial equipment left
there by the Japanese. The Soviet presence in northeast China enabled the
Communists to move in long enough to arm themselves with the equipment
surrendered by the withdrawing Japanese army.
In 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt devised the name
“United Nations.” He referred to the Big Three and China as a “trusteeship of
the powerful” and then later the “Four
Policemen.” At the Potsdam Conference of 1945, Harry Truman proposed that the foreign
ministers of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United
States “should draft the peace treaties and boundary settlements of Europe,”
which led to the creation of the Council of Foreign Ministers of
the “Big Five” and soon thereafter the establishment of those states
as the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
35.1.3: The Chinese Civil War
The Chinese Civil War, fought between forces loyal to the Kuomintang-led government (KMT) and those loyal to the Communist Party of China (CPC),
represented an ideological split between the CPC and the KMT and resulted in the establishment of the People’s Republic of China and the exodus of the nationalists to Taiwan.
Learning Objective
Outline the reasons behind and events of the Chinese Civil War
Key Points
The Chinese Civil War was fought between forces loyal to the Kuomintang-led government of the Republic of China and those loyal to the Communist Party of China. The war began in 1927 with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s Northern Expedition and ended when major hostilities ceased in 1950. It can generally be divided into two stages separated by the Second Sino-Japanese War: 1927 to 1937 and 1946 to 1950.
On
April 7, 1927, Chiang and several other KMT leaders held a meeting where they proposed that Communist activities were socially and economically
disruptive. On
April 12 in Shanghai, the KMT was purged of leftists with the arrest and
execution of hundreds of CPC members (the Shanghai Massacre). The
KMT resumed its campaign against warlords. Soon, most of eastern China was under the control of the
Nanjing central government, which received prompt international recognition as
the sole legitimate government of China.
The
revolt of the CPC against the Nationalist government began in August 1927 in
Nanchang (the Nanchang Uprising). A CPC meeting confirmed the party’s intention to take
power by force. By the
fall of 1927, there were now three capitals in China: the internationally
recognized republic capital in Beijing, the CPC and left-wing KMT at Wuhan, and
the right-wing KMT regime at Nanjing, which would remain the KMT capital for
the next decade.
The ten-year armed
struggle ended with the Xi’an Incident when Chiang Kai-shek was forced
to form the Second United Front against invading forces from Japan.
However,
the alliance of the CPC and the KMT was in name only. The level of actual cooperation
and coordination between them during World War II was at best
minimal. In
general, developments in the Second Sino-Japanese War were to the advantage of
the CPC.
A fragile truce between the competing forces
fell apart in June 1946 when full-scale war between the CPC and the KMT broke
out. On July 20, 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale
assault on Communist territory, which marked the final phase of the
Chinese Civil War. After three years of exhausting military campaigns, on
October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China with its
capital in Beijing.
Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million
Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan.
Most
observers expected Chiang’s government to eventually fall in response to a
Communist invasion of Taiwan. Things changed radically
with the onset of the Korean War in 1950. President
Harry Truman ordered the United States Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to
prevent the ROC and PRC from attacking each other. To this day no armistice or peace treaty has
ever been signed, and there is debate about whether the Civil War has legally
ended.
Key Terms
Shanghai Massacre
The violent suppression of Communist Party organizations in 1927 Shanghai by the military forces of Chiang Kai-shek and conservative factions in the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party, or KMT). Following the incident, conservative KMT elements carried out a full-scale purge of Communists in all areas under their control, and even more violent suppressions occurred in cities such as Guangzhou and Changsha. The purge led to an open split between KMT left and right wings, with Chiang Kai-shek establishing himself as the leader of the right wing at Nanjing in opposition to the original left-wing KMT government led by Wang Jingwei in Wuhan.
Chinese Civil War
A civil war in China fought between forces loyal to the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government of the Republic of China, and forces loyal to the Communist Party of China (CPC). The war began in August 1927 with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s Northern Expedition and ended when major hostilities ceased in 1950.
Long March
A military retreat undertaken by the Red Army of the Communist Party of China, the forerunner of the People’s Liberation Army, to evade the pursuit of the Kuomintang (KMT or Chinese Nationalist Party) army. The Communists, under the eventual command of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, escaped in a circling retreat to the west and north, which reportedly traversed more than 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles) over 370 days. The route passed through some of the most difficult terrain of western China by traveling west then north to Shaanxi.
Xi’an Incident
On December 12, 1936, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Kuomintang, was arrested by Marshal Zhang Xueliang, a former warlord of Manchuria and Commander of the North Eastern Army who had fought against the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and subsequent expansion into Inner Mongolia. The incident led to a truce between the Nationalists and the Communists to form a united front against the threat posed by Japan.
Kuomintang
A major political party in the
Republic of China, currently the second-largest in the country, often
translated as the Nationalist Party of China or Chinese Nationalist Party.
Its predecessor, the Revolutionary Alliance, was one of the major advocates of
the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of a republic. The
party was founded by Song Jiaoren and Sun Yat-sen shortly after the Xinhai
Revolution of 1911.
Northern Expedition
A 1926-1928 military campaign led
by Chiang Kai-shek. Its main objective was to unify China, ending the rule
of the Beiyang government and that of local warlords. It led to the end
of the Warlord Era, the reunification of China in 1928, and the
establishment of the Nanjing government.
Second Sino-Japanese War
A military conflict fought primarily between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan from 1937 to 1945, which became part of World War II.
The Chinese Civil War: Background
During the Warlord Era, control of the Republic of China was mostly divided among a group of powerful military leaders. The anti-monarchist and nationalist Kuomintang party (KMT) and its leader Sun Yat-sen sought the help of foreign powers to defeat the warlords, who had seized control of much of Northern China. Sun Yat-sen’s efforts to obtain aid from the Western countries were ignored, however, and in 1921 he turned to the Soviet Union. For political expediency, Soviet leadership initiated a dual policy of support for both Sun and the newly established Communist Party of China (CPC), which would eventually found the People’s Republic of China. Thus, the struggle for power in China began between the KMT and the CPC.
Communist members were allowed to join the KMT on an individual basis. However, after Sun died, the KMT split into left- and right-wing movements. Some KMT members worried that the Soviets were trying to destroy the KMT from inside using the CPC. The CPC also began movements in opposition of the Northern Expedition, passing a resolution against it. In March 1927, the KMT held its second party meeting where the Soviets helped pass resolutions against the Expedition and curb Chiang’s power.
Northern Expedition
On April 7, 1927, Chiang and several other KMT leaders held a meeting where they proposed that Communist activities were socially and economically disruptive and had to be curbed for the national revolution to proceed. On April 12 in Shanghai, the KMT was purged of leftists with the arrest and execution of hundreds of CPC members. The CPC referred to this as the April 12 Incident or Shanghai Massacre.
The KMT resumed its campaign against warlords and captured Beijing in June 1928. Soon, most of eastern China was under the control of the Nanjing central government, which received prompt international recognition as the sole legitimate government of China. The KMT government announced, in conformity with Sun Yat-sen, the formula for the three stages of revolution: military unification, political tutelage, and constitutional democracy.
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Commander-in-Chief of the National Revolutionary Army (photographer unknown; ca. 1926).
The Chinese Civil War was a major turning point in modern Chinese history, with the CPC gaining control of almost the entire of mainland China, establishing the People’s Republic of China to replace the KMT’s Republic of China. It also caused a lasting political and military standoff between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, with the ROC in Taiwan and the PRC in mainland China both officially claiming to be the legitimate government of China.
The Civil War Before World War II
During the 1920s, CPC activists retreated underground or to the countryside, where they advocated an armed rebellion. The revolt of the CPC against the Nationalist government began in August 1927 in Nanchang. The Nanchang Uprising saw the formation of a Communist rebel army, the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, which would later become the People’s Liberation Army. A CPC meeting confirmed the party’s intention to take power by force, followed by a violent anti-Communist campaign by Wang Jingwei’s government in Wuhan starting on August 8. On August 14, Chiang Kai-shek fled Nanjing, but KMT forces continued to attempt to suppress the rebellions. By the fall of 1927, there were now three capitals in China: the internationally recognized republic capital in Beijing, the CPC and left-wing KMT at Wuhan, and the right-wing KMT regime at Nanjing, which would remain the KMT capital for the next decade.
This marked the beginning of a ten-year armed struggle, which ended with the Xi’an Incident when Chiang Kai-shek was forced to form the Second United Front against invading forces from Japan. In 1930, the Central Plains War broke out as an internal conflict of the KMT. The attention was turned to rooting out remaining pockets of Communist activity in a series of five encirclement campaigns. In 1934, the CPC broke out of the encirclement. The massive military retreat of Communist forces lasted a year and became known as the Long March, led by Mao Zedong, who soon became the pre-eminent leader of the Party with Zhou in second position.
The march ended when the CPC reached the interior of Shaanxi. Along the way, the Communist army confiscated property and weapons from local warlords and landlords, while recruiting peasants and the poor, solidifying its appeal to the masses. Of the 90,000–100,000 people who began the Long March from the Soviet Chinese Republic, only around 7,000–8,000 made it to Shaanxi.
The Civil War After World War II
The Civil War represented an ideological split between the Communist CPC and the KMT’s brand of Nationalism. It continued intermittently until late 1937, when the two parties came together to form the Second United Front to counter the Japanese threat and prevent the country from crumbling. However, the alliance of the CPC and the KMT was in name only. The level of actual cooperation and coordination between the two parties during World War II was at best minimal. In the midst of the Second United Front, the CPC and the KMT were still vying for territorial advantage in “Free China” (i.e., areas not occupied by the Japanese or ruled by Japanese puppet governments).
In general, developments in the Second Sino-Japanese War were to the advantage of the CPC, as its guerrilla war tactics won them popular support within the Japanese-occupied areas, while the KMT had to defend the country against the main Japanese campaigns since it was the legal Chinese government.
Under the terms of the Japanese unconditional surrender dictated by the United States, Japanese troops were ordered to surrender to KMT troops and not to the CPC, which was present in some of the occupied areas. In Manchuria, however, where the KMT had no forces, the Japanese surrendered to the Soviet Union. Chiang Kai-shek ordered the Japanese troops to remain at their posts to receive the Kuomintang and not surrender their arms to the Communists. However, in the last month of World War II in East Asia, Soviet forces launched the huge strategic offensive operation to attack the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria and along the Chinese-Mongolian border. Chiang Kai-shek realized that he lacked the resources to prevent a CPC takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure.
A fragile truce between the competing forces fell apart on June 21, 1946 when full-scale war between the CPC and the KMT broke out. On July 20, 1946, Chiang Kai-shek launched a large-scale assault on Communist territory, which marked the final phase of the Chinese Civil War. After three years of exhausting military campaigns, on October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China with its capital in Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan after the loss of Sichuan (at that time, Taiwan was still Japanese territory). In December 1949, Chiang proclaimed Taipei, Taiwan, the temporary capital of the Republic of China and continued to assert his government as the sole legitimate authority in China.
Mao Zedong Proclaiming the Establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949.
On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China with its capital at Beiping, which was renamed Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the island of Taiwan in December of the same year.
During the war, both the Nationalists and the Communists carried out mass atrocities, with millions of non-combatants deliberately killed by both sides. Benjamin Valentino has estimated atrocities resulted in the deaths of between 1.8 million and 3.5 million people between 1927 and 1949. Atrocities include deaths from forced conscription and massacres.
Aftermath
Most observers expected Chiang’s government to eventually fall in response to a Communist invasion of Taiwan, and the U.S. initially showed no interest in supporting Chiang’s government in its final stand. Things changed radically with the onset of the Korean War in 1950. At this point, allowing a total Communist victory over Chiang became politically impossible for the U.S., and President Harry Truman ordered the United States Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent the ROC and PRC from attacking each other.
To this day, no armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed, and there is debate about whether the Chinese Civil War has legally ended. Cross-strait relations have been hindered by military threats and political and economic pressure, particularly over Taiwan’s political status, with both governments officially adhering to a “One-China policy.” The PRC still actively claims Taiwan as part of its territory and continues to threaten the ROC with a military invasion if the ROC officially declares independence by changing its name to and gaining international recognition as the Republic of Taiwan. The ROC mutually claims mainland China and they both continue the fight over diplomatic recognition. Today, the war as such occurs on the political and economic fronts in the form of cross-strait relations without actual military action. However, the two separate states have close economic ties.
35.1.4: Chairman Mao and the People’s Republic
Maoism, the guiding
political and military ideology of the Community Party of China,
claimed that peasants should be the essential revolutionary class in China.
Learning Objective
Discuss the key beliefs of the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao
Key Points
Marxist ideas started to spread in China
after the 1919 May Fourth Movement. The Communist Party of China was initially founded by
Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao in the French concession of
Shanghai in 1921 as a study society and an informal network. The Party’s 1st Congress was held in Shanghai and attended by 12 men in July 1921 and later
transferred from Shanghai to Jiaxing.
In
1922, a proposal that
party members join the Kuomintang (KMT, or Chinese Nationalist Party), on
the grounds that it was easier to transform the Nationalist Party from the
inside than to duplicate its success, was accepted. Under the guidance of the Comintern,
the party was reorganized along Leninist lines in 1923 in preparation for
the Northern Expedition. Mikhail Markovich Borodin of the Comintern negotiated
with Kuomitang’s Sun Yat-sen and Wang Jingwei to implement the 1923 KMT
reorganization and the CPC’s incorporation into the newly expanded party.
In
1927, as the Northern Expedition approached Shanghai, the Kuomintang leadership
split. The Left Kuomintang at Wuhan kept the alliance with the Communists while
Chiang Kai-shek at Nanking grew increasingly anti-communist. Chiang Kai-shek launched a successful
campaign, and the CPC had to give up their bases and started the Long
March (1934–1935) to search for a new base. During the Long March,
local Communists, such as Mao Zedong and Zhu De, gained power while the
Comintern and the Soviet Union lost control over the CPC.
After
the conclusion of World War II, the civil war resumed between the Kuomintang
and the Communists. With the Kuomintang’s defeat, Mao Zedong established the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing on October 1, 1949.
Mao’s
revolution that founded the PRC was nominally based on Marxism-Leninism with a
rural focus. During the 1960s
and 1970s, the CPC experienced a significant ideological breakdown with the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and their allies.
The essential difference between Maoism and
other forms of Marxism is that Mao claimed that peasants should be the
essential revolutionary class in China, because contrary to industrial workers
they were more suited to establish a successful revolution and socialist
society in China.
Maoism
was widely applied as the guiding political and military ideology of the CPC.
It evolved together with Chairman Mao’s changing views, but its main components
are: the New Democracy, People’s war, Mass line, Cultural revolution, Three Worlds theory, and agrarian socialism.
Key Terms
Northern Expedition
A 1926-1928 military campaign, led
by Chiang Kai-shek. Its main objective was to unify China, ending the rule
of the Beiyang government and that of local warlords. It led to the end
of the Warlord Era, the reunification of China in 1928, and the establishment
of the Nanjing government.
Soviet Republic of China
“A state within a state,” referred often in historical sources as the Jiangxi Soviet, established in November 1931 by future Communist Party of China leader Mao Zedong, General Zhu De, and others, that lasted until 1937. Mao Zedong was both its state chairman and prime minister. It was eventually destroyed by the Kuomintang (KMT)’s National Revolutionary Army in a series of 1934 encirclement campaigns.
Kuomintang
A major political party in the
Republic of China, currently the second-largest in the country, often
translated as the Nationalist Party of China or Chinese Nationalist Party.
Its predecessor, the Revolutionary Alliance, was one of the major advocates of
the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of a republic. The
party was founded by Song Jiaoren and Sun Yat-sen shortly after the Xinhai
Revolution of 1911.
Maoism
A political theory derived from the teachings of Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976). Developed from the 1950s until the Deng Xiaoping reforms in the 1970s, it was widely applied as the guiding political and military ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and as theory guiding revolutionary movements around the world.
Long March
A military retreat undertaken by
the Red Army of the Communist Party of China, the forerunner of the
People’s Liberation Army, to evade the pursuit of the Kuomintang (KMT or
Chinese Nationalist Party) army. The Communists, under the eventual command of
Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, escaped in a circling retreat to the west and
north, which reportedly traversed more than 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles) over 370
days. The route passed through some of the most difficult terrain of western
China by traveling west then north to Shaanxi.
May Fourth Movement
An anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement growing out of student participants in Beijing on May 4, 1919, protesting against the Chinese government’s weak response to the Treaty of Versailles, especially allowing Japan to receive territories in Shandong which was surrendered by Germany after the Siege of Tsingtao.
The Chinese Communist Party: History
Marxist ideas started to spread in China after the 1919 May Fourth Movement, an anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement protesting against the Chinese government’s weak response to the Treaty of Versailles. In June 1920, Comintern agent Grigori Voitinsky was sent to China, where he financed the founding of the Socialist Youth Corps. The Communist Party of China was initially founded by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao in the French concession of Shanghai in 1921 as a study society and network. There were informal groups in China in 1920 and overseas, but the official beginning was the 1st Congress held in Shanghai and attended by 12 men in July 1921 and later transferred from Shanghai to Jiaxing. The formal and unified name, the Chinese Communist Party, was adopted, and all other names of communist groups were dropped. Mao Zedong was present at the first congress as one of two delegates from a Hunan communist group.
In 1920, Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu (?) met Comintern agent
Grigori Voitinsky (author unknown).
The Communist Party of China is the founding and ruling political party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The CPC is the sole governing party of China, although it coexists alongside eight other legal parties that comprise the United Front. These parties, however, hold no real power or independence from the CPC. It was founded in 1921 by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao.
In 1922, at a surprise special plenum of the central committee, a proposal that party members join the Kuomintang (KMT, or Chinese Nationalist Party), on the grounds that it was easier to transform the Nationalist Party from the inside than to duplicate its success, was issued. Although some leaders opposed the motion, the CPC accepted the decision. Under the guidance of the Comintern, the party was reorganized along Leninist lines in 1923 in preparation for the Northern Expedition. Mikhail Markovich Borodin of the Comintern negotiated with Kuomitang’s Sun Yat-sen and Wang Jingwei to implement the 1923 KMT reorganization and the CPC’s incorporation into the newly expanded party. The death of Sun Yat-sen in 1925 created uncertainty about who would lead the party and whether they would still work with the Communists. Despite these tensions, the Northern Expedition (1926–1927), led by Kuomintang and supported by the CPC, quickly overthrew the warlord government.
In 1927, as the Northern Expedition approached Shanghai, the Kuomintang leadership split. The Left Kuomintang at Wuhan kept the alliance with the Communists while Chiang Kai-shek at Nanking grew increasingly anti-communist. As Chiang Kai-shek consolidated his power, various revolts continued and Communist armed forces created a number of “Soviet Areas.” The largest of these was led by Zhu De and Mao Zedong, who established the Soviet Republic of China in remote areas through peasant riots. Chiang Kai-shek launched a further successful campaign, and the CPC had to give up their bases and started the Long March (1934–1935) to search for a new base. During the Long March, local Communists, such as Mao Zedong and Zhu De, gained power while the Comintern and the Soviet Union lost control over the CPC.
In eight years, CPC membership increased from 40,000 to 1.2 million and its military forces from 30,000 to approximately one million, in addition to more than a million militia support groups. After the conclusion of World War II, the civil war resumed between the Kuomintang and the Communists. With the Kuomintang’s defeat, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing on October 1, 1949.
Maoism
The CPC’s ideologies have significantly evolved since it established political power in 1949. Mao’s revolution that founded the PRC was nominally based on Marxism-Leninism with a rural focus (based on China’s social situations at the time). During the 1960s and 1970s, the CPC experienced a significant ideological breakdown with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and their allies. Since then, Mao’s peasant revolutionary vision and so-called “continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat” stipulated that class enemies continued to exist even though the socialist revolution seemed to be complete, giving way to the Cultural revolution. This fusion of ideas became known officially as Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism outside of China. It represented a powerful branch of communism that existed in opposition to the Soviet Union’s Marxist revisionism.
The essential difference between Maoism and other forms of Marxism is that Mao claimed that peasants should be the essential revolutionary class in China because they were more suited than industrial workers to establish a successful revolution and socialist society in China. Maoism
was widely applied as the guiding political and military ideology of the CPC. It evolved with Chairman Mao’s changing views, but its main components are:
The New Democracy
aims to overthrow feudalism and achieve independence from colonialism. However, it dispenses with the rule predicted by Marx and Lenin that a capitalist class would usually follow such a struggle, claiming instead to enter directly into socialism through a coalition of classes fighting the old ruling order. The original symbolism of the flag of China derives from the concept of the coalition. The largest star symbolizes the Communist Party of China’s leadership and the surrounding four smaller stars symbolize “the bloc of four classes”: proletarian workers, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie (small business owners), and the nationally-based capitalists. This is the coalition of classes for Mao’s New Democratic Revolution.
People’s war: Holding that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” Maoism emphasizes the “revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures,” which Mao termed “People’s war.” Mobilizing large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare, Maoism focuses on “surrounding the cities from the countryside.” It views the industrial-rural divide as a major division exploited by capitalism, involving industrial urban developed “First World” societies ruling over rural developing “Third World” societies.
Mass line: This theory holds, contrary to the Leninist vanguard model employed by the Bolsheviks, that party must not be separate from the popular masses, either in policy or in revolutionary struggle. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be paramount.
Cultural revolution: This theory states that the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat does not wipe out bourgeois ideology. The class struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore, a constant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.
The revolution’s stated goal was to preserve “true” Communist ideology in the country by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, and to re-impose Maoist thought as the dominant ideology within the Party. The concept was applied in practice in 1966, which marked the return of Mao Zedong to a position of power after the Great Leap Forward (a 1958-1961 failed economic and social campaign aimed to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization). The movement paralyzed China politically and negatively affected the country’s economy and society to a significant degree.
Three Worlds: This theory states that during the Cold War, two imperialist states formed the First World: the United States and the Soviet Union. The Second World consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The Third World consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the First and the Second World exploit the Third World, but the First World more aggressively.
Agrarian socialism: Maoism departs from conventional European-inspired Marxism in that its focus is on the agrarian countryside rather than the industrial urban forces. This is known as agrarian socialism. Although Maoism is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialization as a prerequisite to expand economic development and socialist reorganization to the countryside, with the goal of rural industrialization that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside.
Portrait of Mao Zedong at Tiananmen Gate attributed to Zhang Zhenshi (1914–1992).
Mao Zedong,
known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary and founding father of the People’s Republic of China, which he ruled as an autocrat Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. His Marxist-Leninist theories, military strategies, and political policies are collectively known as Maoism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, the CPC under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping moved towards Socialism with Chinese characteristics and instituted Chinese economic reform. In reversing some of Mao’s “extreme-leftist” policies, Deng argued that a socialist country and the market economy model were not mutually exclusive.
35.1.5: The Cultural Revolution
The
Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was a sociopolitical movement, set into motion by Mao Zedong,
whose stated goal was to
preserve ‘true’ Communist ideology in China by purging remnants of
capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society. In practice, it led to the persecution and abuse of millions.
Learning Objective
List the key events of the Cultural Revolution
Key Points
In
1958, Mao Zedong launched
the Great Leap Forward, an economic and social campaign
to transform the country’s largely agrarian structure into a
socialist society through rapid industrialization and
collectivization. Restrictions on rural populations were enforced
through forced labor, public struggle sessions, and social pressure.
The
Great Leap was a social and economic disaster that removed Mao from the position of power in the Communist Party of China.
During
the early 1960s, a group of moderate pragmatists in the Party favored the idea that Mao be removed from actual power but maintain his
symbolic role. Most historians agree that launching the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in 1966 was Mao’s response to the group’s increasing political and economic influence.
The Revolution marked the return of Mao to a position of
power after the Great Leap Forward.
The
Cultural Revolution was a sociopolitical movement, set into motion by Mao, that
started in 1966 and ended in 1976. Its stated goal was to preserve “true” Communist ideology in China by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional
elements from society and reimposing Maoism as the dominant ideology
within the Party.
During the Revolution, millions of people were persecuted in the
violent struggles that ensued across the country and suffered abuses including public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sustained
harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was
forcibly displaced.
The Cultural Revolution also wreaked havoc on
minority cultures in China.
The Cultural Revolution led to the destruction
of much of China’s traditional cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge
number of Chinese citizens as well economic and
social chaos.
Nearly all of the schools and universities in
China were closed. The Revolution also
brought to the forefront numerous internal power
struggles within the Party, many of which had little to do with the larger
battles between Party leaders.
Although the effects of the Cultural Revolution
were disastrous for millions of people in China, there were some positive
outcomes, particularly in the rural areas, including access to basic education and health care.
Key Terms
struggle sessions
A form of public humiliation and torture used by the Communist Party of China in the Mao Zedong era, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, to shape public opinion and humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and class enemies. In general, victims were forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed.
Cultural Revolution
A sociopolitical movement in China from 1966 until 1976. Set into motion by Mao Zedong, then Chairman of the Communist Party of China, its stated goal was to preserve “true” Communist ideology in the country by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society and reimposing Maoist thought as the dominant ideology within the Party. The movement paralyzed China politically and had significant negative effects on its economy and society.
Red Guards
A fanatic student mass paramilitary social movement mobilized by Mao Zedong in 1966 and 1967 during the Cultural Revolution.
Great Chinese Famine
A period in the People’s Republic of China between the years 1959 and 1961 characterized by widespread famine. Drought, poor weather, and the policies of the Communist Party of China (Great Leap Forward) contributed, although the relative weights of these contributions are disputed. Scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million.
Gang of Four
A political faction composed of four Chinese Communist Party officials that came to prominence during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76) and was later charged with a series of treasonous crimes. The group’s leading figure was Mao Zedong’s last wife, Jiang Qing. It remains unclear which major decisions were made by Mao Zedong and carried out by the group and which were the result of its own planning.
Down to the Countryside Movement
A policy instituted in the People’s Republic of China in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As a result of what Mao Zedong perceived as anti-bourgeois thinking prevalent during the Cultural Revolution, he declared certain privileged urban youth would be sent to mountainous areas or farming villages to learn from the workers and farmers there. Approximately 17 million youth were sent to rural areas as a result of the movement.
Great Leap Forward
An economic and social campaign by the Communist Party of China (CPC) that took place from 1958 to 1961 and was led by Mao Zedong. It aimed to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. It is widely considered to have caused the Great Chinese Famine.
Background: The Great Leap Forward
In 1958, Mao Zedong, the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, called for “grassroots socialism” with the aim of accelerating his plans to turn China into a modern industrialized state. In this spirit, he launched the Great Leap Forward, an economic and social campaign to transform the country’s largely agrarian structure into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization.
Main changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the incremental introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization. Private farming was prohibited and those engaged in it were persecuted and labeled counter-revolutionaries. Restrictions on rural populations were enforced through forced labor, public struggle sessions (a form of public humiliation and torture), and social pressure. Many communities were assigned the production of a single commodity—steel.
The Great Leap was a social and economic disaster. Farmers attempted to produce steel on a massive scale, partially relying on backyard furnaces to achieve the production targets set by local cadres. The steel produced was of low quality and largely useless. The Great Leap reduced harvest sizes and led to a decline in the production of most goods, except substandard pig iron and steel. Further, local authorities frequently exaggerated production numbers, hiding and intensifying the problem for several years. Simultaneously, chaos in the collectives, bad weather, and exports of food necessary to secure hard currency resulted in the Great Chinese Famine. Historians agree that the Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with estimates ranging from 18 to 55 million. Historian Frank Dikötter notes, “coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward,” which “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.”
The Party forced Mao to take major responsibility for the Great Leap’s failureIn 1959, Mao resigned as the President of the People’s Republic of China, China’s de jure head of state, and was succeeded by Liu Shaoqi. By the early 1960s, many of the Great Leap’s economic policies were reversed by initiatives spearheaded by Liu and other moderate pragmatists, who were unenthusiastic about Mao’s utopian visions. By 1962, Mao had effectively withdrawn from economic decision-making and focused much of his time on further developing his contributions to Marxist-Leninist social theory, including the idea of “continuous revolution.” This theory’s ultimate aim was to set the stage for Mao to restore his brand of communism and his personal prestige within the Party.
Development of the Revolution
During the early 1960s, State Chairman Liu Shaoqi and General Secretary Deng Xiaoping favored the idea that Mao be removed from actual power but maintain his ceremonial and symbolic role, with the Party upholding all of his positive contributions to the revolution. Most historians agree that
launching the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in 1966 was Mao’s response to Liu and Deng’s increasing political and economic influence (some scholars, however, note that the case for this is overstated). Dikötter argues that Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to wreak revenge on those who had dared to challenge him over the Great Leap Forward.
The Cultural Revolution was a sociopolitical movement, set into motion by Mao, that started in 1966 and ended in 1976 and whose stated goal was to preserve ‘true’ Communist ideology in China by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society and reimposing Maoism as the dominant ideology within the Party. The Revolution marked the return of Mao to a position of power after the Great Leap Forward.
The Revolution was launched after Mao alleged that bourgeois elements had infiltrated the government and society at large, aiming to restore capitalism. He insisted that these “revisionists” be removed through violent class struggle. China’s youth responded to Mao’s appeal by forming Red Guard groups around the country. The movement spread into the military, urban workers, and the Communist Party leadership itself. It resulted in widespread factional struggles in all walks of life. In the top leadership, it led to a mass purge of senior officials, most notably Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. During the same period, Mao’s personality cult grew to immense proportions.
Millions of people were persecuted in the violent struggles that ensued across the country and suffered a wide range of abuses, including public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced, most notably the transfer of urban youth to rural regions during the Down to the Countryside Movement.
A poster from the Cultural Revolution, featuring an image of Chairman Mao and published by the government of the People’s Republic of China.
Mao set the scene for the Cultural Revolution by “cleansing” Beijing of powerful officials of questionable loyalty. His approach was less than transparent. He achieved this purge through newspaper articles, internal meetings, and skillfully employing his network of political allies.
The start of the Cultural Revolution brought huge numbers of Red Guards to Beijing, with all expenses paid by the government. The revolution aimed to destroy the “Four Olds” (old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas) and establish the corresponding “Four News,” which ranged from the changing of names and hair cuts to ransacking homes, vandalizing cultural treasures, and desecrating temples. In a few years, countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books, and paintings were destroyed by the members of the Red Guards.
Believing that certain liberal bourgeois elements of society continued to threaten the socialist framework, the Red Guards struggled against authorities at all levels of society and even set up their own tribunals. Chaos reigned in much of the nation.
During the Cultural Revolution, nearly all of the schools and universities in China were closed and the young intellectuals living in cities were ordered to the countryside to be “re-educated” by the peasants, where they performed hard manual labor and other work.
Mao officially declared the Cultural Revolution to have ended in 1969, but its active phase lasted until the death of the military leader Lin Biao in 1971. After Mao’s death and the arrest of the Gang of Four in 1976, reformers led by Deng Xiaoping gradually began to dismantle the Maoist policies associated with the Cultural Revolution.
Consequences
The Cultural Revolution led to the destruction of much of China’s traditional cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge number of citizens as well as general economic and social chaos. Millions of lives were ruined during this period as the Cultural Revolution pierced every part of Chinese life. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, perished in the violence of the Cultural Revolution.
The Revolution aimed to get rid of those who allegedly promoted bourgeois ideas as well as those who were seen as coming from an exploitative family background or belonged to one of the Five Black Categories (landlords, rich farmers, counter-revolutionaries, bad-influencers or “bad elements,” and rightists). Many people perceived to belong to any of these categories, regardless of guilt or innocence, were publicly denounced, humiliated, and beaten. In their revolutionary fervor, students denounced their teachers and children denounced their parents.
The remains of Ming Dynasty Wanli Emperor at the Ming tombs. Red Guards dragged the remains of the Wanli Emperor and Empresses to the front of the tomb, where they were posthumously “denounced” and burned.
During the Cultural Revolution,
libraries full of historical and foreign texts were destroyed and books were burned. Temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes converted to other uses, looted, and destroyed. Among the countless acts of destruction, Red Guards from Beijing Normal University desecrated and badly damaged the burial place of Confucius.
Although the effects of the Cultural Revolution were disastrous for millions of people in China, there were some positive outcomes, particularly in the rural areas. For example, the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution and the hostility towards the intellectual elite are widely accepted to have damaged the quality of education in China, especially the higher education system. However, some policies also provided many in the rural communities with middle school education for the first time, which facilitated rural economic development in the 1970s and 80s. Similarly, a large number of health personnel was deployed to the countryside. Some farmers were given informal medical training and healthcare centers were established in rural communities. This led to a marked improvement in the health and the life expectancy of the general population.
The Cultural Revolution also brought to the forefront numerous internal power struggles within the Party, many of which had little to do with the larger battles between Party leaders but resulted instead from local factionalism and petty rivalries that were usually unrelated to the Revolution itself. Because of the chaotic political environment, local governments lacked organization and stability, if they existed at all. Members of different factions often fought on the streets and political assassinations, particularly in predominantly rural provinces, were common. The masses spontaneously involved themselves in factions and took part in open warfare against other factions. The ideology that drove these factions was vague and sometimes non-existent, with the struggle for local authority being the only motivation for mass involvement.
The Cultural Revolution wreaked havoc on minority cultures in China. In Inner Mongolia, some 790,000 people were persecuted. In Xinjiang, copies of the Qur’an and other books of the Uyghur people were burned. Muslim imams were reportedly paraded around with paint splashed on their bodies. In the ethnic Korean areas of northeast China, language schools were destroyed. In Yunnan Province, the palace of the Dai people’s king was torched and a massacre of Muslim Hui people at the hands of the People’s Liberation Army in Yunnan, known as the Shadian Incident, reportedly claimed over 1,600 lives in 1975.
35.1.6: The Sino-Soviet Split
The Sino-Soviet split was the deterioration and eventual breakup of political and ideological relations between China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which had massive domestic and geopolitical consequences.
Learning Objective
Discuss why the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic broke their relations and the consequences of the split
Key Points
Mao and his supporters argued that traditional
Marxism was rooted in industrialized European society and could not be applied
to Asian peasant societies. However, although Mao continued to develop his own thought
based on that presumption, in the 1950s, Soviet-guided China followed Stalin’s model of centralized economic development.
After Stalin’s death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev
made an effort to further the burgeoning relations with China begun by Stalin, traveling to the country and making various deals with the
Chinese leadership that expanded the economic and political alliances between
the two countries. The 1953-56 period
has
been called the “golden age” of Sino-Soviet relations.
Relations between the USSR and the PRC began to
deteriorate in 1956 after Khrushchev revealed his “Secret Speech” at the 20th
Communist Party Congress. The “Secret Speech” criticized many of Stalin’s
policies, especially his purges of Party members, and marked the beginning of
Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization process. This created a serious domestic problem
for Mao, who had supported many of Stalin’s policies and modeled many of his
own after them.
At
first, the Sino-Soviet split manifested indirectly as criticism towards each
other’s client states. By 1960, the mutual criticism became public when Khrushchev and Peng Zhen had an open argument at the Romanian
Communist Party congress.
After
a series of unconvincing compromises and explicitly hostile gestures, in 1962,
the PRC and the USSR finally broke relations.
The split, seen by historians as one of the key
events of the Cold War, had massive consequences for the two powers and for the
world. The USSR had a network of communist parties it supported. China now
created its own rival network to battle it out for local control of the left in
numerous countries.
Mao launched the Cultural
Revolution (1966–76), largely to prevent the development of Russian-style
bureaucratic communism of the USSR. The ideological split also escalated
to small-scale warfare between Russia and China.
After
the regime of Mao Zedong, the PRC–USSR ideological schism no longer shaped
domestic politics but continued to impact geopolitics, including such global developments as the establishment of post-colonial Indochina, the
Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1975–79) that deposed Pol Pot in 1978, the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979), and the 1979 invasion of the USSR on
Afghanistan. Relations
between China and the Soviet Union remained tense until the visit of Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev to Beijing in 1989.
Key Terms
Cultural Revolution
A sociopolitical
movement that took place in China from 1966 until 1976. Set into
motion by Mao Zedong, then Chairman of the Communist Party of China, its stated
goal was to preserve ‘true’ Communist ideology in the country by purging
remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society
and reimposing Maoist thought as the dominant ideology within the
Party. The movement paralyzed China politically and had significant negative effects on economy and society.
Hundred Flowers Campaign
A period in 1956 in the People’s Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China (CPC) encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. Differing views and solutions to national policy were encouraged based on the famous expression by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong: “The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science.” After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course.
Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”
A report by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev made to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956. Khrushchev was sharply critical of the reign of deceased General Secretary and Premier Joseph Stalin, particularly with respect to the purges which marked the late 1930s.
Five Year Plan
A nationwide centralized economic plan in the Soviet Union developed by a state planning committee that was part of the ideology of the Communist Party for the development of the Soviet economy. A series of these plans was developed in the Soviet Union while similar Soviet-inspired plans emerged across other communist countries during the Cold War era.
Great Leap Forward
An economic and social
campaign by the Communist Party of China (CPC) that took place from 1958
to 1961 and was led by Mao Zedong. It aimed to rapidly transform the country
from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid
industrialization and collectivization. It is widely considered to have
caused the Great Chinese Famine.
Cuban missile crisis
A 13-day (October 16–28, 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union concerning American ballistic missile deployment in Italy and Turkey with consequent Soviet ballistic missile deployment in Cuba. The confrontation, elements of which were televised, was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.
Background: Mao and Joseph Stalin
During both the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–45) against the Japanese Empire and the ongoing Chinese Civil War against the Nationalist Kuomintang, Mao Zedong ignored much of the politico-military advice and direction from Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin and the Comintern because of the practical difficulty in applying traditional Leninist revolutionary theory to China. After World War II, Stalin advised Mao against seizing power because the Soviet Union had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with the Nationalists in 1945. This time, Mao obeyed Stalin’s advice, calling him “the only leader of our party.” However, Stalin broke the treaty, requiring Soviet withdrawal from Manchuria three months after Japan’s surrender, and gave Manchuria to Mao. After the CPC’s victory over the KMT, a Moscow visit by Mao from December 1949 to February 1950 culminated in the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (1950), which included a $300 million low-interest loan and a 30-year military alliance clause.
However, Mao and his supporters argued that traditional Marxism was rooted in industrialized European society and could not be applied to Asian peasant societies. Although Mao continued to develop his own thought based on that presumption, in the 1950s, Soviet-guided China followed the Soviet model of centralized economic development, emphasizing heavy industry and not treating consumer goods as a priority. Simultaneously, by the late 1950s, Mao had developed ideas that became the basis for the Great Leap Forward (1958–61), a campaign based on the assumption of the centrality of the rural working class to China’s economy and political system.
Communism after Stalin’s Death
After Stalin’s death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev made an effort to further the burgeoning relations with China begun by Stalin, traveling to the country in 1954 and making deals with the Chinese leadership that expanded the economic and political alliances between the two countries. Khrushchev also acknowledged Stalin’s unfair trade deals and revealed a list of active KGB agents placed in China during Stalin’s reign. Khrushchev was able to reach many prominent economic agreements during his visit, including an additional loan for economic development from the USSR to the PRC and a trade of human capital that included sending Soviet economic experts and political advisors to China and Chinese economic experts and unskilled labor to the USSR.
In 1955, relations only continued to improve. Economic trade collaboration began to develop to the point that 60% of Chinese exports were to the USSR. Mao also began to implement the Chinese but USSR-modeled Five Year Plan. Mao also promoted and encouraged the collectivization of agriculture in the PRC, applauding Stalin’s policies towards agriculture and industrialization. Finally, the two countries collaborated when setting their respective foreign policies. This period, from roughly Stalin’s death in 1953 to Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” in 1956, has been called the “golden age” of Sino-Soviet relations.
Photograph of Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Nikita Khrushchev: publicly, international allies; privately, ideological enemies. (China,1958, author unknown).
Although before 1956 Mao and Khrushchev managed to sign numerous agreements between China and the Soviet Union, the two leaders did not develop a positive personal relationship. Mao found Khrushchev’s personality grating and Khrushchev was unimpressed by Chinese culture.
The Sino-Soviet Split
Relations between the USSR and the PRC began to deteriorate in 1956 after Khrushchev revealed his “Secret Speech” at the 20th Communist Party Congress. The “Secret Speech” criticized many of Stalin’s policies, especially his purges of Party members, and marked the beginning of Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization process. This created a serious domestic problem for Mao, who had supported many of Stalin’s policies and modeled many of his own after them. With Khrushchev’s denouncement of Stalin, many people questioned Mao’s decisions. Moreover, the emergence of movements fighting for the reforms of the existing communist systems across East-Central Europe after Khrushchev’s speech worried Mao. Brief political liberalization introduced to prevent similar movements in China, most notably lessened political censorship known as the Hundred Flowers Campaign, backfired against Mao, whose position within the Party only weakened. This convinced him further that de-Stalinization was a mistake. Mao took a sharp turn to the left ideologically, which contrasted with the ideological softening of de-Stalinization. With Khrushchev’s strengthening position as Soviet leader, the two countries were set on two different ideological paths.
Mao’s implementation of the Great Leap Forward, which utilized communist policies closer to Stalin than to Khrushchev, including forming a personality cult around Mao as well as more Stalinist economic policies. This angered the USSR, especially after Mao criticized Khrushchev’s economic policies through the plan while also calling for more Soviet aid. The Soviet leader saw the new policies as evidence of an increasingly confrontational and unpredictable China.
At first, the Sino-Soviet split manifested indirectly as criticism towards each other’s client states. China denounced Yugoslavia and Tito, who pursued a non-aligned foreign policy, while the USSR denounced Enver Hoxha and the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, which refused to abandon its pro-Stalin stance and sought its survival in alignment with China.
The USSR also offered moral support to the Tibetan rebels in their 1959 Tibetan uprising against China. By 1960, the mutual criticism moved out in the open, when Khrushchev and Peng Zhen had an open argument at the Romanian Communist Party congress. Khrushchev characterized Mao as “a nationalist, an adventurist, and a deviationist.” In turn, China’s Peng Zhen called Khrushchev a Marxist revisionist, criticizing him as “patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical.” Khrushchev denounced China with an 80-page letter to the conference and responded to Mao by withdrawing around 1,400 Soviet experts and technicians from China, leading to the cancellation of more than 200 scientific projects intended to foster cooperation between the two nations.
After a series of unconvincing compromises and explicitly hostile gestures, in 1962, the PRC and the USSR finally broke relations. Mao criticized Khrushchev for withdrawing from the Cuban missile crisis (1962). Khrushchev replied angrily that Mao’s confrontational policies would lead to a nuclear war. In the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, nuclear disarmament was brought to the forefront of geopolitics. To curb the production of nuclear weapons in other nations, the Soviet Union, Britain, and the U.S. signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963. At the time, China was developing its own nuclear weaponry and Mao saw the treaty as an attempt to slow China’s advancement as a superpower. This was the final straw for Mao, who from September 1963 to July 1964 published nine letters openly criticizing every aspect of Khrushchev’s leadership.
The Sino-Soviet alliance now completely collapsed and Mao turned to other Asian, African, and Latin American countries to develop new and stronger alliances and further the PRC’s economic and ideological redevelopment.
Consequences
The split, seen by historians as one of the key events of the Cold War, had massive consequences for the two powers and for the world. The USSR had a network of communist parties it supported. China created its own rival network to battle it out for local control of the left in numerous countries. The divide fractured the international communist movement at the time and opened the way for the warming of relations between the U.S. and China under Richard Nixon and Mao in 1971.
In China, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), largely to prevent the development of Russian-style bureaucratic communism of the USSR.
The ideological split also escalated to small-scale warfare between Russia and China, with a revived conflict over the Russo-Chinese border demarcated in the 19th century (starting in 1966) and Red Guards attacking the Soviet embassy in Beijing (1967). In the 1970s, Sino-Soviet ideological rivalry extended to Africa and the Middle East, where the Soviet Union and China funded and supported opposed political parties, militias, and states.
The disputed Argun and Amur river areas; the Damansky–Zhenbao is southeast, north of the lake. (March 2 – September 11, 1969). Source: Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.
By March 1969, Sino-Russian border politics became the Sino-Soviet border conflict at the Ussuri River and on Damansky–Zhenbao Island, with more small-scale warfare occurring at Tielieketi in August.
After the regime of Mao Zedong, the PRC–USSR ideological schism no longer shaped domestic politics but continued to impact geopolitics. The initial Soviet-Chinese proxy war occurred in Indochina in 1975, where the Communist victory of the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) and of North Vietnam in the 30-year Vietnam War had produced a post–colonial Indochina that featured pro-Soviet regimes in Vietnam (Socialist Republic of Vietnam) and Laos (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), and a pro-Chinese regime in Cambodia (Democratic Kampuchea).
At first, Vietnam ignored the Khmer Rouge domestic reorganization of Cambodia by the Pol Pot regime (1975–79) as an internal matter, until the Khmer Rouge attacked the ethnic Vietnamese populace of Cambodia and the border with Vietnam. The counter-attack precipitated the Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1975–79) that deposed Pol Pot in 1978. In response, the PRC denounced the Vietnamese and retaliated by invading northern Vietnam in the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). In turn, the USSR denounced the PRC’s invasion of Vietnam. In 1979, the USSR invaded the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to sustain the Afghan Communist government. The PRC viewed the Soviet invasion as a local feint within Soviet’s greater geopolitical encirclement of China. In response, the PRC entered a tripartite alliance with the U.S. and Pakistan to sponsor Islamist Afghan armed resistance to the Soviet occupation (1979–89).
Relations between China and the Soviet Union remained tense until the visit of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to Beijing in 1989.
35.1.7: Deng Xiaoping and the Economic Reform
The rise of Deng Xiaoping to power after Mao’s death resulted in far-reaching market economy reforms and China opening up to the global trade while maintaining its roots in socialism.
Learning Objective
Determine why Deng Xiaoping created the Special Economic Zones
Key Points
Deng
Xiaoping was a Chinese revolutionary and statesman, the leader of the People’s
Republic of China from 1978 until his retirement in 1989. After Mao Zedong’s
death, Deng led China through far-reaching market-economy reforms. While he
never held office as the head of state, head of government, or general secretary, he was responsible
for economic reforms and opening the global economy.
Beginning in 1979, economic reforms boosted the
market model while the leaders maintained old Communist-style rhetoric. The
commune system was gradually dismantled and the peasants began to have more
freedom to manage the land they cultivated and sell their products. At the same time, China’s economy opened to foreign trade. On January
1, 1979, the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China and
business contacts between China and the West began to grow.
During the 1980s, the Chinese
government established special economic zones and open coastal cities and areas
as well as designed open inland and coastal economic and technology development
zones. The special economic zones were areas where the
government of China established more free market-oriented economic
policies and flexible governmental measures, allowing them to operate under
an economic system that was very attractive to foreign and domestic firms.
China’s rapid economic growth under the
socialist political system resulted in complex social developments. The 1982
population census revealed the extraordinary growth of the population and Deng continued the plans to restrict birth to only one child per family. At the same time, increasing economic freedom emboldened
a greater freedom of opinion, and critics of the Party began to arise.
In
the late 1980s, dissatisfaction with the authoritarian regime and the growing
inequalities caused the biggest crisis to Deng’s leadership: the Tiananmen
Square protests or the popular national movement inspired by student-led
demonstrations in Beijing in 1989.
Deng Xiaoping and other party elders believed the protests were a
political threat and resolved to use force. The number of civilian deaths
has been estimated at anywhere between the hundreds to the thousands. The
Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for the use of force.
Considered
a watershed event, the Tiananmen Square protests set the limits on political expression in
China well into the 21st century
while the successful market economy, including the development of the five existing SEZs and
other areas operating under a preferential economic system, continues.
Key Terms
Tiananmen Square protest
Student-led demonstrations in Beijing in 1989. More broadly, the term refers to the popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests during that period, sometimes referred to as the ’89 Democracy Movement. The protests were forcibly suppressed after the government declared martial law. In what became widely known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, troops with assault rifles and tanks killed at least several hundred demonstrators trying to block the military’s advance towards Tiananmen Square. The number of civilian deaths has been estimated between the hundreds and the thousands.
special economic zones
Designated geographical areas in China, originally created in the 1980s, where the government establishes more free market-oriented economic policies and flexible governmental measures. These special economic rules allow the areas to operate under an economic system that is more attractive to foreign and domestic firms than the economic policies in the rest of mainland China.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
The official ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC), claimed to be based upon scientific socialism. This ideology supports the creation of a socialist market economy dominated by the public sector since China is, as claimed by the CPC, in the primary stage of socialism. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism but has developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The CPC argues that socialism is compatible with these economic policies.
the one-child policy
A population planning policy of China introduced in 1979 and formally phased out starting in 2015. Provincial governments imposed fines for the violations of the policy and local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.
China after Mao: Deng Xiaoping
Deng Xiaoping was a Chinese revolutionary and statesman, leader of the People’s Republic of China from 1978 until his retirement in 1989. After Mao Zedong’s death, Deng led China through far-reaching market-economy reforms. While he never held office as the head of state, head of government, or general secretary (the leader of the Communist Party), he nonetheless was responsible for economic reforms and an opening to the global economy.
Born into a peasant background, Deng studied and worked in France in the 1920s, where he became fascinated with Marxism-Leninism. He joined the Communist Party of China in 1923. After the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, Deng worked in Tibet and the southwest region to consolidate Communist control. As the party’s Secretary General in the 1950s, he presided over anti-rightist campaigns and became instrumental in China’s economic reconstruction following the Great Leap Forward of 1957-1960. His economic policies, however, were at odds with Mao’s political ideologies and he was purged twice during the Cultural Revolution. Following Mao’s death in 1976, Deng outmaneuvered Mao’s chosen successor, Hua Guofeng. Inheriting a country beset with social conflict, disenchantment with the Party, and institutional disorder resulting from the policies of the Mao era, Deng became the paramount figure of the “second generation” of Party leadership. Some called him “the architect” of a new brand of thinking that combined socialist ideology with pragmatic market economy whose slogan was “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.”
China’s Opening Up
Beginning in 1979, economic reforms boosted the market model, while the leaders maintained old Communist-style rhetoric. The commune system was gradually dismantled and the peasants began to have more freedom to manage the land they cultivated and sell their products on the market. At the same time, China’s economy opened to foreign trade. On January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China, and business contacts between China and the West began to grow. The same year, Deng undertook an official visit to the United States, meeting President Jimmy Carter in Washington as well as several congressmen. The Chinese insisted that ex-President Richard Nixon be invited to the formal White House reception, indicative of both their assertiveness and desire to continue with Nixon initiatives. Deng made it clear that the new Chinese regime’s priorities were economic and technological development. Correspondingly, Sino-Japanese relations also improved significantly. Deng used Japan as an example of a rapidly progressing power that set a good economic example for China.
Deng Xiaoping (left) and his wife Zhuo Lin (right) are briefed by Johnson Space Center director Christopher C. Kraft (extreme right), 1979, author unknown.
During the 1979 visit, Deng visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston as well as the headquarters of Coca-Cola and Boeing in Atlanta and Seattle, respectively. With these visits, Deng made it clear that the new Chinese regime’s priorities were economic and technological development.
Deng, along with his closest collaborators Zhao Ziyang, who in 1980 relieved Hua Guofeng as premier, and Hu Yaobang, who in 1981 did the same with the post of party chairman, took power. Their goal was to achieve “four modernizations” – economy, agriculture, scientific and technological development, and national defense. The last position of power retained by Hua Guofeng, chairman of the Central Military Commission, was taken by Deng in 1981.
Special Economic Zones
The basic state policy focused on the formulation and implementation of overall reforms and opening to the outside world. During the 1980s, the Chinese government established special economic zones and open coastal cities and areas, as well as designed open inland and coastal economic and technology development zones.
Since 1980, China has established special economic zones (SEZs): areas where the government of China establishes more free market-oriented economic policies and flexible governmental measures. This allows SEZs to operate under an economic system that is more attractive to foreign and domestic firms than the economic policies in the rest of mainland China. Most notably, the central government in Beijing is not required to authorize foreign and domestic trade in SEZs, and special incentives are offered to attract foreign investors. SEZs were originally created in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, and Shantou in Guangdong Province and Xiamen in Fujian Province. In 1984, China opened 14 coastal cities to overseas investment. Since 1988, mainland China’s opening to the outside world has been extended to its border areas along the Yangtze River and inland. The state also decided to turn Hainan Island into mainland China’s biggest special economic zone (approved in 1988) and enlarge the other four SEZs. Shortly after, the State Council expanded the open coastal areas and open economic zones in seven geographical areas.
The development of the five existing SEZs and other areas operating under a preferential economic system continues in China today. Primarily geared to exporting processed goods, the five SEZs are foreign trade-oriented areas which integrate science, innovation, and industry with trade. Foreign firms benefit from preferential policies such as lower tax rates, reduced regulations, and special managerial systems.
Deng Xiaoping and Jimmy Carter at the arrival ceremony, 1979, author unknown.
On January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China, which meant abandoning the recognition of the Republic of China’s Nationalist government (Taiwan) as the sole Chinese authority. In late 1978, the aerospace company Boeing announced the sale of 747 aircraft to various airlines in the PRC and Coca-Cola made public their intention to open a production plant in Shanghai.
Capitalist Economy vs. Socialist System
China’s rapid economic growth under the socialist political system resulted in complex social developments. The 1982 population census revealed the extraordinary growth of the population, which already exceeded one billion people. Deng continued the plans initiated by Hua Guofeng to restrict birth to only one child under the threat of administrative penalty (“the one-child policy,” very controversial outside of China and challenged for violating a human right to determine the size of one’s own family). At the same time, increasing economic freedom emboldened a greater freedom of opinion and critics began to arise, including famous dissident Wei Jingsheng, who coined the term “fifth modernization” in reference to democracy as a missing element in the renewal plans of Deng Xiaoping.
In the late 1980s, dissatisfaction with the authoritarian regime and the growing inequalities caused the biggest crisis to Deng’s leadership: the Tiananmen Square protests, the popular national movement inspired by student-led demonstrations in Beijing in 1989. The protests reflected anxieties about the country’s future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The economic reforms benefited some groups but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system faced a challenge of legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. The students called for democracy, greater accountability, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, although they were loosely organized and their goals varied. At the height of the protests, about a million people assembled in the Square.
As the protests developed, the authorities veered back and forth between conciliatory and hard-line tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country and the protests spread to some 400 cities. Ultimately, Deng Xiaoping and other party elders believed the protests to be a political threat and resolved to use force. Party authorities declared martial law on May 20 and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing. In what became widely known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, troops with assault rifles and tanks killed at least several hundred demonstrators trying to block the military’s advance towards Tiananmen Square. The number of civilian deaths has been estimated between the hundreds and thousands. The Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for the use of force. Western countries imposed economic sanctions and arms embargoes. In the aftermath of the crackdown, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists, and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press. The police and internal security forces were strengthened. Officials deemed sympathetic to the protests were demoted or purged. More broadly, the suppression temporarily halted the policies of liberalization. Considered a watershed event, the protests also set the limits on political expression in China well into the 21st century.
Officially, Deng decided to retire from top positions when he stepped down as Chairman of the Central Military Commission in 1989 and retired from the political scene in 1992. China, however, was still in the era of Deng Xiaoping. He continued to be widely regarded as the “paramount leader” of the country, believed to have backroom control. Deng was recognized officially as “the chief architect of China’s economic reforms and China’s socialist modernization.” To the Communist Party, he was believed to have set a good example for communist cadres who refused to retire at old age. He broke earlier conventions of holding offices for life. He was often referred to as simply Comrade Xiaoping, with no title attached.
35.1.8: Taiwan’s Precarious Position
Following the democratization reforms of the 1980s and 90s, Taiwan remains a strong democracy with one of the major global economies. Its political status, however, is vulnerable, with most UN member states neither recognizing it as an independent state nor as a representative of China.
Learning Objective
Describe Taiwan’s role in global politics
Key Points
The
Chinese Civil War led to the Republic of China’s loss of the mainland to the Communists and
the flight of the ROC government to Taiwan in 1949. Although the ROC claimed to be the legitimate government of “all of China” until
1991, its effective jurisdiction since 1949 has been limited to Taiwan and its
surrounding islands. The
official name of the entity remains the Republic of China although its political
status is highly ambiguous, with most UN member states recognizing the ROC neither as an independent state nor a representative of China.
The ROC was a charter member of the
United Nations. Despite the major loss of territory in 1949, the ROC continued to be
recognized as the legitimate government of China by the UN and many
non-communist states. However, in 1971, the UN expelled the ROC and transferred
China’s seat to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
On
February 28, 1947, an anti-government uprising in Taiwan was violently
suppressed by the Kuomintang-led ROC government, which marked the
beginning of the Kuomintang’s White Terror that turned into more than 38 years of martial law. Chiang
Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek’s son and successor as the president, began to
liberalize the political system in the mid-1980s when he
selected Lee Teng-hui to be his
vice-president and eventually lifted martial law.
After the death of Chiang Ching-kuo in 1988, Lee
Teng-hui succeeded him as president and led Taiwan to full-fledged democratization.
Although Taiwan is fully self-governing, most
international organizations either refuse it membership or allow it to
participate only as a non-state actor. Internally, the major division in
politics is between the aspirations of eventual Chinese unification or
Taiwanese independence, although both sides have moderated their positions to
broaden their appeal.
Since 1949, the relations between the PRC and
the ROC have been characterized by limited contact, tensions, and instability.
In the early years, military conflicts
continued, while diplomatically both governments competed to be the
“legitimate government of China.” More recently, following the Three Links policy, the PRC, and the ROC have established strong trade and communication, with China becoming Taiwan’s top trade partner.
Commercial, cultural, and other relations
between “the people of the United States” and “the people on
Taiwan” are currently governed by the Taiwan Relations Act. The Act does
not recognize “the Republic of China” terminology after January 1,
1979, when the US recognized the PRC. The US government does not support
Taiwan’s independence, but the two have strong economic and cultural relations.
Key Terms
White Terror
The suppression of political dissidents following the February 28 Incident, which turned into the period of martial law that lasted from May 19, 1949 to July 15, 1987. Taiwan’s period of martial law was the longest in the world when it was lifted, but has since been surpassed by the Syrian half-century martial law, which lasted from 1963 to 2011.
Three-Noes Policy
A policy established in April 1979 and maintained by President Chiang Ching-kuo of the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, in response to the People’s Republic of China’s attempts to have direct contact with the ROC through the proposed policy of Three Links. President Chiang Ching-kuo refused, reiterating that there would be “no contact, no compromise and no negotiation.”
Three Links
A 1979 proposal from the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to open up postal, transportation (especially airline), and trade links between China and Taiwan with the goal of unification. The proposal was officially implemented in December 2008 with the commencement of direct flights, shipping, and post.
February 28 Incident
An anti-government uprising in Taiwan in 1947 that was violently suppressed by the Kuomintang-led Republic of China government, which killed thousands of civilians. Estimates of the number of deaths vary from 10,000 to 50,000 or more. The massacre marked the beginning of the Kuomintang’s White Terror period in Taiwan.
Taiwan or the Republic of China?
The
island of Taiwan was mainly inhabited by Taiwanese aborigines before the 17th
century, when Dutch and Spanish colonies opened the island to Han Chinese
immigration. After a brief rule by the Kingdom of Tungning, the island was
annexed by the Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of China. The Qing ceded Taiwan
to Japan in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. While Taiwan was under
Japanese rule, the Republic of China (ROC) was established on the mainland in
1912 after the fall of the Qing dynasty. Following the Japanese surrender to
the Allies in 1945, the ROC took control of Taiwan. However, the resumption of
the Chinese Civil War led to the ROC’s loss of the mainland to the Communists
and the flight of the ROC government to Taiwan in 1949. Although the ROC
claimed to be the legitimate government of “all of China”
until 1991, its effective jurisdiction since 1949 has been limited to Taiwan
and its surrounding islands, with the main island making up 99% of its
territory.
The
official name of the entity remains the Republic of China although its political
status is highly ambiguous. The ROC was a charter member of the
United Nations. Despite the major loss of territory in 1949 when the People’s
Republic of China was established by the Communists, the ROC was still recognized as the legitimate government of China by the UN and many
non-communist states. However, in 1971 the UN expelled the ROC and transferred
China’s seat to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In addition, the ROC
lost its membership in all intergovernmental organizations related to
the UN. Most countries aligned with the West in the Cold War
terminated diplomatic relations with the ROC and recognized the PRC instead.
The
ROC continues to maintain relations with the UN and most of its non-governmental organizations. However, multiple
attempts by the Republic of China to rejoin the UN to represent the people of its territories have failed,
largely due to diplomatic maneuvering by the PRC. The ROC is recognized a
small number of United Nations member states and the Holy See. It maintains
diplomatic relations with those countries, which means they recognize the ROC government as the representative of China but not
the independent status of Taiwan as a state. The PRC refuses to maintain
diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the ROC, but does not
object to nations conducting economic, cultural, and other exchanges with
Taiwan that do not imply diplomatic relations. Therefore, many nations that have
diplomatic relations with Beijing maintain quasi-diplomatic offices in Taipei.
Similarly, the government in Taiwan maintains quasi-diplomatic offices in most
nations under various names, most commonly as the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Office. The ROC participates in most international forums and organizations
under the name “Chinese Taipei” due to diplomatic pressure from the
People’s Republic of China. For instance, it has competed
at the Olympic Games under this name since 1984.
President Chiang Kai-shek and President Dwight D. Eisenhower waved to crowds during Eisenhower’s visit to Taipei in June 1960, author unknown.
The ROC continued to represent China at the United Nations until 1971 when the PRC assumed China’s seat, causing the ROC to lose its UN membership. Not until January 1, 1979, did the United States recognize the People’s Republic of China and not the ROC as the sole representative of China.
Taiwan’s Political System
On February 28, 1947, an anti-government uprising in Taiwan was violently
suppressed by the Kuomintang-led ROC government, which killed thousands of
civilians. The massacre, known as the February 28 Incident, marked the
beginning of the Kuomintang’s White Terror period in Taiwan, in which tens
of thousands more inhabitants vanished, died, or were imprisoned. The White
Terror, in its broadest meaning, was the period of martial law that lasted for 38 years and 57 days. Chiang
Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek’s son and successor as the president, began to
liberalize the political system in the mid-1980s. In 1984, the younger Chiang
selected Lee Teng-hui, a Taiwanese-born, US-educated technocrat, to be his
vice president. In 1986, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was formed
and inaugurated as the first opposition party in the ROC to counter the KMT. A
year later, Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law on the main island of Taiwan.
After
the death of Chiang Ching-kuo in 1988, Lee Teng-hui succeeded him as president
and continued to democratize the government. Under Lee, Taiwan underwent a
process of localization in which Taiwanese culture and history were promoted
over a pan-China viewpoint, in contrast to earlier KMT policies that promoted a Chinese identity. The original members of the Legislative Yuan and
National Assembly, elected in 1947 to represent mainland Chinese constituencies
and holding the seats without re-election for more than four decades, were
forced to resign in 1991. The previously nominal representation in the
Legislative Yuan was brought to an end, reflecting the reality that the ROC had
no jurisdiction over mainland China and vice versa. Democratic reforms
continued in the 1990s, with Lee Teng-hui re-elected in 1996 in the first
direct presidential election in the history of the ROC. By the same token,
Taiwan transformed from a one-party military dictatorship dominated by the
Kuomintang to a multi-party democracy with universal suffrage. Taiwan is the 21st-largest
economy in the world, and its high-tech industry plays a key role in the global
economy. It is ranked highly in terms of freedom of the press, health
care, public education, economic freedom, and human development.
Although
Taiwan is fully self-governing, most international organizations either refuse
it membership or allow it to participate only as a non-state actor. Internally,
the major division in politics is between the aspirations of eventual Chinese
unification or Taiwanese independence, although both sides have moderated their
positions to broaden their appeal. The PRC has threatened the use of military
force in response to any formal declaration of independence by Taiwan or if PRC
leaders decide that peaceful unification is no longer possible.
Cross-Strait Relations
The
English expression “cross-strait relations” refers to
relations between the PRC and the ROC by the two sides concerned and many
observers, so that the relationship between China and Taiwan would not be referred
to as “(Mainland) China–Taiwan relations” or “PRC–ROC
relations.”
Since
1949, relations between the PRC and the ROC have been characterized by
limited contact, tensions, and instability. The Chinese Civil War stopped
without signing a peace treaty, and the two sides are technically still at war. In the early years, military conflicts continued while
diplomatically both governments competed to be the “legitimate government
of China.” On January 1, 1979, Beijing proposed the establishment of the
so called Three Links: postal, commercial, and transportation. The
proposal was greeted in ROC’s President Chiang Ching-kuo’s with the Three-Nos
Policy (“no contact, no compromise and no negotiation”). This policy was
revised following the 1986 hijacking of a China Airlines cargo plane, in which
a Taiwanese pilot subdued other members of the crew and flew the plane to
Guangzhou. In response, Chiang sent delegates to Hong Kong to discuss the
return of the plane and crew, seen as a turning point. In 1987, the
ROC government began to allow visits to China. This benefited many, especially
old KMT soldiers who had been separated from their families in China for
decades. This also proved a catalyst for the thawing of relations between the
two sides, although difficult negotiations continued and the Three Links were
officially established only in 2008.
Regular
weekend direct, cross-strait charter flights between mainland China and Taiwan
resumed on July 4, 2008, for the first time since 1950. Currently, 61 mainland
Chinese cities are connected with eight airports in Taiwan. The flights operate
every day, totaling 890 round-trip flights across the Taiwan Strait per
week. Previously, regular passengers (other than festive or emergency
charters) had to make a time-consuming stopover at a third destination, usually
Hong Kong. Under the current procedure, the flights do not directly cross
the Taiwan Strait for security reasons, but instead must enter the Hong Kong
air control area before moving into or out of China or Taiwan airspace.
Taiwan
residents cannot use the Republic of China passport to travel to mainland China
and China’s residents cannot use the People’s Republic of China passport to
travel to Taiwan, as neither the ROC nor the PRC considers this international
travel. The PRC government requires Taiwan residents to hold a Mainland Travel
Permit for Taiwan Residents when entering mainland China, whereas the ROC
government requires mainland Chinese residents to hold the Exit and Entry
Permit for the Taiwan Area of the Republic of China to enter the Taiwan Area.
Cross-strait
investments have greatly increased in recent years. Predominantly, this
involves Taiwan-based firms moving to or collaborating in joint ventures in
the PRC. China remains Taiwan’s top trading partner. Cultural exchanges have
also increased in frequency. The National Palace Museum in Taipei and the
Palace Museum in Beijing have collaborated on exhibitions. Scholars and
academics frequently visit institutions on the other side. Books published on
each side are regularly republished on the other side, although restrictions
on direct imports and different orthography somewhat
impede the exchange of books and ideas. Religious exchange has also become
frequent. Frequent interactions occur between worshipers of Matsu and Buddhists.
The flag used by Taiwan at the Olympic Games, where it competes as “Chinese Taipei.”
Due to PRC pressure, the ROC is forced to use the name “Chinese Taipei” in international events such as the Olympic Games where the PRC is also a party. The ROC is typically barred from using its national anthem and national flag in international events due to PRC pressure, and ROC spectators attending events such as the Olympics are often barred from bringing ROC flags into venues. The ROC is able to participate as “China” in organizations that the PRC does not participate in, such as the World Organization of the Scout Movement.
Taiwan and the United States
Commercial,
cultural, and other relations between the people of the United
States and Taiwan are currently governed by the
Taiwan Relations Act. The Act does not recognize “the Republic of
China” terminology after January 1, 1979, when the U.S. recognized the PRC.
The U.S. government does not support Taiwan’s independence and Taiwan is not
allowed to raise its national flag on the U.S. soil, with certain exceptions
governed by international law. However, Taiwanese passport holders are included in
the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.
In
2007, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the
lift of United States government restrictions on visits by high-ranking or top
ROC officials. The resolution noted that “whenever high-level visitors
from Taiwan, including the President, seek to come to the United States, their
requests result in a period of complex, lengthy, and humiliating
negotiations.” In response, the resolution lifted the restrictions
to “help bring a friend and ally of the United States out of its
isolation, which will be beneficial to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific
Region.”
A
bill was also introduced by U.S. lawmakers to back the UN bid by Taiwan. The
bill stated that Taiwan and its 23 million people “deserve membership in
the United Nations” and that the United States should fulfill a commitment
“to more actively support Taiwan’s membership in appropriate international
organizations.” The bill was introduced in November 2007 at the House
Foreign Affairs Committee by 18 Republican legislators and one Democrat.
The United States ended official diplomatic relations in 1979 as a prerequisite for establishing ties with the PRC. However, unofficial
diplomatic relations are maintained on both sides by means of de
facto embassies, which are technically “private organizations”
staffed by career diplomats who are formally “on leave.” The ROC’s de
facto embassy network is the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office
(TECRO) with offices in Washington, D.C., and 12 other U.S. cities. An analogous organization is the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). As of
2010, officials of the ROC have gained quasi-official government and political visits to the
United States.
35.2: Japanese Recovery
35.2.1: The 1947 Japanese Constitution
The loss of World War II placed Japan in the precarious position of a country occupied by the Allied but primarily American forces, which shaped its post-war reforms. This included the Constitution of 1947,
with Article 9 outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state.
Learning Objective
Explain the reasons for including Article 9 in the 1947 Japanese Constitution
Key Points
On the V-J Day, U.S. President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme
Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) to supervise the occupation of
Japan. During the war, the Allied Powers had planned to divide Japan among
themselves for the purpose of occupation, as was done with Germany. Under the
final plan, however, SCAP was given direct control over the main islands of
Japan and the immediately surrounding
islands, while outlying possessions were divided between the Allied Powers.
On
September 6, Truman approved a document titled “US Initial Post-Surrender
Policy for Japan,” which set two main objectives for the occupation:
eliminating Japan’s war potential and turning it into a western-style nation
with pro-American orientation. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up
to supervise the country, led by MacArthur.
Already
in 1945, MacArthur’s staff and Japanese officials were at odds over
the most fundamental issue, a new constitution. The Japanese authorities were
extremely reluctant to take the drastic step of replacing the 1889 Meiji
Constitution with a more liberal document.
After rejecting a Japanese-authored proposal that MacArthur deemed too conservative, he ordered his staff to draft a
completely new document. They were led by two senior army
officers with law degrees, Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, although others
chosen by MacArthur also had influence. Although the document’s authors were
non-Japanese, they took into account the Meiji Constitution, the demands of
Japanese lawyers, the opinions of pacifist political leaders, and especially the
draft presented by the Constitution Research Association.
The
MacArthur draft, which proposed a unicameral legislature, was changed at the
insistence of the Japanese to a bicameral legislatures with two elected houses. In most other important respects, the government adopted the February
draft with its most distinctive features, including the renunciation of
war clause. Known as Article 9, it outlaws war to settle
international disputes involving the state.
The source of the clause is disputed although it is most often attributed to Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara.
Although Article 9 intended to prevent the
country from ever becoming an aggressive military power again, the United
States was soon pressuring Japan to rebuild its army as a bulwark against
communism in Asia after the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. As a result, a new National Police
Reserve armed with military-grade weaponry was created. In 1954, the Japan Self-Defense
Forces were founded as a full-scale military in all but name. These developments were combined with Japan’s extraordinary economic growth that by the end of the 1960s made it the second largest economy in the world.
Key Terms
V-J Day
Term used to refer to the day on which Japan surrendered in World War II, in effect ending the war. The term has been applied to both days on which the initial announcement of Japan’s surrender was made – the afternoon of August 15, 1945, in Japan, and because of time zone differences, to August 14, 1945 (when it was announced in the United States and the rest of the Americas and Eastern Pacific Islands).
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
A clause in the Constitution of Japan outlawing war to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces the sovereign right of belligerency and aims at an international peace based on justice and order.
Yoshida Doctrine
A strategy named after Japan’s first Prime Minister after World War II Shigeru Yoshida that declared the reconstruction of Japan’s domestic economy with security guaranteed by an alliance with the United States. It shaped Japanese foreign policy throughout the Cold War era and beyond.
Post-World War II Occupation of Japan
Japan surrendered to the Allies on August 14, 1945, when the Japanese government notified the Allies that it had accepted the Potsdam Declaration: a statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II. This date, known as Victory over Japan or V-J Day, marked the end of World War II and the beginning of a long road to recovery for Japan. U.S. President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) to supervise the occupation of Japan. During the war, the Allied Powers planned to divide Japan among themselves for the purposes of occupation, as was done with Germany. Under the final plan, however, SCAP was given direct control over the main islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku, and Kyushu) and the immediately surrounding islands, while outlying possessions were divided between the Allied powers.
On September 6, Truman approved a document titled “US Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan,” which set two main objectives for the occupation: eliminating Japan’s war potential and turning it into a western-style nation with pro-American orientation. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up to supervise the country. MacArthur was technically supposed to defer to an advisory council set up by the Allied powers but in practice he hardly did so.
Emperor Hirohito and General MacArthur, at their first meeting, at the U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, September 27, U.S. Army photographer Lt. Gaetano Faillace.
The Emperor was permitted to remain on the throne, but was ordered to renounce his claims to divinity, which had been a pillar of the State Shinto system. This photograph is one of the most famous in Japanese history. Some were shocked that MacArthur wore his standard duty uniform with no tie instead of his dress uniform when meeting the emperor.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
The wording of the Potsdam Declaration (“The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles …”) and the initial post-surrender measures taken by MacArthur suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they hoped to encourage Japan’s new leaders to initiate reforms on their own. Already in 1945, however, MacArthur’s staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution. Emperor Hirohito, Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, and most of the cabinet members were extremely reluctant to take the drastic step of replacing the 1889 Meiji Constitution, which
outlined a form of mixed constitutional and absolute monarchy with a more liberal document.
In late 1945, Shidehara appointed Jōji Matsumoto, state minister without portfolio, head of a blue-ribbon committee of constitutional scholars to suggest revisions. The Matsumoto Commission’s recommendations were quite conservative. MacArthur rejected them outright and ordered his staff to draft a completely new document.
Much of this work was done by two senior army officers with law degrees, Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, although others chosen by MacArthur had substantial influence. Although the document’s authors were non-Japanese, they took into account the Meiji Constitution, the demands of Japanese lawyers, the opinions of pacifist political leaders, and especially the draft presented by the Constitution Research Association. MacArthur gave the authors less than a week to complete the draft, which was presented to surprised Japanese officials in February 1946.
The MacArthur draft, which proposed a unicameral legislature, was changed at the insistence of the Japanese to allow a bicameral one, with both houses being elected. In most other important respects, the government adopted the February draft, with its most distinctive features: the symbolic role of the Emperor, the prominence of guarantees of civil and human rights, and the renunciation of war. That last clause became one of the most symbolic components of Japan’s new constitution. Known as Article 9,
it outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state.
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who “wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever.” Shidehara’s perspective was that retention of arms would be “meaningless” for the Japanese in the post-war era, because any substandard post-war military would no longer gain the respect of the people and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan. Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his 1951-published memoirs, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo. MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara’s authorship on several occasions. However, according to some interpretations, the inclusion of Article 9 was mainly brought about by the members of the Government Section of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, especially Charles Kades, one of Douglas MacArthur’s closest associates. The article was endorsed by the Diet of Japan in November 1946. Kades rejected the proposed language that prohibited Japan’s use of force “for its own security,” believing that self-preservation was the right of every nation.
The Preamble to the 1947 Constitution of the State of Japan.
It was decided that in adopting the new document the Meiji Constitution would not be violated, but rather legal continuity maintained. Thus, the Constitution was adopted as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of that document. Under Article 73, the new constitution was formally submitted to the Imperial Diet by the Emperor.
Japan’s Post-WWII Growth
Although Article 9 intended to prevent the country from ever becoming an aggressive military power again, the United States was soon pressuring Japan to rebuild its army as a bulwark against communism in Asia after the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War. During the Korean War, U.S. forces largely withdrew from Japan to deploy to Korea, leaving the country almost totally defenseless. As a result, a new National Police Reserve armed with military-grade weaponry was created. In 1954, the Japan Self-Defense Forces were founded as a full-scale military in all but name. To avoid breaking the constitutional prohibition on military force, they were officially founded as an extension to the police force. Traditionally, Japan’s military spending has been restricted to about 1% of its gross national product, although this is by popular practice, not law, and this figure has fluctuated. The JSDF slowly grew to considerable strength, and Japan now has the eighth largest military budget in the world.
All the major sectors of the Japanese society, government, and economy were liberalized in the first few years, and the reforms won strong support from the liberal community in Japan. Historians emphasize the similarity of the post-WWII reform programs in Japan to the American New Deal programs of the 1930s.
Shigeru Yoshida served as prime minister in 1946-47 and 1948-54 and played a key role in guiding Japan through the occupation. His policies, known as the Yoshida Doctrine, proposed that Japan should forge a tight relationship with the United States and focus on developing the economy rather than pursuing a proactive foreign policy.
Although the Japanese economy was extremely weakened in the immediate postwar years, an austerity program implemented in 1949 by finance expert Joseph Dodge ended inflation. The Korean War (1950–53) was a major boon to Japanese business. In 1949, the Yoshida cabinet created the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) with a mission to promote economic growth through close cooperation between the government and big business. MITI sought successfully to promote manufacturing and heavy industry and encouraged exports. The factors behind Japan’s postwar economic growth included technology and quality control techniques imported from the West, close economic and defense cooperation with the United States, non-tariff barriers to imports, and long work hours. Japanese corporations successfully retained a loyal and experienced workforce through the system of lifetime employment, which assured their employees a safe job. By 1955, the Japanese economy had grown beyond prewar levels and became the second largest in the world by 1968.
Japan became a member of the United Nations in 1956 and further cemented its international standing in 1964 when it hosted the Olympic Games in Tokyo. Japan was a close ally of the United States during the Cold War, although this alliance did not have unanimous support from the Japanese people. Japan also successfully normalized relations with the Soviet Union in 1956, despite an ongoing dispute over the ownership of the Kuril Islands, and with South Korea in 1965, despite an ongoing dispute over the ownership of the islands of Liancourt Rocks. In accordance with U.S. policy, Japan recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan as the legitimate government of China after World War II and it switched its recognition to the People’s Republic of China in 1972.
35.2.2: Economic Growth after WWII
Japan’s impressive economic growth after World War II
depended on a number of factors, including the
nation’s prewar experience, the advantageous conditions of the post-war occupation by the Allied forces, the high
level and quality of investment that persisted through the 1980s, a well-educated
and disciplined labor force, economies of scale, and global politics.
Learning Objective
Recognize the ways in which Japan encouraged economic growth after the war
Key Points
Japan experienced dramatic political and
social transformation under the Allied occupation in 1945–1952. The occupation sought to decentralize
power in Japan by breaking up the zaibatsu, transferring
ownership of agricultural land from landlords to tenant farmers, and promoting
labor unionism. Other major goals were demilitarization and
democratization of Japan’s government and society. The cabinet became
responsible not to the Emperor but to the elected National Diet. Japan’s new constitution came into effect in 1947 and
guaranteed civil liberties, labor rights, and women’s suffrage.
In the aftermath of the war, about 40% of the
nation’s industrial plants and infrastructure were destroyed, and production
reverted to levels of about 15years earlier. U.S. assistance totaled about
$1.9 billion during the occupation. About 59% of this aid was in the form of food, 15% in
industrial materials, and 12% in transportation equipment. A variety of U.S.-sponsored measures during the occupation contributed
to the economy’s later performance by increasing competition.
The early post-war years were devoted to
rebuilding the lost industrial capacity with major investments in
electric power, coal, steel, and chemicals. By the mid-1950s, production
matched prewar levels. Released from the demands of military-dominated
government, the economy not only recovered its lost momentum but also surpassed
the growth rates of earlier periods. In 1965 industrial sectors employed more than 41% of the
labor force, while only 26% remained in agriculture.
Japan’s
highly acclaimed post-war education system contributed strongly to the
modernizing process. The world’s highest literacy rate and high education
standards were major reasons for Japan’s success in achieving a technologically
advanced economy.
The mid-1960s ushered in a new type of
industrial development as the economy opened itself to international
competition in some industries and developed heavy and chemical manufacturers.
Whereas textiles and light manufacturing maintained their profitability
internationally, products such as automobiles, electronics, ships, and
machine tools, assumed new importance.
The 1973 oil crisis shocked economies that had become dependent on
imported petroleum. Japan experienced its first post-war decline in industrial
production, but the following recovery only strengthened Japan’s economy. The factors that contributed to the post-WWI growth included the nation’s prewar experience, which provided several
important legacies;
the high level and quality of investment that
persisted through the 1980s; well-educated and disciplined labor force; economies of scale; and global politics, including international military conflicts, which often benefited Japan’s economy.
Key Terms
zaibatsu
A Japanese term for industrial and financial business conglomerates whose influence and size allowed control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II.
keiretsu
A set of companies with interlocking business relationships and shareholdings. This type of informal business group maintained dominance over the Japanese economy for the second half of the 20th century.
Background: Post-World War II Occupation of Japan
Japan experienced dramatic political and social transformation under the Allied occupation in 1945–1952. US General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, served as Japan’s de facto leader and played a central role in implementing reforms, many inspired by the New Deal of the 1930s. The occupation sought to decentralize power in Japan by breaking up the zaibatsu (industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire, whose influence and size allowed control over significant parts of the Japanese economy), transferring ownership of agricultural land from landlords to tenant farmers, and promoting labor unionism. Other major goals were demilitarization and democratization of Japan’s government and society. The cabinet became responsible not to the Emperor but to the elected National Diet. The Emperor was permitted to remain on the throne but ordered to renounce his claims to divinity. Japan’s new constitution came into effect in 1947 and guaranteed civil liberties, labor rights, and women’s suffrage.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 officially normalized relations between Japan and the United States. The occupation ended in 1952, although the U.S. continued to administer a number of the Ryukyu Islands, with Okinawa the last to be returned in 1972.
Seizure of the zaibatsu families assets, 1946, source: Showa History, Vol.13: Ruins and Lack published by Mainichi Newspapers Company.
The zaibatsu were the heart of economic and industrial activity within the Empire of Japan, and held great influence over Japanese national and foreign policies.
Under the Allied occupation after the surrender of Japan, a partially successful attempt was made to dissolve the zaibatsu. Many of the economic advisors accompanying the SCAP administration had experience with the New Deal program and were highly suspicious of monopolies and restrictive business practices, which they felt to be both inefficient and a form of corporatocracy and thus inherently anti-democratic.
Economic Growth
In the aftermath of the war, about 40% of the nation’s industrial plants and infrastructure were destroyed and production reverted to levels of about 15 years earlier.
U.S. assistance totaled about $1.9 billion during the occupation, or about 15% of the nation’s imports and 4% of gross national product (GNP) in that period. About 59% of this aid was in the form of food, 15% in industrial materials, and 12% in transportation equipment. A variety of U.S.-sponsored measures during the occupation, such as land reform, contributed to the economy’s later performance by increasing competition. Finally, the economy benefited from foreign trade because it was able to expand exports rapidly enough to pay for imports of equipment and technology without falling into debt. New factories were equipped with the best modern machines, giving Japan an initial competitive advantage over the victor states, who now had older factories.
The early post-war years were devoted to rebuilding the lost industrial capacity, with major investments made in electric power, coal, steel, and chemicals. By the mid-1950s, production matched prewar levels. Released from the demands of military-dominated government, the economy not only recovered its lost momentum but also surpassed the growth rates of earlier periods. Between 1953 and 1965, GDP expanded by more than 9% per year, manufacturing and mining by 13%, construction by 11%, and infrastructure by 12%. In 1965 these sectors employed more than 41% of the labor force, whereas only 26% remained in agriculture.
Millions of former soldiers joined a well-disciplined and highly educated work force to rebuild Japan.
Japan’s highly acclaimed post-war education system contributed strongly to the modernizing process. The world’s highest literacy rate and high education standards were major reasons for Japan’s success in achieving a technologically advanced economy.
The mid-1960s ushered in a new type of industrial development as the economy opened itself to international competition in some industries and developed heavy and chemical manufacturers. Whereas textiles and light manufacturing maintained their profitability internationally, products such as automobiles, electronics, ships, and machine tools assumed new importance. The value added to manufacturing and mining grew at the rate of 17% per year between 1965 and 1970. Growth rates moderated to about 8% and evened out between the industrial and service sectors between 1970 and 1973 as retail trade, finance, real estate, information technology, and other service industries streamlined their operations.
Oil Crisis
Japan faced a severe economic challenge in the mid-1970s. The 1973 oil crisis shocked economies that had become dependent on imported petroleum. Japan experienced its first post-war decline in industrial production, along with severe price inflation. The recovery that followed the first oil crisis revived the optimism of most business leaders, but the maintenance of industrial growth in the face of high energy costs required shifts in the industrial structure.
Changing price conditions favored conservation and alternative sources of industrial energy. Although the investment costs were high, many energy-intensive industries successfully reduced their dependence on oil during the late 1970s and 1980s and enhanced their productivity. Advances in microcircuitry and semiconductors in the late 1970s and 1980s led to new growth industries in consumer electronics and computers and to higher productivity in established industries. These adjustments increased the energy efficiency of manufacturing and expanded knowledge-intensive industries. The service industries expanded in an increasingly postindustrial economy.
Factors of Growth
Complex economic and institutional factors affected Japan’s post-war growth. First, the nation’s prewar experience provided several important legacies. The Tokugawa period (1600–1867) bequeathed a vital commercial sector in burgeoning urban centers, a relatively well-educated elite, a sophisticated government bureaucracy, productive agriculture, highly developed financial and marketing systems, and a national infrastructure of roads. The buildup of industry during the Meiji period to the point where Japan could vie for world power was an important prelude to post-war growth from 1955 to 1973 and provided a pool of experienced labor.
More important were the level and quality of investment that persisted through the 1980s. Investment in capital equipment, which averaged more than 11% of GNP during the prewar period, rose to about 20% of GNP during the 1950s and to more than 30% in the late 1960s and 1970s. During the economic boom of the late 1980s, the rate still hovered around 20%. Japanese businesses imported the latest technologies to develop the industrial base. As a latecomer to modernization, Japan was able to avoid some of the trial and error needed by other nations to develop industrial processes. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japan improved its industrial base through licensing from the US, patent purchases, and imitation and improvement of foreign inventions. In the 1980s, industry stepped up its research and development, and many firms became famous for their innovations and creativity.
Japan’s labor force contributed significantly to economic growth. Before and immediately after World War II, the transfer of numerous agricultural workers to modern industry resulted in rising productivity and only moderate wage increases. As population growth slowed and the nation became increasingly industrialized in the mid-1960s, wages rose significantly although labor union cooperation generally kept salary increases within the range of gains in productivity.
The nation also benefited from economies of scale. Although medium-sized and small enterprises generated much of the nation’s employment, large facilities were the most productive. Many industrial enterprises consolidated to form larger, more efficient units. While the zaibatsu were dissolved after the war, keiretsu—large, modern industrial enterprise groupings—emerged. The coordination of activities within these groupings and the integration of smaller subcontractors into the groups enhanced industrial efficiency.
Finally, circumstances beyond Japan’s direct control contributed to its success. International conflicts tended to stimulate the Japanese economy until the devastation at the end of World War II. The Russo-Japanese War (1904–5), World War I (1914–18), the Korean War (1950–53), and the Second Indochina War (1954–75) brought economic booms to Japan.
35.2.3: The American-Japanese Relationship
Japan has remained one of the strongest and most reliable allies of the United States since the post-World War II occupation of the country by the Allied forces, despite ongoing tensions over the U.S. military presence on Japanese territories and economic competition between the two countries.
Learning Objective
Evaluate American-Japanese relations
Key Points
The
San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in 1951, marked the end of the
Allied occupation of Japan. The treaty served
to officially end Japan’s position as an imperial power, allocate
compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who suffered Japanese war crimes during World War II, and return
sovereignty to Japan. In
legal terms, the end of the occupation finally placed Japan’s relations with
the United States on an equal footing, but this equality was initially largely
nominal.
As
the disastrous results of World War II subsided into the background and trade
with the United States expanded, Japan’s self-confidence grew, which gave rise
to a desire for greater independence from United States influence.
During the 1950s and 1960s, this was especially evident in the Japanese
attitude toward U.S. military bases on the four main islands of Japan
and in Okinawa Prefecture.
Recognizing
the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands, in 1953 the United States relinquished
its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu
Islands. However, it made no commitment to return Okinawa. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous
resolution adopted by the Diet in 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to
Japan.
Under
a new 1960 treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to assist each other in case
of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. The treaty also included general provisions on the further development
of international cooperation and improved future economic cooperation. Both
countries worked closely to fulfill the United States promise to return all Japanese territories acquired in war. In 1968, the United States returned the Bonin Islands to Japanese administration control. In 1971, the two countries signed an agreement for the return of
Okinawa to Japan in 1972.
A series of 1971 events marked the beginning of a new stage
in relations, a period of adjustment to a changing world situation. Despite episodes of strain in both political and economic spheres, the
basic relationship remained close. The political issues were essentially security-related. The economic issues tended to stem from the ever-growing power of the Japanese economy. In the 1980s, particularly during the Reagan years,
the relationship improved and
strengthened. More recently, it has gained new urgency in light of the changing global positions of North Korea and China.
The American military
bases on Okinawa have caused challenges, as Japanese and Okinawans have protested their
presence for decades. In secret negotiations that began in 1969, Washington
sought unrestricted use of its bases for possible conventional combat
operations in Korea, Taiwan, and South Vietnam as well as the emergency
re-entry and transit rights of nuclear weapons. In the end, the United States and Japan agreed to
maintain bases that would allow the continuation of American deterrent
capabilities in East Asia.
Key Terms
Japan Self-Defense Forces
The unified military forces of Japan established in 1954 and controlled by the Ministry of Defense. In recent years, they have been engaged in international peacekeeping operations including UN peacekeeping. Recent tensions, particularly with North Korea, have reignited the debate over their status and relation to Japanese society.
San Francisco Peace Treaty
A treaty predominantly between Japan and the Allied Powers but officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951, in San Francisco, California. It came into force on April 28, 1952, and served to end Japan’s position as an imperial power, allocate compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who suffered Japanese war crimes during World War II, and end the Allied post-war occupation of and return sovereignty to Japan.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
A clause outlawing war to settle international disputes
involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947,
following World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces the sovereign
right of belligerency and aims at an international peace based on justice and
order.
Unequal Post-War Relations
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation in Japan. When it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state and an ally of the United States.
The treaty officially ended Japan’s position as an imperial power, allocated compensation to Allied civilians and former prisoners of war who suffered Japanese war crimes during World War II, and returned sovereignty to Japan. It made extensive use of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to enunciate the Allies’ goals.
In legal terms, the end of the occupation finally placed Japan’s relations with the United States on equal footing, but this equality was initially largely nominal. As the disastrous results of World War II subsided and trade with the United States expanded, Japan’s self-confidence grew, which gave rise to a desire for greater independence from United States influence. During the 1950s and 1960s, this feeling was evident in the Japanese attitude toward United States military bases on the four main islands of Japan and in Okinawa Prefecture, occupying the southern two-thirds of the Ryukyu Islands.
The government had to balance left-wing pressure advocating dissociation from the United States with the claimed need for military protection. Recognizing the popular desire for the return of the Ryukyu Islands and the Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawara Islands), in 1953 the United States relinquished its control of the Amami group of islands at the northern end of the Ryukyu Islands. However, it made no commitment to return Okinawa, which was then under United States military administration for an indefinite period as provided in Article 3 of the peace treaty. Popular agitation culminated in a unanimous resolution adopted by Japan’s legislature in 1956, calling for a return of Okinawa to Japan.
Military Alliance and New Challenges
Bilateral talks on revising the 1952 security pact began in 1959, and the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was signed, despite the protests of left-wing political parties and mass demonstrations, in Washington in 1960.
Under the new treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas under Article 9 of its Constitution. The scope of the new treaty did not extend to the Ryukyu Islands, but an appended minute made clear that in case of an armed attack on the islands, both governments would consult and take appropriate action. Unlike the 1952 security pact, the new treaty provided for a ten-year term, after which it could be revoked upon one year’s notice by either party. The treaty included general provisions on the further development of international cooperation and improved future economic cooperation.
Both countries worked closely to fulfill the United States promise, under Article 3 of the peace treaty, to return all Japanese territories acquired in war. In 1968, the United States returned the Bonin Islands (including Iwo Jima) to Japanese administration control. In 1971, after eighteen months of negotiations, the two countries signed an agreement for the return of Okinawa to Japan in 1972.
A series of new issues arose in 1971. First, Nixon’s dramatic announcement of his forthcoming visit to the People’s Republic of China surprised the Japanese. Many were distressed by the failure of the United States to consult in advance with Japan before making such a fundamental change in foreign policy. Second, the government was again surprised to learn that without prior consultation, the United States had imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports, a decision certain to hinder Japan’s exports to the United States. Relations between Tokyo and Washington were further strained by the monetary crisis involving the revaluation of the Japanese yen.
These events marked the beginning of a new stage in relations, a period of adjustment to a changing world situation that was not without episodes of strain in both political and economic spheres, although the basic relationship remained close. The political issues between the two countries were essentially security-related and derived from efforts by the United States to induce Japan to contribute more to its own defense and regional security. The economic issues tended to stem from the ever-widening United States trade and payments deficits with Japan, which began in 1965 when Japan reversed its imbalance in trade with the United States and for the first time achieved an export surplus.
Heavy American military spending in the Korean War (1950–53) and the Vietnam War (1965–73) provided a major stimulus to the Japanese economy.
New Global Factors
The United States withdrawal from Indochina in 1975 and the end of the Vietnam War meant that the question of Japan’s role in the security of East Asia and its contributions to its own defense became central in the dialogue between the two countries. The Japanese government, constrained by constitutional limitations and strongly pacifist public opinion, responded slowly to U.S. pressures for a more rapid buildup of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). It steadily increased its budgetary outlays for those forces, however, and indicated its willingness to shoulder more of the cost of maintaining the United States military bases in Japan. In 1976, the United States and Japan formally established a subcommittee for defense cooperation, and military planners of the two countries conducted studies relating to joint military action in the event of an armed attack on Japan.
Under American pressure Japan worked toward a comprehensive security strategy with closer cooperation with the United States for a more reciprocal and autonomous basis. This policy was put to the test in 1979, when radical Iranians seized the United States embassy in Tehran, taking 60 hostages. Japan reacted by condemning the action as a violation of international law. At the same time, Japanese trading firms and oil companies reportedly purchased Iranian oil that became available when the United States banned oil imported from Iran. This action brought sharp criticism from the U.S. of Japanese government “insensitivity” for allowing the oil purchases and led to a Japanese apology and agreement to participate in sanctions against Iran in concert with other allies.
Following that incident, the Japanese government took greater care to support U.S. international policies designed to preserve stability and promote prosperity. Japan was prompt and effective in announcing and implementing sanctions against the Soviet Union following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In 1981, in response to United States requests, it accepted greater responsibility for defense of seas around Japan, pledged greater support for United States forces in Japan, and persisted with a steady buildup of the JSDF.
Close Ties and New Challenges
A qualitatively new stage of Japan-United States cooperation in world affairs emerged in the 1980s with the election of Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, who enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Ronald Reagan. Nakasone reassured U.S. leaders of Japan’s determination against the Soviet threat, closely coordinated policies with the United States toward such Asian trouble spots as the Korean Peninsula and Southeast Asia, and worked cooperatively with the United States in developing China policy. The Japanese government welcomed the increase of United States forces in Japan and the western Pacific, continued the steady buildup of the JSDF, and positioned Japan firmly on the side of the United States against the threat of Soviet expansion. Japan continued to cooperate closely with United States policy in these areas following Nakasone’s term of office, although the political leadership scandals in Japan in the late 1980s made it difficult for newly elected President George H. W. Bush to establish the close personal ties that marked the Reagan years. Despite complaints from some Japanese businesses and diplomats, the Japanese government remained in basic agreement with U.S. policy toward China and Indochina. The government held back from large-scale aid efforts until conditions in China and Indochina were seen as more compatible with Japanese and U.S. interests.
Ronald Reagan greeting Japanese leaders, including Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, Foreign Minister Abe, and Finance Minister Takashita, in London in 1984
Officials of the Ronald Reagan administration worked closely with their Japanese counterparts to develop a personal relationship between the two leaders based on their common security and international outlook. Nakasone backed Reagan to deploy Pershing missiles in Europe at the 1983 9th G7 summit.
In 1983, a U.S.-Japan working group produced the Reagan-Nakasone Joint Statement on Japan-United States Energy Cooperation.
The main area of noncooperation with the United States in the 1980s was Japanese resistance to repeated U.S. efforts to get Japan to open its market to foreign goods and change other economic practices seen as adverse to U.S. economic interests. Furthermore, changing circumstances at home and abroad created a crisis in Japan-United States relations in the late 1980s. Japan’s growing investment in the United States—the second largest investor after Britain—led to complaints from some American constituencies. Moreover, Japanese industry seemed well-positioned to use its economic power to invest in high-technology products, in which United States manufacturers were still leaders. The United States’s ability to compete under these circumstances was seen by many Japanese and Americans as hampered by heavy personal, government, and business debt and a low savings rate. The breakup of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe forced the Japanese and United States governments to reassess their longstanding alliance against the Soviet threat. Some Japanese and United States officials and commentators continued to emphasize the common dangers to Japan-United States interests posed by the continued strong Soviet military presence in Asia.
Since the late 1990s, the U.S.-Japan relationship has improved and strengthened. The major cause of friction in the relationship, trade disputes, became less problematic as China displaced Japan as the greatest perceived economic threat to the United States. Meanwhile, although in the immediate post-Cold War period the security alliance suffered from a lack of a defined threat, the emergence of North Korea as a belligerent rogue state and China’s economic and military expansion provided a purpose to strengthen the relationship. While the foreign policy of the administration of President George W. Bush put a strain on some of the United States’ international relations, the alliance with Japan became stronger, as evidenced by the Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq and the joint development of anti-missile defense systems.
The Okinawa Controversy
Okinawa is the site of major American military bases that have caused problems, as Japanese and Okinawans have protested their presence for decades. In secret negotiations that began in 1969, Washington sought unrestricted use of its bases for possible conventional combat operations in Korea, Taiwan, and South Vietnam as well as the emergency re-entry and transit rights of nuclear weapons. However, anti-nuclear sentiment was strong in Japan and the government wanted the United States to remove all nuclear weapons from Okinawa. In the end, the United States and Japan agreed to maintain bases that would allow the continuation of American deterrent capabilities in East Asia. When the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, reverted to Japanese control in 1972, the United States retained the right to station forces on these islands. A dispute that had boiled since 1996 regarding a base with 18,000 U.S. Marines was temporarily resolved in late 2013. Agreement was reached to move the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to a less-densely populated area of Okinawa.
U.S. military bases in Japan
US military bases in Japan, maintained by the U.S. government as a way to mark the U.S. presence in the Pacific, continue to provoke protests among the Japanese.
The map shows the location of ten U.S. military bases in Japan.
As of 2014, the United States still had 50,000 troops in Japan, the headquarters of the U.S. 7th Fleet, and more than 10,000 Marines. Also in 2014, it was revealed the United States was deploying two unarmed Global Hawk long-distance surveillance drones to Japan with the expectation they would engage in surveillance missions over China and North Korea.
35.2.4: Japan and Reckoning with History
Despite numerous apologies for Japan’s war crimes from Japanese government representatives since World War II, repeated comments of Japanese politicians questioning the crimes, the problematic degree of formality of apologies, and retractions or contradictions by statements or actions of Japan have exposed the country’s refusal to reckon with its difficult past.
Learning Objective
Discuss the challenges Japan has had in acknowledging its past
Key Points
Japanese war crimes occurred in many Asian and
Pacific countries during the period of Japanese imperialism, primarily during
the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II.
Some
historians and governments hold Japanese military forces, the Imperial Japanese
Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Imperial Japanese family, especially
under Emperor Hirohito, responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians and
prisoners of war through massacre, human experimentation, starvation, and
forced labor.
Since
the 1950s, senior Japanese officials have issued numerous apologies
for the country’s war crimes. But unlike Germany, Japan has not fully recognized the scale of its
war-time atrocities, and its approach to dealing with the difficult past has
caused controversy around the world. Japanese nationalist politicians engaged
in efforts to whitewash the actions of the Empire of Japan during World War II.
While they were not entirely successful, some Japanese history textbooks offer
only brief references to war crimes.
Critics have questioned the degree and formality
of apologies and noted the retractions and contradictory actions of Japan. An illustrative example is the issue of the so-called comfort women: women and girls
forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in
occupied territories before and during World War II. While individual politicians have issued apologies, others have repeatedly questioned Japan’s involvement in forcing women into sex slavery.
The People’s Republic of China joined other
Asian countries, such as South Korea, North Korea, and Singapore, in
criticizing Japanese history textbooks that whiten Japanese war crimes in World
War II. Many Chinese observers regard Japanese apologies as insufficient and not
backed up by sincere action. The PRC and Japan also continue to debate over the
actual number of people killed in the Nanking Massacre.
Both South Korea and North Korea continue to request an apology and compensation
for Korea under Japanese rule, regarding the issued apologies as insincere due to repeated Japanese politicians’ comments that question the scale and nature of Japanese crimes.
Yasukuni
Shrine, a Shinto shrine that memorializes Japanese armed forces members
killed in wartime, has been a subject of
controversy as it contains a memorial for more than 1,000 Japanese and some
Korean war criminals. The presence of these criminals among the dead
honored at Yasukuni Shrine means this monument is seen by
Chinese and South Koreans as apologism for the wartime era.
Key Terms
Yasukuni Shrine
A Shinto shrine that memorializes Japanese armed forces members killed in wartime. It was constructed as a memorial during the Meiji period to house the remains of those who died for Japan. The shrine has been a subject of controversy as it is a memorial for more than 1,000 individuals considered war criminals by international law standards.
Second Sino-Japanese War
A military conflict fought primarily between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan from 1937 to 1945. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the war merged into the greater conflict of World War II as a major front in the Pacific War.
Nanking Massacre
An episode of mass murder and mass rape committed by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanjing (then spelled Nanking), then the capital of the Republic of China, during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The massacre occurred over a period of six weeks starting December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanjing. During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army murdered from 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants and perpetrated widespread rape and looting.
comfort women
Women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II.
Japanese War Crimes
Japanese war crimes occurred in many Asian and Pacific countries during the period of Japanese imperialism, primarily during the Second Sino-Japanese War, which eventually became a front of World War II. Some were committed by military personnel from the Empire of Japan in the late 19th century, although most took place from the first part of the Shōwa Era, the name given to the reign of Emperor Hirohito, until the surrender of the Empire of Japan in 1945.
Some historians and governments hold Japanese military forces, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Imperial Japanese family, especially under Emperor Hirohito, responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians and prisoners of war through massacre, human experimentation, starvation, and forced labor either directly perpetrated or condoned by the Japanese military and government. Estimates range from 3 to 14 million victims. Airmen of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service and Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service were not included as war criminals because there was no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law that prohibited the unlawful conduct of aerial warfare either before or during World War II. However, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service took part in chemical and biological attacks on enemy nationals during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II, and the use of such weapons in warfare was generally prohibited by international agreements signed by Japan, including the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), which banned the use of “poison or poisoned weapons” in warfare.
Comfort Women: Japan’s Problematic Reckoning
Since the 1950s, senior Japanese Government officials have issued numerous apologies for the country’s war crimes. Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the country acknowledges its role in causing “tremendous damage and suffering” during World War II, especially in regard to Nanking Massacre in which Japanese soldiers killed a large number of non-combatants and engaged in looting and rape. But unlike Germany, for example, Japan has not fully recognized the scale of its war-time atrocities, and its approach to dealing with the difficult past has caused controversy around the world. Japanese nationalist politicians engaged in efforts
to whitewash the actions of the Empire of Japan during World War II. While they were not entirely successful, some Japanese history textbooks offer only brief references to various war crimes.
Critics have questioned the degree and formality of apologies and noted the issue of retractions and contradictory actions by Japan. An illustrative example is the issue of the so-called comfort women, women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II.
In 1951, the South Korean government demanded $364 million in compensation for Koreans forced into labor and military service during Japanese occupation. In the final agreement reached in the 1965 treaty, Japan provided an $800 million aid and low-interest loan package over 10 years. However, the money was for the Korean government, not individuals.
Three Korean women filed suit in Japan in 1991, around the time of the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, demanding compensation for forced prostitution. In 1992, documents stored since 1958 when they were returned by U.S. troops indicating that the military played a large role in operating what were euphemistically called “comfort stations,” were found in the library of Japan’s Self-Defense Agency. The Japanese Government admitted that the Japanese Army forced tens of thousands of Korean women to have sex with Japanese soldiers during World War II. On January 14, 1992, Japanese Chief Government Spokesman Koichi Kato issued an official apology. Three days later, at a dinner given by South Korean President Roh Tae Woo, Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa apologized to his host and the following day in a speech before South Korea’s National Assembly.
In 1994, the Japanese government set up the public-private Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) to distribute additional compensation to South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Indonesia. A number of former comfort women (61 Korean, 13 Taiwanese, 211 Filipino, and 79 Dutch) were given a signed apology from Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. Many former Korean comfort women rejected the compensations on principle. Although the AWF was set up by the Japanese government, its funds came not from the government but from private donations, hence the compensation was not “official.”
In 1998, the Japanese court ruled that the Government must compensate the women and awarded them $2,300 (equivalent to $3,380 in 2016) each.
On March 1, 2007, Prime Minister Shinzō Abe stated that there was no evidence that the Japanese government had kept sex slaves, even though the Japanese government already admitted the use of coercion in 1993.
On February 20, 2014, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that the Japanese government may reconsider the study and the apology. However, Prime Minister Abe clarified on March 14, 2014, that he had no intention of renouncing or altering it. On December 28, 2015, Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye reached a formal agreement to settle the dispute. However, the Korean comfort women and the majority of the Korean population regarded the resolution as unsatisfying. The Korean comfort women stated that they were not protesting for money and that their goals of formal and public apology from Abe and the Japanese government and the correction of Japanese history textbooks have not been met.
Chinese and Malayan girls forcibly taken from Penang by the Japanese to work as “comfort girls” for the troops. Author: Sergeant A.E. Lemon, No 9 Army Film & Photographic Unit.
The first “comfort station” was established in the Japanese concession in Shanghai in 1932. Earlier comfort women were Japanese prostitutes who volunteered for such service. However, as Japan continued military expansion, the military found itself short of Japanese volunteers and turned to the local population to coerce women into serving in these stations, or abducted them. Many women responded to calls for work as factory workers or nurses, and did not know that they were being pressed into sexual slavery.
Japan and its Neighbors
The People’s Republic of China joined other Asian countries, such as South Korea, North Korea, and Singapore, in criticizing Japanese history textbooks that whiten Japanese war crimes in World War II. Although Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi openly declared “deep remorse” over Japan’s wartime crimes in 2005 (the latest in a series of apologies spanning several decades), many Chinese observers regard the apology as insufficient and not backed up by sincere action. The PRC and Japan also continue to debate over the actual number of people killed in the Nanking Massacre. The PRC claims that at least 300,000 civilians were murdered while Japan claims 40,000-200,000. While a majority of Japanese believe in the existence of the massacre, a Japanese-produced documentary film released just prior to the 60th anniversary of the massacre, titled The Truth about Nanjing, denies that any such atrocities took place. These disputes have stirred up enmity against Japan from the global Chinese community, including Taiwan.
Bodies of victims along Qinhuai River out of Nanjing’s west gate during Nanking Massacre. Derivative work of a photograph taken by Moriyasu Murase.
Although the Japanese government has admitted to the killing of a large number of non-combatants, looting, and other violence committed by the Imperial Japanese Army after the fall of Nanking, and Japanese veterans who served there have confirmed that a massacre took place, a small but vocal minority within both the Japanese government and society have argued that the death toll was military in nature and that no such crimes ever occurred.
Since the 1950s, many prominent politicians and officials in Japan have made statements on Japanese colonial rule in Korea, which created outrage and led to diplomatic scandals in Korean-Japanese relations. The statements have led to anti-Japanese sentiments among Koreans and a widespread perception that Japanese apologies for colonial rule have been insincere.
Although diplomatic relations were established by a treaty in 1965, South Korea continues to request an apology and compensation for Korea under Japanese rule. In 2012, the South Korean government announced that Emperor Akihito must apologize for Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula. Most Japanese prime ministers have issued apologies, including Prime Minister Obuchi in the Japan–South Korea Joint Declaration of 1998. While South Koreans welcomed the apologies at the time, many now view the statements as insincere because of continuous misunderstandings between the two nations.
In the early 1990s, Japan conducted lengthy negotiations with North Korea aimed at establishing diplomatic relations while maintaining its relations with Seoul. In September 1990, a Japanese political delegation led by former deputy Prime Minister Shin Kanemaru of the Liberal Democratic Party visited North Korea. Following private meetings between Kanemaru and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, a joint declaration released on September 28 called for Japan to apologize and compensate North Korea for its period of colonial rule. Japan and North Korea agreed to begin talks aimed at the establishment of diplomatic relations.
In January 1991, Japan began normalization talks with Pyongyang with a formal apology for its 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula. The negotiations were aided by Tokyo’s support of a proposal for simultaneous entry into the United Nations by North Korea and South Korea. The issues of international inspection of North Korean nuclear facilities and the nature and amount of Japanese compensations, however, proved more difficult to negotiate. Prime Minister Junichirō Koizumi, in the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration of 2002, said: “I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, in the war.”
Yasukuni Shrine
Yasukuni Shrine is a Shinto shrine that memorializes Japanese armed forces members killed in wartime. It was constructed as a memorial during the Meiji period to house the remains of those who died for Japan. The shrine houses the remains of Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister and Army Minister of Japan between 1941 and 1944, and 13 other Class A war criminals. Yasukuni Shrine has been a subject of controversy, containing also a memorial for over a thousand Japanese and some Korean war criminals. The presence of these war criminals among the dead honored at Yasukuni Shrine means that visits to Yasukuni have been seen by Chinese and South Koreans as apologism for the wartime era.
Yasuhiro Nakasone and Ryutaro Hashimoto visited Yasukuni Shrine in, respectively, 1986 and 1996, and paid respects as Prime Minister of Japan, drawing intense opposition from Korea and China. Junichirō Koizumi visited the shrine and paid respects six times during his term as Prime Minister of Japan. These visits again drew strong condemnation and protests from Japan’s neighbors, mainly China and South Korea. As a result, the heads of the two countries refused to meet with Koizumi and there were no mutual visits between Chinese and Japanese leaders after October 2001 and between South Korean and Japanese leaders after June 2005. The President of South Korea, Roh Moo-hyun, had suspended all summit talks between South Korea and Japan until 2008, when he resigned from office. The current prime minister, Shinzō Abe, has made several visits to the shrine, the most recent being in December 2013.
35.3: The Koreas
35.3.1: Korea under Japanese Rule
The 1910-1945 Japanese occupation of Korea was marked by the suppression of Korean culture and heritage, mass exploitation of the Korean labor, and violent repressions against the Korean independence movement.
Learning Objective
Analyze conditions in Korea under Japanese rule
Key Points
The 1905 Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty turned Korea into Japanese protectorate and in 1910, Japan effectively annexed
Korea by the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty. Korea was controlled by
Japan under a Governor-General of Korea until Japan’s unconditional
surrender to the Allied Forces in 1945, with de jure sovereignty
deemed to have passed from the Joseon dynasty to the Provisional Government of
the Republic of Korea.
After the annexation, Japan set out to repress
Korean traditions and culture and develop and implement policies primarily for
Japanese benefit. European-style transport and communication networks
were established across the nation to extract resources and labor.
The banking system was consolidated and Korean currency abolished. By 1932, over half of arable lands were under the control of Japanese landlords but labored by Korean workers.
After Emperor Gojong died in 1919 amidst rumors
of poisoning, independence rallies against the Japanese took place nationwide
(the March 1st Movement). An estimated 2 million people
took part in pro-liberation rallies, although Japanese records claim
participation of less than half million. This movement was a catalyst for the Korean independence effort.
Continued anti-Japanese uprisings led to the strengthening of
military rule in 1931. After the outbreaks of the Second Sino-Japanese War in
1937 and World War II, Japan attempted to exterminate Korea as a nation. Worship at Japanese
Shinto shrines was made compulsory. The school curriculum was radically
modified to eliminate teaching of the Korean language and history. The
Korean language was banned, Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese
names, and newspapers were prohibited from publishing in Korean. Numerous
Korean cultural artifacts were destroyed or taken to Japan.
From
1939, labor shortages as a result of conscription of Japanese males for the
military efforts of World War II led to organized official recruitment of
Koreans to work in mainland Japan. Of
the 5.4 million Koreans conscripted, about 670,000 were taken to mainland Japan
for civilian labor.
Starting in 1944, Japan
started the conscription of Koreans into the armed forces. Around 200,000
girls and women, many from China and Korea, were forced into sexual slavery for
Japanese soldiers as so-called comfort women. Koreans and many other Asians were
experimented on in Unit 731, a secret military medical experimentation unit in
World War II.
The rapid growth of the Korean economy under the
Japanese rule, which as historians note cannot be ignored in the analysis of
the later economic success of South Korea, continues to be the subject of
controversy between the two Koreas and Japan. While the growth is unquestionable,
North Korea and South Korea point to alleged long-term negative repercussions
caused by how the acceleration of industrialization under Japanese occupation
was executed.
Key Terms
Unit 731
A covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan.
March 1st Movement
One of the earliest public displays of Korean resistance during the ruling of Korea by Japan,
initiated by activists reading the Korean Declaration of Independence and followed by massive demonstrations. The movement provided a catalytic momentum for the Korean Independence Movement. The ensuing suppression and hunting down of activists by the Japanese resulted in the expatriation of Korean leaders into Manchuria, Shanghai, and other parts of China where they continued their activities. The Movement was also a catalyst for the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai in 1919.
Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty
A 1910 treaty between representatives of the Empire of Japan and the Korean Empire that formally annexed Korea following the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905, by which Korea became the protectorate of Japan, and Japan–Korea Treaty of 1907, by which Korea was deprived of the administration of internal affairs.
Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty
A 1905 treaty between the Empire of Japan and the Korean Empire that deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty and made it a protectorate of Imperial Japan. It was influenced by Imperial Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
Russo-Japanese War
A 1904 – 1905 war fought between the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan over rival imperial ambitions in Manchuria and Korea. The major theatres of operations were the Liaodong Peninsula and Mukden in Southern Manchuria and the seas around Korea, Japan, and the Yellow Sea.
Japan’s Annexation of Korea
In 1897, Joseon, a Korean kingdom founded in 1392, was renamed the Korean Empire, and King Gojong became Emperor Gojong. The imperial government aimed to establish a strong and independent nation by implementing domestic reforms, strengthening military forces, developing commerce and industry, and surveying land ownership.
Russian influence was strong in the Empire until Russia was defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905).
Having established economic and military dominance in Korea in 1904, Japan reported that it had developed reforms intended to introduce Japanese influences in Korea’s economy, foreign relations, and military. These reforms were forestalled when Japan won the war with Russia, thus eliminating Japan’s last rival to influence in Korea. Two months later, Korea was obliged to become a Japanese protectorate by the Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905 and pro-Japanese reforms were enacted, including the reduction of the Korean Army from 20,000 to 1,000 men. Many intellectuals and scholars set up various organizations and associations, embarking on movements for independence. In 1907, Gojong was forced to abdicate after Japan learned that he sent secret envoys to the Second Hague Conventions to protest against the protectorate treaty, leading to the accession of Gojong’s son, Emperor Sunjong.
In 1910, Japan effectively annexed Korea by the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty. While Japan asserts that the treaty was concluded legally, this argument is not accepted in Korea because it was not signed by the Emperor of Korea as required and violated international convention on external pressures regarding treaties. Korea was controlled by Japan under a Governor-General of Korea until Japan’s unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces in 1945, with de jure sovereignty deemed to have passed from the Joseon dynasty to the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea.
Japanese Rule Begins
After the annexation, Japan set out to repress Korean traditions and culture and develop and implement policies primarily for Japanese benefit. European-style transport and communication networks were established across the nation to extract resources and labor. The banking system was consolidated and Korean currency abolished. The Japanese removed the Joseon hierarchy, destroyed much of the Gyeongbokgung palace, and replaced it with the government office building.
By 1910, an estimated 7 to 8% of all arable land was under Japanese control. This ratio increased steadily. By 1932, the ratio of Japanese land ownership increased to 52.7%. The level of tenancy was similar to that of farmers in Japan but in Korea, the landowners were mostly Japanese, while the tenants were all Koreans. As was often the case in Japan, tenants were required to pay more than half their crop as rent, forcing many to send wives and daughters into factories or prostitution so they could pay taxes. Ironically, by the 1930s, the growth of the urban economy and the exodus of farmers to the cities gradually weakened the hold of the landlords.
Three Koreans shot for pulling up rails as a protest against seizure of land without payment by the Japanese, 1900s. Source: The passing of Korea (book), p. 263.
Many Japanese settlers were interested in acquiring agricultural land in Korea even before Japanese land ownership was officially legalized in 1906. Japanese landlords included both individuals and corporations such as the Oriental Development Company. Many former Korean landowners and agricultural workers became tenant farmers after losing their entitlements almost overnight.
After Emperor Gojong died in 1919 amidst rumors of poisoning, independence rallies against the Japanese took place nationwide (the March 1st Movement). This movement was suppressed by force and about 7,000 were killed by Japanese soldiers and police. An estimated 2 million people took part in pro-liberation rallies, although Japanese records claim participation of less than half million. This movement was partly inspired by United States President Woodrow Wilson’s speech of 1919, declaring support for right of self-determination and an end to colonial rule for Europeans. No comment was made by Wilson on Korean independence. The Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was established in Shanghai, China, in the aftermath of March 1 Movement, which coordinated the liberation effort and resistance against Japanese control. The Provisional Government is considered the de jure government of the Korean people between 1919 and 1948, and its legitimacy is enshrined in the preamble to the constitution of the Republic of Korea.
Continued anti-Japanese uprisings, such as the nationwide uprising of students in November 1929, led to the strengthening of military rule in 1931. After the outbreaks of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and World War II, Japan attempted to exterminate Korea as a nation. The continuance of Korean culture itself became illegal. Worship at Japanese Shinto shrines was made compulsory. The school curriculum was radically modified to eliminate teaching of the Korean language and history. The Korean language was banned, Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names, and newspapers were prohibited from publishing in Korean. Numerous Korean cultural artifacts were destroyed or taken to Japan. According to an investigation by the South Korean government, 75,311 cultural assets were taken from Korea.
World War II
From 1939, labor shortages as a result of conscription of Japanese males for the military efforts of World War II led to organized official recruitment of Koreans to work in mainland Japan, initially through civilian agents and later directly, often involving elements of coercion. As the labor shortage increased, by 1942 the Japanese authorities extended the provisions of the National Mobilization Law to include the conscription of Korean workers for factories and mines on the Korean peninsula, Manchukuo, and the involuntary relocation of workers to Japan itself as needed.
Of the 5.4 million Koreans conscripted, about 670,000 were taken to mainland Japan for civilian labor. Those who were brought to Japan were often forced to work under appalling and dangerous conditions. Although Koreans were often treated better than laborers from other countries, their work hours, food, and medical care still led to many deaths. The number of deaths of Korean forced laborers in Korea and Manchuria is estimated to be between 270,000 and 810,000. Most Korean atomic-bomb victims in Japan were drafted for work at military industrial factories in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Japan did not draft ethnic Koreans into its military until 1944 when the tide of WW II turned dire. Until 1944, enlistment in the Imperial Japanese Army by ethnic Koreans was voluntary and highly competitive. From a 14% acceptance rate in 1938, it dropped to a 2% acceptance rate in 1943 while the raw number of applicants increased from 3000 per annum to 300,000 in just five years during World War II.
Starting in 1944, Japan started the conscription of Koreans into the armed forces. All Korean males were drafted to either join the Imperial Japanese Army, as of April 1944, or work in the military industrial sector, as of September 1944. Around 200,000 girls and women, many from China and Korea, were forced into sexual slavery for Japanese soldiers as the so-called comfort women. Former Korean comfort women are still demanding formal apologies from the Japanese Government.
Koreans, along with many other Asians, were experimented on in Unit 731, a secret military medical experimentation unit in World War II. The victims who died in the camp included at least 25 victims from the former Soviet Union and Korea. General Shiro Ishii, the head of Unit 731, revealed during the Tokyo War Crime Trials that 254 Koreans were killed in Unit 731. Some historians estimate up to 250,000 total people were subjected to human experiments. A Unit 731 veteran attested that most that were experimented on were Chinese, Koreans, and Mongolians.
Unit 731 Complex. Source: Unidentified Bulletin of Unit 731.
Some historians estimate that up to 250,000 men, women, and children were subjected to experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites such as Unit 100. Unit 731 veterans of Japan attest that most of the victims they experimented on were Chinese while a small percentage were Russian, Mongolian, Korean, and Allied POW’s.
Economic Growth Controversy
The industrialization of the Korean Peninsula began with the Joseon dynasty while Korea was still independent, but vastly accelerated under Japanese occupation. The rapid growth of the Korean economy under Japanese rule, which as historians note cannot be ignored in the analysis of the later economic success of South Korea, continues to be the subject of controversy between the two Koreas and Japan. While the growth is unquestionable, North Korea and South Korea point to alleged long-term negative repercussions caused by how the acceleration of industrialization under Japanese occupation was executed, including utilization of industrialization only for the purposes of benefiting Japan, the exploitation of the Korean people, the marginalization of Korean history and culture, and the environmental exploitation of the Korean Peninsula.
35.3.2: Occupation by the US and USSR
In light of the lack of consensus over the post-World War II status of Korea among the Allies and their competition for the sphere of influence in the region, the U.S. and Soviet governments divided the peninsula along the 38th parallel, paving the way for the existence of two separate Korean states.
Learning Objective
Describe the roles the U.S. and the USSR played in Korea after WWII
Key Points
At the Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta
Conference in 1945, the Soviet Union promised to join its allies in the Pacific
War within three months of victory in Europe. On August 8, 1945, after three
months to the day, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Soviet troops
advanced rapidly and the U.S. government became anxious that they would occupy
Korea.
On August 10, 1945, two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel
– were assigned to define an American occupation zone. Working on extremely
short notice and completely unprepared, they used a National Geographic map
to decide on the 38th parallel. They chose it because it divided the country
approximately in half but would also place capital city Seoul under American
control. No experts on Korea were consulted.
To the surprise of the Americans, the Soviet
Union immediately accepted the division.
On September 7, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur
announced that Lieutenant General John R. Hodge was to administer Korean
affairs. The United
States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) was the official ruling body
of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945, to August
15, 1948.
The USAMGIK tried to contain civil violence in
the south by banning strikes and outlawing the People’s Republic of Korea and
the people’s committees, but it did not prevent anti-division protests. It eventually outlawed all the left-leaning and allegedly communist organizations, and its continuation of the Japanese colonial system made it unpopular among Koreans.
In 1946, a provisional government called the
Provisional People’s Committee was formed under Kim Il-sung in North Korea. The government instituted a sweeping land-reform program, which distributed land more equally and forced big landlords and Japanese collaborators to seek refugee status in the South.
Following a failed UN intervention in 1947, on
May 10, 1948, the south held a general election. On August 15, the Republic of
Korea formally took over power from the U.S. military, with Syngman Rhee as the
first president. In the North, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was
declared on September 9, 1948, with Kim Il-sung as prime minister. On December
12, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly accepted the report of UNTCOK and
declared the Republic of Korea to be the “only lawful government in
Korea.”
Key Terms
Provisional People’s Committee
The official name of the provisional government governing the northern portion of the Korean Peninsula following its post-World War II partition by the United States and the Soviet Union after the defeat of the Empire of Japan in 1945. In the north, a pro-Soviet, ideologically communist government was established, officially succeeding a quasi-government composed of five provinces in 1946. The government was largely modeled after the Soviet Union.
People’s Republic of Korea
A short-lived provisional government organized with the aim to take over control of Korea shortly after the surrender of the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. It operated as a government from late August to early September 1945 until the United States Army Military Government in Korea was established in the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula by the United States. After that it operated unofficially and in opposition to the United States Army Military Government until it was forcibly dissolved in January 1946.
The United States Army Military Government in Korea
The official ruling body of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945, to August 15, 1948. Popular discontent stemmed from the body’s support of the Japanese colonial government and, once removed, keeping the former Japanese governors on as advisors; from ignoring, censoring, and forcibly disbanding the People’s Republic of Korea; and from its support for United Nations elections that divided Korea.
End of World War II: Division of Korea
In November 1943, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Chiang Kai-shek met at the Cairo Conference to discuss what should happen to territories occupied by Japan and agreed that Japan should lose all the territories it had conquered by force. In the declaration after the conference, Korea was mentioned for the first time. The three powers declared that they were “mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, … determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.”
At the Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta Conference in 1945, the Soviet Union promised to join its allies in the Pacific War within three months of victory in Europe. On August 8, 1945, after three months to the day, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Soviet troops advanced rapidly and the U.S. government became anxious that they would occupy Korea. On August 10, 1945, two young officers – Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel – were assigned to define an American occupation zone. Working on extremely short notice and completely unprepared, they used a National Geographic map to decide on the 38th parallel. They chose it because it divided the country approximately in half but would also place the capital city Seoul under American control. No experts on Korea were consulted. The two men were unaware that 40 years earlier, Japan and Russia had discussed sharing Korea along the same parallel. The division placed sixteen million Koreans in the American zone and nine million in the Soviet zone. To the surprise of the Americans, the Soviet Union immediately accepted the division.
General Abe Nobuyuki, the last Japanese Governor-General of Korea, had established contact with a number of influential Koreans since the beginning of August 1945 to prepare the handover of power. Throughout August, Koreans organized people’s committee branches for the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence headed by Lyuh Woon-hyung, a moderate left-wing politician. On September 6, 1945, a congress of representatives convened in Seoul and founded the short-lived People’s Republic of Korea.
In December 1945 at the Moscow Conference, the Allies agreed that the Soviet Union, the U.S., the Republic of China, and Britain would take part in a trusteeship over Korea for up to five years in the lead-up to independence. Most Koreans demanded independence immediately, with the exception of the Communist Party, which supported the trusteeship under pressure from the Soviet government. A Soviet-U.S. Joint Commission met in 1946 and 1947 to work towards a unified administration, but failed to make progress due to increasing Cold War antagonism and Korean opposition to the trusteeship. Meanwhile, the division between the two zones deepened. The difference in policy between the occupying powers led to a polarization of politics and a transfer of population between North and South. In May 1946, it was made illegal to cross the 38th parallel without a permit.
U.S. Occupation of the South
On September 7, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur announced that Lieutenant General John R. Hodge was to administer Korean affairs and Hodge landed in Incheon with his troops the next day.
The United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) was the official ruling body of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945, to August 15, 1948.
The Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, which had operated from China, sent a delegation with three interpreters to Hodge, but he refused to meet with them.
The USAMGIK tried to contain civil violence in the south by banning strikes and outlawing the People’s Republic of Korea and the people’s committees. Things spiraled quickly out of control, however, with a massive strike in September 1946 by 8,000 railway workers in Busan, which quickly spread to other cities in the South. On October 1, police attempts to control protesters in Daegu caused the death of three student demonstrators and injuries to many others, sparking a mass counter-attack that killed 38 policemen. In Yeongcheon, a police station came under attack by a 10,000-strong crowd on October 3, killing over 40 policemen and the county chief. Other attacks killed about 20 landlords and pro-Japanese officials. The U.S. administration responded by declaring martial law, firing into crowds of demonstrators, and killing a publicly unknown number of people.
Although the military government was hostile to leftism from the beginning, it initially tolerated the activities of left-wing political groups, including the Korean Communist Party. However, this period of reconciliation did not last long. Within a short time, the military government actively disempowered and eventually banned popular organizations that were gaining public support. The justification was the USAMGIK’s suspicion that they were aligned with the Communist bloc, despite professing a relatively moderate stance compared to the actual Korean Communist Party, which was also banned.
Among the earliest edicts promulgated by USAMGIK was to reopen all schools. No immediate changes were made in the educational system, which was simply carried over from the Japanese colonial period. In this area as in others, the military government sought to maintain the forms of the Japanese occupation system. Although it did not implement sweeping educational reforms, the military government did lay the foundations for reforms that were implemented later. In 1946, a council of about 100 Korean educators was convened to map out the future path of Korean education.
Soviet Occupation of the North
When Soviet troops entered Pyongyang, they found a local branch of the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence operating under the leadership of veteran nationalist Cho Man-sik. The Soviet Army allowed these people’s committees, which were friendly to the Soviet Union, to function. Colonel-General Terentii Shtykov set up the Soviet Civil Administration, taking control of the committees and placing Communists in key positions.
In 1946, a provisional government called the Provisional People’s Committee was formed under Kim Il-sung, who had spent the last years of the war training with Soviet troops in Manchuria. Conflicts and power struggles ensued at the top levels of government in Pyongyang as different aspirants maneuvered to gain positions of power in the new government. The government instituted a sweeping land-reform program: land belonging to Japanese and collaborator landowners was divided and redistributed to poor farmers. Landlords were allowed to keep only the same amount of land as poor civilians who had once rented their land, thereby making for a far more equal distribution of land. The farmers responded positively while many collaborators and former landowners fled to the south. According to the U.S. military government, 400,000 northern Koreans went south as refugees.
Welcome celebration for the Red Army in Pyongyang on October 14, 1945. Source: Korean People Journal from Japanese book The First Anniversary of Korean Liberation published by Shinkan Sha.
The division of Korea, after more than a millennium of being unified, was seen as controversial and temporary by both regimes. From 1948 until the start of the civil war on June 25, 1950, the armed forces of each side engaged in a series of bloody conflicts along the border. In 1950, these conflicts escalated dramatically when North Korean forces invaded South Korea, triggering the Korean War.
Key industries were nationalized. The economic situation was nearly as difficult in the north as it was in the south, as the Japanese concentrated agriculture in the south and heavy industry in the north.
Failed UN Intervention
With the failure of the Soviet-U.S. Joint Commission to make progress, the U.S. brought the problem before the United Nations in September 1947. The Soviet Union opposed UN involvement but the UN passed a resolution on November 14, 1947, declaring that free elections should be held, foreign troops should be withdrawn, and a UN commission for Korea, the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea, should be created. The Soviet Union boycotted the voting and did not consider the resolution to be binding, arguing that the UN could not guarantee fair elections. In the absence of Soviet cooperation, it was decided to hold UN-supervised elections in the south only.
The decision to proceed with separate elections was unpopular among many Koreans, who rightly saw it as a prelude to a permanent division of the country. General strikes in protest against the decision began in February 1948. In April, Jeju islanders rose up against the looming division of the country. South Korean troops were sent to repress the rebellion. Tens of thousands of islanders were killed and by one estimate, 70% of the villages were burned by the South Korean troops. The uprising flared up again with the outbreak of the Korean War.
On May 10, 1948, the south held a general election. On August 15, the Republic of Korea formally took over power from the U.S. military, with Syngman Rhee as the first president. In the North, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was declared on September 9, 1948, with Kim Il-sung as prime minister. On December 12, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly accepted the report of UNTCOK and declared the Republic of Korea to be the “only lawful government in Korea.”
South Korean general election on May 10, 1948. Source: Korean book Departure of Republic of Korea Capital Seoul (1945-1961) published by Seoul Metropolitan City History Committee.
Beginning with Syngman Rhee, a series of oppressive autocratic governments took power in South Korea with American support and influence. The country eventually transitioned to become a market-oriented democracy in 1987, largely due to popular demand for reform, and its economy rapidly grew. Due to Soviet influence, North Korea established a communist government with a hereditary succession of leadership, with ties to China and the Soviet Union.
Unrest continued in the South. In October 1948, the Yeosu–Suncheon Rebellion took place, in which some regiments rejected the suppression of the Jeju uprising and rebelled against the government. In 1949, the Syngman Rhee government established the Bodo League to keep an eye on its political opponents. The majority of the Bodo League’s members were innocent farmers and civilians who were forced into membership. The registered members or their families were executed at the beginning of the Korean War. On December 24, 1949, South Korean Army massacred Mungyeong citizens who were suspected communist sympathizers or their family and affixed blame to communists.
Soviet forces departed from North Korea in 1948 and
American troops finally withdrew from South Korea in 1949.
35.3.3: The Outbreak of the Korean War
With the approval and support of Stalin and Mao Zedong and Kim Il-sung believing that the effort to unite the Korean Peninsula would be supported by much of the South Korean populations,
North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, marking the outbreak of the Korean War.
Learning Objective
Detail the events that led to the outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula
Key Points
Following the 1948 elections under the auspices of the UN,
the new South Korean government promulgated a new constitution and elected Syngman Rhee
as president. While in the North the Soviet Union established a communist government
led by Kim Il-sung, President Rhee’s regime excluded communists and leftists
from southern politics. While Rhee
aimed to eradicate communist and leftist groups, the anti-communist slogans
were also applied to eradicate all his actual and alleged political opponents and establish authoritarian rule by inciting fear among civilians with
no ties to communism.
In
April 1948, what began as a demonstration commemorating Korean resistance to
Japanese rule ended with the Jeju uprising, an attempted insurgency
against the scheduled election on the Korean province of Jeju Island, followed
by a brutal anticommunist suppression campaign. By early 1950, Rhee had
about 20,000-30,000 alleged communists in jails and about 300,000 suspected
sympathizers enrolled in the Bodo League.
Kim Il-sung believed that communist guerrillas had weakened the South Korean military and that a North Korean
invasion would be welcomed by much of the South Korean population. Kim began
seeking Stalin’s support but with Chinese
Communist forces still engaged in the Chinese Civil War and American forces
stationing in South Korea, Stalin did not want the Soviet Union to become
embroiled in a war with the United States.
By
spring 1950, the strategic situation changed. The Soviets had detonated their
first nuclear bomb, American soldiers had fully withdrawn
from Korea, and the Chinese Communists had established the People’s Republic of
China. In
April 1950, Stalin gave Kim permission to invade the South under the condition
that Mao Zedong, the leader of China, would agree to send reinforcements if
needed. Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces would not openly
engage in combat to avoid a direct war with the Americans.
On June 25, 1950, the Korean People’s Army crossed the 38th
parallel behind artillery fire. The KPA justified its assault with the
claim that ROK troops had attacked first, and that they were aiming to arrest
and execute the “bandit traitor Syngman Rhee.” There were initial South Korean claims
that they had captured the city of Haeju, and this sequence of events has led
some scholars to argue that the South Koreans actually fired first. Within an
hour, North Korean forces attacked all along the 38th parallel.
In five days, the South
Korean forces, which had 95,000 men on June 25, were down to less than 22,000
men. In early July, when U.S. forces arrived after the UN passed Resolutions 82 and 83 and it became clear the Soviets would not directly engage in the conflict, what was left of the South Korean
forces was placed under U.S. operational command of the United Nations Command.
Key Terms
Bodo League
An official “re-education” movement whose members were communists, communist sympathizers, or actual and alleged political opponents of the President of South Korea Syngman Rhee. The members of the movement were forced into the membership and many were civilians with no ties to communism or politics.
Jeju uprising
An attempted insurgency on the Korean province of Jeju Island followed by a brutal anticommunist suppression campaign that lasted from April 3, 1948, until May 1949. The main cause for the rebellion was elections scheduled for May 10, 1948, designed by the UN to create a new government for all of Korea but only planned for the south of the country. Fearing this would further reinforce division, guerrilla fighters for the South Korean Labor party reacted violently, attacking local police and rightist youth groups stationed on Jeju Island.
war of attrition
A military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material.
This type of war is usually won by the side with greater resources.
“Anti-Communist” Purge in South Korea
Following the post-World War II division of Korea between the U.S. and the Soviet sphere of influence, the U.S. government cited the inability of the Soviet-U.S. Joint Commission to make progress and decided to hold an election under United Nations auspices with the aim of creating an independent Korea. The Soviet authorities and the Korean Communists refused to cooperate on the grounds it would not be fair. Many South Korean politicians also boycotted the idea. A general election was held in the South in 1948, marred by political violence and sabotage resulting in 600 deaths. North Korea held parliamentary elections three months later.
South Korean citizens protest Allied trusteeship in December 1945, author unknown.
Koreans on both sides of the 38th parallel refused to accept the imposed division of their country.
In 1948, the resultant South Korean government promulgated a new constitution and elected Syngman Rhee as President. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) was established on August 15, 1948. While in the North the Soviet Union established a communist government led by Kim Il-sung, President Rhee’s regime excluded communists and leftists from southern politics. Disenfranchised, they headed for the hills to prepare for guerrilla war against the US-sponsored ROK government. While Rhee indeed aimed to eradicate communist and leftist groups, the anti-communist slogans were applied to eradicate all his actual and alleged political opponents and establish the authoritarian rule by inciting fear among the civilians with no ties to communism or politics.
In April 1948, what began as a demonstration commemorating Korean resistance to Japanese rule ended with the Jeju uprising, an attempted insurgency against the scheduled election on the Korean province of Jeju Island, followed by a brutal anticommunist suppression campaign that lasted until May 1949. Although atrocities were committed by both sides, the methods used by the South Korean government to suppress the rebels were especially cruel, including random executions of women and children. In the end, between 14,000 and 30,000 people died as a result of the rebellion, or up to 10% of the island’s population. Some 40,000 others fled to Japan to escape the fighting. The persecution of actual and alleged communists in South Korea continued in the aftermath of the uprising. In December 1949, South Korean forces killed 86 to 88 people in the Mungyeong massacre.
The victims were massacred because they were suspected communist supporters or collaborators (though some sources say nearly one-third of the victims were children) but the government blamed the crime on marauding communist bands. By early 1950, Syngman Rhee had about 20,000-30,000 alleged communists in jails and about 300,000 suspected sympathizers enrolled in the Bodo League re-education movement. The Bodo League
gathered suspected communist sympathizers or Rhee’s political opponents but to fulfill the enrollment quota, many civilians with no ties to communists or politics were forced to become members.
Jeju residents awaiting execution in May 1948, author unknown.
Jeju residents began protesting the UN-designed 1948 elections in the South a whole year before they took place. An attempt by the military government to disperse the crowds only brought more citizens of Jeju out in support of the demonstrations. The persecution of communists and leftists in South Korea and the refusal to accept the 1948 elections and the divide of the Peninsula were important factors behind the invasion of North Korea in 1950.
Political Situation Before the War
By 1949, South Korean forces had reduced the active number of communist guerrillas in the South from 5,000 to 1,000. However, Kim Il-sung believed that the guerrillas had weakened the South Korean military and that a North Korean invasion would be welcomed by much of the South Korean population. Kim began seeking Stalin’s support for an invasion in March 1949, but with Chinese Communist forces still engaged in the Chinese Civil War and American forces stationed in South Korea, Stalin did not want the Soviet Union to become embroiled in a war with the United States. By spring 1950, the strategic situation changed. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear bomb in September 1949, American soldiers had fully withdrawn from Korea, and the Chinese Communists had established the People’s Republic of China. The Soviets had also cracked the codes used by the U.S. to communicate with the U.S. embassy in Moscow, and reading the dispatches convinced Stalin that Korea would not warrant a nuclear confrontation.
In April 1950, Stalin gave Kim permission to invade the South under the condition that Mao Zedong, the leader of China, would agree to send reinforcements if they became needed. Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces would not openly engage in combat to avoid a direct war with the Americans. Mao was concerned that the Americans would intervene but agreed to support the North Korean invasion. Once Mao’s commitment was secured, preparations for war accelerated. Soviet generals with extensive combat experience from World War II were sent to North Korea as the Soviet Advisory Group and completed the plans for the attack.
While these preparations were underway in the North, there were frequent clashes along the 38th parallel, many initiated by the South. The Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) was being trained by the U.S. Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG). On the eve of the war, KMAG’s commander General William Lynn Roberts voiced utmost confidence in the ROK Army and boasted that any North Korean invasion would merely provide “target practice.” For his part, Syngman Rhee repeatedly expressed his desire to conquer the North. Despite the southward movement of the Korean’s People’s Army (KPA), U.S. intelligence agencies and UN observers claimed that an invasion was unlikely.
Outbreak of the War
At dawn on Sunday, June 25, 1950, the Korean People’s Army crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire. The KPA justified its assault with the claim that ROK troops had attacked first, and that they were aiming to arrest and execute the “bandit traitor Syngman Rhee.” Fighting began on the strategic Ongjin peninsula in the west. There were initial South Korean claims that they had captured the city of Haeju and this sequence of events has led some scholars to argue that the South Koreans actually fired first. Within an hour, North Korean forces attacked all along the 38th parallel. The North Koreans had a combined arms force including tanks supported by heavy artillery. The South Koreans did not have any tanks, anti-tank weapons, or heavy artillery that could stop such an attack. In addition, South Koreans committed their forces in a piecemeal fashion and these were routed within a few days.
On June 27, Rhee evacuated from Seoul with some members of the government. On June 28 at 2 a.m., the South Korean Army blew up the highway Hangang Bridge across the Han River in an attempt to stop the North Korean army. The bridge was detonated while 4,000 refugees were crossing it and hundreds were killed. Destroying the bridge also trapped many South Korean military units north of the Han River. In spite of such desperate measures, Seoul fell that same day. A number of South Korean National Assemblymen remained in Seoul when it fell and 48 subsequently pledged allegiance to the North. On June 28, Rhee ordered the massacre of suspected political opponents in his own country.
In five days, the South Korean forces, which had 95,000 men on June 25, were down to less than 22,000 men. In early July when U.S. forces arrived, what was left of the South Korean forces was placed under U.S. operational command of the United Nations Command.
U.S. and UN Interventions
The Truman administration was unprepared for the invasion. Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.
One facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, U.S. East Asian experts saw Japan as the critical counterweight to the Soviet Union and China in the region. While there was no United States policy that dealt with South Korea as a national interest, its proximity to Japan increased the importance of South Korea. However, a major consideration was the possible Soviet reaction in the event that the U.S. intervened. The Truman administration was fretful that a war in Korea was a diversionary assault that would escalate to a general war in Europe once the United States committed in Korea. Truman believed if aggression went unchecked, a chain reaction would be initiated that would marginalize the United Nations and encourage Communist aggression elsewhere.
On June 25, 1950, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea with UN Security Council Resolution 82. The Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Republic of China (Taiwan), not the People’s Republic of China, held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council on June 27, 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On the same day, President Truman ordered U.S. air and sea forces to help the South Korean regime. On July 4, the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the United States of starting armed intervention on behalf of South Korea.
War of Attrition
After the first two months of the conflict, South Korean forces were on the point of defeat, forced back to the Pusan Perimeter. In September 1950, an amphibious UN counter-offensive was launched at Inchon and cut off many of the North Korean troops. Those that escaped envelopment and capture were rapidly forced back north all the way to the border with China at the Yalu River or into the mountainous interior. At this point, in October 1950, Chinese forces crossed the Yalu and entered the war. Chinese intervention triggered a retreat of UN forces which continued until mid-1951.
After these reversals of fortune, which saw Seoul change hands four times, the last two years of conflict became a war of attrition (a strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material), with the front line close to the 38th parallel. The war in the air, however, was never a stalemate. North Korea was subject to a massive bombing campaign. Jet fighters confronted each other in air-to-air combat for the first time in history and Soviet pilots covertly flew in defense of their communist allies.
35.3.4: Foreign Intervention in Korea
As the conflict between South Korea and North Korea reflected the international tensions of the Cold War, the U.S. military forces supported South Korea under the auspices of the UN while Chinese forces backed North Korea with the Soviet Union providing materiel and strategic help.
Learning Objective
Compare involvement of the U.S., USSR, and China in the Korean War
Key Points
On
June 25, 1950, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the
North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea with UN Security Council
Resolution 82. On June 27, 1950, the Security Council published Resolution 83 recommending member states
provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On the same day,
President Truman ordered U.S. air and sea forces to help the South Korean
regime.
U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson and
President Truman agreed that the United States was obligated to act, paralleling
the North Korean invasion with Adolf Hitler’s aggression in the 1930s with the
conclusion that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated. However, Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting
the invasion was essential to the American goal of the global containment of
communism.
In September 1950,
Zhou Enlai warned the United States that China
was prepared to intervene in Korea if the U.S. crossed the 38th
parallel. By October 1950, the UN Command repelled the Korean People’s Army
north past the 38th parallel and the ROK Army crossed after them into
North Korea. China justified its entry into the war as a
response to “American aggression in the guise of the UN.”
Although the Soviet Union agreed upon the Chinese intervention and supported the North Korean and Chinese forces with material and military experts,
Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not
directly intervene.
From July 1951 to the end of the war in 1953, the UN
Command and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army fought but exchanged little territory. The stalemate held although
large-scale bombing of North Korea continued. The UN Command forces’ goal was to recapture all of South Korea and
to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations and
later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN
Command’s resolve to continue the war.
The U.S. forces were not the only international
units fighting in the Korean War under the auspices of the UN. The United
Nations Command was in fact the unified command structure for the
multinational military forces supporting South Korea.
The United Nations Command and the Chinese-North Korean Command signed the Korean Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953, ending the heavy fighting.
Key Terms
Korean Demilitarized Zone
A highly militarized strip of land running across the Korean Peninsula. It was established at the end of the Korean War to serve as a buffer zone between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). It is a de facto border barrier that divides the Korean Peninsula roughly in half, created by agreement between North Korea, China, and the United Nations in 1953.
United Nations Command
The unified command structure for the multinational military forces supporting South Korea during the 1950-1953 Korean War.
Korean War
A 1950 – 1953 military conflict that began when North Korea invaded South Korea. The United Nations, with the United States as the principal force, came to the aid of South Korea. China came to the aid of North Korea, and the Soviet Union gave some assistance.
U.S. Intervention with UN Support
On June 25, 1950, the
United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion
of the Republic of Korea with UN Security Council Resolution 82 (the Soviet Union boycotted the UNSC at the time). On June 27, 1950, the Security Council published Resolution 83
recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of
Korea. On the same day, President Truman ordered U.S. air and sea forces to
help the South Korean regime.
U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson and President Truman agreed that the United States was obligated to act, paralleling the North Korean invasion with Adolf Hitler’s aggression in the 1930s with the conclusion that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated. Several U.S. industries were mobilized to supply materials, labor, capital, production facilities, and other services necessary to support the military objectives of the Korean War. However, Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting the invasion was essential to the American goal of the global containment of communism. In August 1950, the President and the Secretary of State obtained the consent of Congress to appropriate $12 billion for military action in Korea.
General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was faced with re-organizing and deploying an American military force that was a shadow of its World War II counterpart. Acting on Acheson’s recommendation, President Truman ordered General MacArthur to transfer material to the Army of the Republic of Korea while giving air cover to the evacuation of U.S. nationals. The President disagreed with advisers who recommended unilateral U.S. bombing of the North Korean forces and ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to protect the Republic of China (Taiwan), whose government asked to fight in Korea. The United States denied ROC’s request for combat lest it provoke a communist Chinese retaliation. Because the United States sent the Seventh Fleet to “neutralize” the Taiwan Strait, Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai criticized both the UN and U.S. initiatives as “armed aggression on Chinese territory.”
In September, MacArthur received the top secret National Security Council Memorandum from Truman reminding him that operations north of the 38th parallel were authorized only if “at the time of such operation there was no entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist forces, no announcements of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations militarily.” Just three days later, Zhou Enlai warned the United States that China was prepared to intervene in Korea if the United States crossed the 38th parallel. By October 1950, the UN Command repelled the Korean People’s Army northwards past the 38th parallel and the ROK Army crossed after them into North Korea. MacArthur made a statement demanding the KPA’s unconditional surrender. On October 7, with UN authorization, the UN Command forces followed the ROK forces northwards. The X Corps landed at Wonsan (in southeastern North Korea) and Riwon (in northeastern North Korea), already captured by ROK forces. The Eighth U.S. Army and the ROK Army drove up western Korea and captured Pyongyang city, the North Korean capital, on October 19, 1950. At month’s end, UN forces held 135,000 KPA prisoners of war.
U.S. Marine guards North Korean POWs aboard ship, 1951, author unknown.
The treatment of prisoners of war and their repatriation was a complicated issue in the Korean War. Nominally, both the Communists and United Nations forces were committed to the terms of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of POWs. However, both sides applied exceptions and the negotiations regarding POWs were contentious and difficult.
Taking advantage of the UN Command’s strategic momentum against the communists, General MacArthur believed it necessary to extend the Korean War into China to destroy depots supplying the North Korean war effort. President Truman disagreed and ordered caution at the Sino-Korean border.
Chinese Intervention with Soviet Support
China justified its entry into the war as a response to “American aggression in the guise of the UN.” In August 1950, Zhou Enlai informed the UN that “Korea is China’s neighbor” and “the Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question.” Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea. President Truman interpreted the communication as an “attempt to blackmail the UN” and dismissed it.
October 1, 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. On that day, the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao for Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene.
There was considerable resistance among many Chinese leaders, including senior military leaders, to confronting the U.S. in Korea. Mao strongly supported intervention and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. In order to enlist Stalin’s support, Zhou and a Chinese delegation arrived in Moscow on October 10. Stalin did not agree to send either military equipment or air support until March 1951. Soviet shipments of materiel, when they did arrive, were limited to small quantities of trucks, grenades, machine guns, and the like. Immediately upon his return to Beijing on October 18, Zhou met with Mao and military leaders Peng Dehuai and Gao Gang. The group ordered 200,000 Chinese troops to enter North Korea.
After secretly crossing the Yalu River on October 19, the
Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on October 25, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. This military decision made solely by China changed the attitude of the Soviet Union. Twelve days after Chinese troops entered the war, Stalin allowed the Soviet Air Force to provide air cover and supported more aid to China. After decimating the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and U.S. military occurred on November 1, 1950. Deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment with three-prong assaults—from the north, northwest, and west—and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan.
On December 16, 1950, President Truman declared a national emergency, which remained in force until September 1978. The next day, Kim Il-sung was deprived of the right of command of KPA by China. After that, the leading force of the war on the North Korean side became the Chinese army.
Stalemate and Armistice
From July 1951 to the end of the war, the UN Command and the PVA fought but exchanged little territory. The stalemate held although large-scale bombing of North Korea continued. Protracted armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but combat continued while the belligerents negotiated. The UN Command forces’ goal was to recapture all of South Korea and avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations and later effected military and psychological operations to test the UN Command’s resolve to continue the war. The on-again, off-again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong, on the border between North and South Korea, and then at the neighboring village of Panmunjom. A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war (POW) repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement signed in July 1953, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up to handle the matter.
U.S. Marines fighting in Seoul, Korea, 1950, author unknown.
U.S. Marines engaged in street fighting during the liberation of Seoul, circa late September 1950. Note M-1 rifles and Browning Automatic Rifles carried by the Marines, dead Koreans in the street, and M-4 “Sherman” tanks in the distance.
In 1952, the United States elected a new president, and in November, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations’ acceptance of India’s proposed Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, United States, and Joint UN Commands.
United Nations Command
The U.S. forces were not the only international units fighting in the Korean War under the auspices of the UN. The United Nations Command (UNC) was in fact the unified command structure for the multinational military forces supporting South Korea. The first non-Korean and non-U.S. unit to see combat was No. 77 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, which began escort, patrol and ground attacks from Japan in July 1950. In August 1950, the British Commonwealth’s 27th Infantry Brigade arrived at Busan. Units from other countries of the UN followed in rapid succession, including Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. Denmark, India, Norway, and Sweden provided medical units. Italy provided a hospital, even though it was not a UN member. Iran provided medical assistance from the Iranian military’s medical service.
35.3.5: A Divided Korea
After the Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953, the Korean War ended but the conflict between the two Korean states continues, still shaping their economic, political, diplomatic, and social relations.
Learning Objective
Analyze the consequences of dividing the Korean Peninsula into two countries
Key Points
The United Nations Command, supported by the
United States, the North Korean People’s Army, and the Chinese People’s
Volunteers, signed the Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953, to end the Korean
War fighting. The Armistice also called upon the governments of South Korea,
North Korea, China, and the United States to participate in continued peace
talks. The war is considered to have ended at this point but no
peace treaty was ever signed.
Upon agreeing to the armistice, the
belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone, a de facto border barrier that divides the
Korean Peninsula roughly in half. Within the Zone, there is a meeting-point between the two nations in the
small Joint Security Area near the western end of the zone, where negotiations
take place. There have been various incidents in and around the Zone, with
military and civilian casualties on both sides.
After the war, Operation Glory, which involved
the effort to transfer the remains of United Nations
Command casualties from North Korea, was conducted from July to November
1954 to allow combatant countries to exchange their dead. Numerous atrocities and massacres of civilians
throughout the Korean War committed by both the North and South Koreans also impacted the social landscape after the war. The exact number of South Korean POWs who were
detained in North Korea after the war and who still
survive in North Korea is unknown.
Large
numbers of people were displaced as a result of the war and many families were
divided by the reconstituted border. In 2007, it was estimated that around
750,000 people remained separated from immediate family members, and family
reunions have long been a diplomatic priority.
After the war, sporadic conflict continued between North and
South Korea. The opposing regimes aligned themselves with opposing sides in the
Cold War. Both sides received recognition as the legitimate government of Korea
from the opposing blocs and both
built up their military capacity. Numerous events and developments continued to shake relations between the two Korean states.
As the Cold War ended, North Korea lost the
support of the Soviet Union and plunged into economic crisis. In 1998, South
Korean President Kim Dae-jung initiated the Sunshine Policy, which aimed to
foster better relations with the North. The
Sunshine Policy was formally abandoned by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak
after his election in 2007. Since then, North Korea has continued to develop its nuclear program.
Key Terms
Bodo League massacre
A massacre and war crime against communists and suspected sympathizers, many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism or communists, that occurred in the summer of 1950 during the Korean War. Estimates of the death toll range from 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.
Korean Demilitarized Zone
A highly militarized strip of
land running across the Korean Peninsula. It was established at the end of the
Korean War to serve as a buffer zone between the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South
Korea). It is a de facto border barrier that divides the
Korean Peninsula roughly in half, created by agreement between North
Korea, China, and the United Nations in 1953.
Operation Glory
The code name for Operations Plan KCZ-OPS 14-54, which involved the effort to transfer the remains of United Nations Command casualties from North Korea at the end of the Korean War. The Korean Armistice Agreement of July 1953 called for the repatriation of all casualties and prisoners of war, and through September and October 1954 the Graves Registration Service Command received the remains of approximately 4,000 casualties.
Sunshine Policy
The foreign policy of South Korea towards North Korea from 1998 to 2008. Since its articulation by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, the policy resulted in greater political contact between the two states and some historic moments in inter-Korean relations, including two Korean summit meetings in Pyongyang (June 2000 and October 2007), several high-profile business ventures, and brief meetings of family members separated by the Korean War.
Korean Demilitarized Zone
The United Nations Command, supported by the United States, the North Korean People’s Army, and the Chinese People’s Volunteers, signed the Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953 to end the Korean War fighting. The Armistice also called upon the governments of South Korea, North Korea, China, and the United States to participate in continued peace talks. The war is considered to have ended at this point although there was no peace treaty. North Korea nevertheless claims that it won the Korean War.
Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, United States, and Joint UN Commands. The Demilitarized Zone runs northeast of the 38th parallel and to the south, it travels west.
It is a de facto border barrier that divides the Korean Peninsula roughly in half, running 160 miles long and about 2.5 miles wide. Within the Zone, there is a meeting-point between the two nations in the small Joint Security Area near the western end of the zone, where negotiations take place. There have been various incidents in and around the Zone, with military and civilian casualties on both sides.
A map of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, produced by the CIA in 1969. Relief shown by contours and spot heights. Depths shown by contours. Oriented with north toward the upper right.
Owing to the theoretical stalemate (no peace treaty has been signed) and genuine hostility between the North and the South, large numbers of troops are still stationed along both sides of the line, each side guarding against potential aggression from the other side. The armistice agreement explains exactly how many military personnel and what kind of weapons are allowed in the DMZ.
Social Landscape After the War
After the war, Operation Glory,
which involved the effort to transfer the remains of United Nations Command casualties from North Korea, was conducted from July to November 1954 to allow combatant countries to exchange their dead. The remains of 4,167 U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps dead were exchanged for 13,528 KPA and PVA dead and 546 civilians dead in UN prisoner-of-war camps were delivered to the South Korean government. From 4,167 containers of returned remains, forensic examination identified 4,219 individuals. Of these, 2,944 were identified as American and all but 416 were identified by name.
There were numerous atrocities and massacres of civilians throughout the Korean War committed by both the North and South Koreans that impacted the social landscape after the war. Many of them started on the first days of the war. South Korean President Syngman Rhee ordered what would be known as the Bodo League massacre in June 1950, initiating the killing of more than 100,000 suspected leftist sympathizers and their families by South Korean officials and right-wing groups. In occupied areas, North Korean Army political officers purged South Korean society of its intelligentsia by executing academics, government officials, and religious leaders who might lead resistance against the North. When the North Koreans retreated north in September 1950, they abducted tens of thousands of South Korean men. The reasons are not clear, but the intention might have been to acquire skilled professionals .
Large numbers of people were displaced as a result of the war and many families were divided by the reconstituted border. In 2007, it was estimated that around 750,000 people remained separated from immediate family members, and family reunions have long been a diplomatic priority.
The exact number of South Korean POWs who were detained in North Korea after the war is unknown, as is the number who still survive in North Korea. In its report to the legislature in October 2007, the South Korean Ministry of Defense reported that “a total of 41,971 South Korean soldiers were missing during the Korean War. 8,726 were repatriated through POW exchanges after the Armistice of 1953. Some 13,836 have been determined to have been killed based on other information. To date, the status of 19,409 soldiers has not been confirmed. Most of these unconfirmed were believed to have been unrepatriated POWs. Other estimates of South Korean POWs held by the North Koreans at the Armistice have been higher. Yi Hang-gu, a writer and North Korea expert currently in South Korea who served in the Korean People’s Army, has testified that he commanded former South Korean POWs who had been enlisted into the Korean People’s Army during the Korean War. He has estimated the number of South Korean POWs who survived in North Korea at the end of the fighting at about 50,000-60,000. The South Korean government estimates that 560 South Korean POWs still survive in North Korea.
After the war, a large number of mixed-race “G.I. babies” (offspring of American and other UN soldiers and Korean women) were filling up the country’s orphanages. Because Korean traditional society places significant weight on paternal family ties, bloodlines, and purity of race, children of mixed race or those without fathers are not easily accepted in South Korean society. International adoption of Korean children began in 1954. The U.S. Immigration Act of 1952 legalized the naturalization of non-whites as American citizens and made possible the entry of military spouses and children from South Korea after the Korean War.
After the war, the Chinese forces left, but U.S. forces remained in the South. Sporadic conflict continued between North and South Korea.
The opposing regimes aligned themselves with opposing sides in the Cold War. Both sides received recognition as the legitimate government of Korea from the opposing blocs. In 1953, the United States and South Korea signed a defense treaty and in 1958, the United States stationed nuclear weapons in South Korea. In 1961, North Korea signed mutual defense treaties with the USSR and China.
North Korea presented itself as a champion of orthodox Communism, distinct from the Soviet Union and China. The regime developed the doctrine of Juche or self-reliance, which included extreme military mobilization. In response to the threat of nuclear war, it constructed extensive facilities underground and in the mountains. The Pyongyang Metro opened in the 1970s with capacity to double as bomb shelter. Until the early 1970s, North Korea was economically the equal of the South.
Tensions between North and South escalated in the late 1960s with a series of low-level armed clashes known as the Korean DMZ Conflict. In 1968, North Korean commandos launched the Blue House Raid, an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate South Korean President Park Chung-hee. Shortly after, the U.S. spy ship Pueblo was captured by the North Korean navy. In 1969, North Korea shot down a US EC-121 spy plane over the Sea of Japan, killing all 31 crew on board, which constitutes the largest single loss of U.S. aircrew during the Cold War. In 1969, Korean Air Lines YS-11 was hijacked and flown to North Korea. Similarly, in 1970, the hijackers of Japan Airlines Flight 351 were given asylum in North Korea. In response to the Blue House Raid, the South Korean government set up a special unit to assassinate Kim Il-sung, but the mission was aborted in 1972. In 1974, a North Korean sympathizer attempted to assassinate President Park and killed his wife, Yuk Young-soo.
In the 1970s, both North and South began building up their military capacity. It was discovered that North Korea dug tunnels under the DMZ which could accommodate thousands of troops. Alarmed at the prospect of U.S. disengagement, South Korea began a secret nuclear weapons program which was strongly opposed by Washington. In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter proposed the withdrawal of troops from South Korea. There was a widespread backlash in America and in South Korea and critics argued that this would allow the North to capture Seoul. Carter postponed the move and his successor Ronald Reagan reversed the policy, increasing troop numbers. After Reagan supplied the South with F-16 fighters and after Kim Il-sung visited Moscow in 1984, the USSR recommenced military aid and cooperation with the North.
Post-Cold War Relations
As the Cold War ended, North Korea lost the support of the Soviet Union and plunged into economic crisis. In 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung initiated the Sunshine Policy, which aimed to foster better relations with the North. However, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush did not support the policy and in 2002 branded North Korea as a member of an “Axis of Evil.” The Sunshine Policy was formally abandoned by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak after his election in 2007. Meanwhile, in response to its increased isolation, North Korea redoubled its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test.
At the start of the 21st century, it was estimated that the concentration of firepower in the area between Pyongyang and Seoul was greater than that in central Europe during the Cold War. The North’s Korean People’s Army was numerically twice the size of South Korea’s military and had the capacity to devastate Seoul with artillery and missile bombardment. South Korea’s military, however, was assessed as technically superior. US forces remained in South Korea and carried out annual military exercises with South Korean forces. These have been routinely denounced by North Korea as acts of aggression. Between 1997 and 2016, the North Korea government accused other governments of declaring war against it 200 times. In 2013, amid tensions about its missile program, North Korea temporarily forced the shutdown of the jointly operated Kaesong Industrial Region The zone was shut again in 2016. In 2016, amid controversy, South Korea decided to deploy the U.S. THAAD anti-missile system. After North Korea’s fifth nuclear test in September 2016, it was reported that South Korea had developed a plan to raze Pyongyang if there were signs of an impending nuclear attack from the North.
The Korean Peninsula at night, shown in a 2012 composite photograph from NASA.
According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 3% of South Koreans view North Korea’s influence positively, with 91% expressing a negative view, making South Korea, after Japan, the country with the most negative feelings about North Korea in the world. However, a 2014 government funded survey found only 13% of South Koreans viewed North Korea as hostile and 58% of South Koreans believed North Korea was a country they should cooperate with.
35.3.6: Communism in the DPRK
Following the idea of Juche or self-reliance, North Korea remains one of the most isolated countries in the world, where an authoritarian political system has resulted in the destruction of the economy, complete control of the society, and extreme violations of human rights.
Learning Objective
Describe how Communism looks in the DPRK today
Key Points
Following the Korean War,
North
Korea emphasized the ideology of Juche(self-reliance)
to distinguish itself from both the Soviet Union and China. Recovery from the war was
quick but reconstruction
of the country depended on extensive Chinese and Soviet assistance. North Korea, like all the
postwar communist states, undertook massive state investment in heavy industry,
state infrastructure, and military strength, neglecting the production of
consumer goods.
As
late as the 1970s, North Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was estimated to be equivalent
to South Korea’s. By 1972, all children from age 5 to 16 were enrolled in
school and over 200 universities and specialized colleges had been established.
By the early 1980s, 60–70% of the population was urbanized.
In the 1970s, expansion of
North Korea’s economy, with the accompanying rise in living standards, came to
an end. North Korea’s desire to lessen its dependence on aid from China and the
Soviet Union prompted the expansion of its military power, and the government
believed massive expenditures could be covered by foreign borrowing and
increased sales of its mineral wealth on the international market. However, following the world
1973 oil crisis, the state began to default in
1974 and halted almost all repayments in 1985.
Gorbachev’s
reforms and diplomatic initiatives, the Chinese economic reforms starting in
1979, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc from 1989 to 1991 increased North
Korea’s isolation. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 deprived North Korea of
its main source of economic aid, leaving China as the isolated regime’s only
major ally. Without the Soviet aid, North Korea’s economy went into a
free-fall.
Kim
Il-sung died from a sudden heart attack in 1994. His son, Kim Jong-il, became the chairman of the National Defense Commission and thus North Korea’s de
facto head
of state in 1997. Meanwhile, the economy was
in steep decline. In 1990-1995, foreign trade was cut in half, with the loss of
subsidized Soviet oil particularly keenly felt. The crisis came to a head
in 1995 with widespread flooding that destroyed crops and infrastructure,
leading to a massive famine that lasted until 1998. Normalization of the relations with the West that began in the late 1990s failed and North Korea continued to develop its nuclear program.
International
organizations have assessed human rights violations in North Korea as
belonging to a category of their own, with no parallel in the contemporary
world. North Koreans have been referred to as “some of the world’s most
brutalized people” and a special UN commission has reported numerous cases of crimes against humanity.
Key Terms
Sunshine Policy
The foreign policy of South
Korea towards North Korea from 1998 to 2008. Since its articulation by South
Korean President Kim Dae-jung, the policy resulted in greater political contact
between the two states and some historic moments in inter-Korean relations,
including two Korean summit meetings in Pyongyang (June 2000 and October 2007),
several high-profile business ventures, and brief meetings of family members
separated by the Korean War.
August Faction Incident
A 1956 attempted removal of Kim Il-sung from power by leading North Korean figures from the Soviet-Korean faction and the Yan’an faction, with support from the Soviet Union and China.
Juche
The official state ideology of North Korea, described by the regime as Kim Il-sung’s “contribution to national and international thought.” It claims that an individual is “the master of his destiny.” In practical terms, it calls for the economic self-reliance of North Korea.
North Korea after the Korean War
Following the 1956 August Faction Incident (an attempted removal of Kim Il-sung from power), Kim Il-sung successfully resisted efforts by the Soviet Union and China to depose him in favor of pro-Soviet Korean officials or the pro-Chinese Yan’an faction. The last Chinese troops withdrew from the country in 1958, but North Korea remained closely aligned with China and the Soviet Union and the Sino-Soviet split allowed Kim to play the powers off each other. At the same time, North Korea emphasized the ideology of Juche (self-reliance) to distinguish itself from both the Soviet Union and China.
Recovery from the war was quick — by 1957 industrial production reached 1949 levels —
but reconstruction of the country depended on extensive Chinese and Soviet assistance. Koreans with experience in Japanese industries also played a significant part. Land was collectivized between 1953 and 1958. Resistance appears to have been minimal as landlords were eliminated by earlier reforms or during the war.
North Korea, like all the postwar communist states, undertook massive state investment in heavy industry, state infrastructure and military strength, neglecting the production of consumer goods.
The country was placed on a semi-war footing, with equal emphasis being given to the civilian and military economies. At a special party conference in 1966, members of the leadership who opposed the military build-up were removed. Industry was fully nationalized by 1959.
Taxation on agricultural income was abolished in 1966.
As late as the 1970s, North Korea’s GDP per capita was estimated to be equivalent to South Korea’s. By 1972, all children from age 5 to 16 were enrolled in school and more than 200 universities and specialized colleges had been established. By the early 1980s, 60–70% of the population was urbanized.
Economic Decline
In the 1970s, expansion of North Korea’s economy, with the accompanying rise in living standards, came to an end. North Korea’s desire to lessen its dependence on aid from China and the Soviet Union prompted the expansion of its military power, and the government believed massive expenditures could be covered by foreign borrowing and increased sales of its mineral wealth on the international market. North Korea invested heavily in its mining industries and purchased a large quantity of mineral extraction infrastructure from abroad. However, following the world 1973 oil crisis, international prices of many of North Korea’s native minerals fell, leaving the country with large debts, inability to pay them off, and an extensive network of social welfare benefits. The state began to default in 1974 and halted almost all repayments in 1985. Consequently, it was also unable to invest further in Western technology.
In 1984, Kim visited Moscow during a grand tour of the USSR where he met Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko. Soviet involvement in the North Korean economy increased, with bilateral trade reaching its peak at $2.8 billion in 1988. In 1986, Kim met the incoming Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and received a pledge of support. However, Gorbachev’s reforms and diplomatic initiatives, the Chinese economic reforms starting in 1979, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc from 1989 to 1991 increased North Korea’s isolation. The leadership in Pyongyang responded by proclaiming that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc demonstrated the correctness of the policy of Juche. Simultaneously, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 deprived North Korea of its main source of economic aid, leaving China as the isolated regime’s only major ally. Without the Soviet aid, North Korea’s economy went into a free-fall.
Kim Jong-il’s Era
Kim Il-sung died from a sudden heart attack in 1994. His son, Kim Jong-il, who had already assumed key positions in the government, succeeded as General-Secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party. At that time, North Korea had no secretary-general in the party nor a president. Although a new constitution appeared to end the war-time political system, it did not completely terminate the transitional military rule. Rather, it legitimized and institutionalized military rule by making the National Defense Commission (NDC) the most important state organization and its chairman the highest authority. After three years of consolidating his power, Kim Jong-il became Chairman of the NDC in 1997 and thus North Korea’s de facto head of state.
Meanwhile, the economy was in steep decline. In 1990-1995, foreign trade was cut in half, with the loss of subsidized Soviet oil particularly keenly felt. The crisis came to a head in 1995 with widespread flooding that destroyed crops and infrastructure, leading to a famine that lasted until 1998.
The North Korean government and its centrally planned system proved too inflexible to effectively curtail the disaster. Estimates of the death toll vary widely. Out of a total population of approximately 22 million, somewhere between 240,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans died from starvation or hunger-related illnesses, with deaths peaking in 1997. Recent research suggests that the likely number of excess deaths between 1993 and 2000 was about 330,000.
In the late 1990s, North Korea began making attempts at normalizing relations with the West and continuously renegotiating disarmament deals with U.S. officials in exchange for economic aid. At the same time, South Korea began to engage with the North as part of its Sunshine Policy. The international environment changed with the election of U.S. president George W. Bush in 2001. His administration rejected South Korea’s Sunshine Policy and the U.S. government treated North Korea as a rogue state, while North Korea redoubled its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. In 2006, North Korea announced it had conducted its first nuclear weapons test.
The Juche Tower in Pyongyang is dedicated to the Juche ideology, photo by Martyn Williams.
Juche’s core tenets are economic self-sufficiency, military self-reliance, and an independent foreign policy. The roots of Juche were made up of a complex mixture of factors, including the cult of personality centered on Kim Il-sung, the conflict with pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese dissenters, and Korea’s centuries-long struggle for independence.
In August 2009, former President Bill Clinton met with Kim Jong-il to secure the release of two American journalists who were sentenced for entering the country illegally. Barack Obama’s position towards North Korea was to resist making deals with North Korea for the sake of defusing tension, a policy known as “strategic patience.”
Current Situation
In 2011, the supreme leader of North Korea Kim Jong-il died from a heart attack. His youngest son Kim Jong-un was announced as his successor. Over the following years, North Korea continued to develop its nuclear arsenal despite international condemnation. Notable tests were performed in 2013 and 2016 and UN sanctions have tightened. At the 7th Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea in 2016, Kim Jong-Un further consolidated his control and power within the Workers’ Party of Korea and the country.
The DPRK officially describes itself as a self-reliant socialist state and formally holds elections.
The unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA) is the highest organ of state authority and holds the legislative power. Its 687 members are elected every five years by universal suffrage. Deputies formally elect the President, the vice presidents, and members of the Presidium and take part in the constitutionally appointed activities of the legislature: passing laws, establishing domestic and foreign policies, appointing members of the cabinet, reviewing and approving the state economic plan, among others. The SPA itself cannot initiate any legislation independently of party or state organs. It is unknown whether it has ever criticized or amended bills placed before it, and the elections are based around a single list of candidates who stand without opposition.
Executive power is vested in the Cabinet of North Korea, which is headed by Premier Pak Pong-ju. The Premier represents the government and functions independently. His authority extends over two vice premiers, 30 ministers, two cabinet commission chairmen, the cabinet chief secretary, the president of the Central Bank, the director of the Central Statistics Bureau, and the president of the Academy of Sciences. A 31st ministry, the Ministry of People’s Armed Forces, is under the jurisdiction of the National Defense Commission.
Critics regard North Korea as a totalitarian dictatorship. Various outlets have called it Stalinist, particularly noting the elaborate cult of personality around Kim Il-sung and his family. The Workers’ Party of Korea, led by a member of the ruling family, holds power in the state and leads the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. North Korea is the country with the highest number of military and paramilitary personnel, with a total of 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel. Its active duty army of 1.21 million is the fourth largest in the world, after China, the U.S., and India. North Korea is an atheist state with no official religion and where public display of religion is discouraged.
The North Korean government exercises control over many aspects of the nation’s culture, and this control is used to perpetuate a cult of personality surrounding Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. Kim Il-sung is still officially revered as the nation’s “Eternal President.” Several landmarks in North Korea are named for Kim Il-sung, including Kim Il-sung University, Kim Il-sung Stadium, and Kim Il-sung Square. Defectors have been quoted as saying that North Korean schools deify both father and son. The extent of the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung was demonstrated in 2012, when a 14-year-old North Korean schoolgirl drowned while attempting to rescue portraits of the two from a flood.
North Koreans bowing in front of statues of Kim Il-sung (left) and Kim Jong-il, April 2012, photo by J.A. de Roo.
The North Korean government exercises control over many aspects of the nation’s culture, and this control is used to perpetuate a cult of personality surrounding Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. While visiting North Korea in 1979, journalist Bradley Martin wrote that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il. Martin reported that there is even widespread belief that Kim Il-sung “created the world” and Kim Jong-il could “control the weather.”
Human Rights Violations
International organizations have assessed human rights violations in North Korea as belonging to a category of their own, with no parallel in the contemporary world.
North Koreans have been referred to as “some of the world’s most brutalized people” by Human Rights Watch because of the severe restrictions placed on their political and economic freedoms. The North Korean population is strictly managed by the state and all aspects of daily life are subordinated to party and state planning. Employment is managed by the party on the basis of political reliability and travel is tightly controlled by the Ministry of People’s Security. Amnesty International reports of severe restrictions on the freedom of association, expression and movement, arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment resulting in death, and executions. North Korea applies capital punishment, including public executions. Human rights organizations estimate that 1,193 executions had been carried out in the country as of 2009.
In 2013, the United Nations Human Rights Council established the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Commission is mandated to investigate the systematic, widespread, and grave violations of human rights in North Korea. The Commission dealt with matters relating to crimes against humanity on the basis of definitions set out by customary international criminal law and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The 2014 Report by the commission concluded, “the body of testimony and other information [the Commission] received establishes that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State… These crimes against humanity entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation. The commission further finds that crimes against humanity are ongoing in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea because the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity that lie at their heart remain in place.” Additionally, the commission found that crimes against humanity have been committed against starving populations, particularly during the 1990s, and against persons from other countries who were systematically abducted or denied repatriation in order to gain labor and other skills.
35.3.7: South Korea’s Economic Growth
Although South Korea emerged from the Korean War as one of the poorest countries in the world and despite a series of authoritarian regimes lasting until the late 1980s, the South Korean economy has been one of the fastest-growing and most stable in the world since the 1960s.
Learning Objective
Explain the policies enacted by the South Korean government to promote economic growth
Key Points
Following the armistice that ended the Korean
War fighting, South Korea experienced political turmoil under the autocratic
leadership of Syngman Rhee. Throughout his rule, Rhee sought to take additional
steps to cement his control of government. Under his rule, the country was in a dire economic situation and he was finally forced to resign and flee in 1960, following the April Revolution.
A period of political instability followed,
broken by General Park Chung-hee’s May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual
government the next year. Park took over as president, overseeing rapid
export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. He was
heavily criticized as a ruthless military dictator.
Park
was assassinated in 1979, initiating another period of political turmoil, as the previously suppressed opposition leaders all
campaigned to run for president in the sudden political void. In 1979, there
came the Coup d’état of December Twelfth led by General Chun Doo-hwan.
Chun
and his government held South Korea under a despotic rule until 1987, when the June Democracy Movement
forced the ruling government to hold elections and institute other democratic reforms.
Sweeping economic reforms
were initiated under Park’s administration that announced its
five-year economic development plan based on an export-oriented
industrialization policy. Top priority was placed on the growth of a
self-reliant economy and modernization. The economy grew rapidly with
vast improvements in industrial structure. Capital was needed for such developments, so the Park
regime used the influx of foreign aid from Japan and the United States to
provide loans to export businesses, with preferential treatment in obtaining
low-interest bank loans and tax benefits.
Despite the immense economic growth,
the standard of living for city laborers and farmers was still low. Laborers
were working for low wages to increase the price competitiveness for the
export-oriented economy plan, and farmers were in near poverty as the government
controlled prices. As the rural economy steadily lost ground and caused dissent
among the farmers, however, the government decided to implement measures to
increase farm productivity and income.
In the first half of the 1990s, in already
democratic South Korea, the economy continued a stable and strong growth.
Things changed quickly in 1997 with the Asian Financial Crisis. Following the recovery, in the 2000s, Korea’s economy moved away from
the centrally planned, government-directed investment model toward a more
market-oriented one. South Korea today is the most industrialized member of the
OECDE with a high-income economy and massive investments in education that have taken
the country from mass illiteracy to a major international technological
powerhouse.
Key Terms
April Revolution
A popular uprising in April 1960 led by labor and student groups, which overthrew the autocratic First Republic of South Korea under Syngman Rhee. It led to the resignation of Rhee and the transition to the Second Republic of South Korea. The events were touched off by the discovery in Masan Harbor of the body of a student killed by a tear-gas shell in demonstrations against the elections of March 1960.
Miracle on the Han River
A phrase that refers to the period of rapid economic growth in South Korea following the Korean War (1950-1953), during which South Korea transformed from a poor developing country to a developed country.
Coup d’état of December Twelfth
A military coup d’état which took place on December 12, 1979, in South Korea. Republic of Korea Army Major General Chun Doo-hwan, commander of the Security Command, acting without authorization from Acting President Choi Kyu-ha, ordered the arrest of General Jeong Seung-hwa, ROK Army Chief of Staff, on allegations of involvement in the assassination of President Park Chung Hee.
May 16 coup
A military coup d’état in South Korea in 1961, organized and carried out by Park Chung-hee and his allies who formed the Military Revolutionary Committee. The coup rendered powerless the democratically elected government of Yun Bo-seon and ended the Second Republic, installing a reformist military Supreme Council for National Reconstruction effectively led by Park, who took over as Chairman after General Chang’s arrest.
June Democracy Movement
A nationwide democracy movement in South Korea that generated mass protests from June 10 to June 29, 1987. The demonstrations forced the ruling government to hold elections and institute other democratic reforms, which led to the establishment of the Sixth Republic, the present-day government of South Korea.
June 29 Declaration
A speech by Roh Tae-woo, presidential candidate of the ruling Democratic Justice Party of South Korea, on June 29, 1987. Roh promised significant concessions to opponents of the incumbent authoritarian regime of Chun Doo-hwan who had been pressing for democracy. Roh went on to win the open presidential elections that were held that year, the first for at least 15 years since 1972.
Political Regime After the Korean War
Following the armistice that ended the Korean War fighting, South Korea experienced political turmoil under the autocratic leadership of Syngman Rhee. Throughout his rule, Rhee took additional steps to cement his control of government. In 1952, still in the midst of the Korean War, he pushed through constitutional amendments, which made the presidency a directly elected position. To do this, he declared martial law, arresting opposing members of parliament, demonstrators, and anti-government groups. He was subsequently elected by a wide margin. In the 1954 elections, Rhee regained control of parliament and thereupon pushed through an amendment to exempt himself from the eight-year term limit and was once again re-elected in 1956. Soon after, his administration arrested members of the opposing party and executed its leader after accusing him of being a North Korean spy.
The administration became increasingly repressive while dominating the political arena and in 1958, sought to amend the National Security Law to tighten government control over all levels of administration, including the local units. These measures caused much outrage among the people, but despite public outcry, Rhee’s administration rigged the 1960 presidential elections and won by a landslide. On the election day, however, protests by students and citizens against the irregularities of the election burst out in the city of Masan. Initially these protests were quelled with force by local police, but when the body of a student was found floating in the harbor of Masan, the whole country was enraged and protests spread nationwide. On April 19, students from various universities and schools rallied and marched in protest in the Seoul streets in what would be called the April Revolution. The government declared martial law, called in the army, and suppressed the crowds with open fire. Subsequent protests throughout the country shook the government and after an escalated protest, Rhee submitted his official resignation and fled into exile.
A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee’s May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. He was heavily criticized as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution that gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms.
Park was assassinated in 1979, re-introducing political turmoil as the previously suppressed opposition leaders all campaigned to run for president in the sudden political void. In 1979 came the Coup d’état of December Twelfth led by General Chun Doo-hwan. Following the coup d’état, Chun Doo-hwan planned to rise to power through several measures. On May 17, he forced the Cabinet to expand martial law to the whole country (it had previously not applied to the island of Jejudo). The expanded martial law closed universities, banned political activities, and further curtailed the press. Chun’s assumption of the presidency triggered nationwide protests demanding democracy.
Chun and his government held South Korea under a despotic rule until 1987, when a Seoul National University student, Park Jong-chul, was tortured to death. On June 10, the Catholic Priests Association for Justice revealed the incident, igniting the June Democracy Movement around the country. Eventually, Chun’s party, the Democratic Justice Party, and its leader, Roh Tae-woo announced the June 29 Declaration, which included the direct election of the president. Roh went on to win the election by a narrow margin. Since then South Korea has engaged in consistent democratization efforts.
May 16 coup, Major General Park Chung-hee (right), author unknown.
Park was one of a group of military leaders pushing for the depoliticization of the military. Under Park’s authoritarian rule, the South Korean economy began its miraculous growth.
Economic Growth
Following the Korean War, South Korea remained one of the poorest countries in the world for over a decade. In 1960, its gross domestic product per capita was $79, lower than that of some sub-Saharan countries. At the beginning of the 1960s,
the government formulated a five-year economic development plan, although it was unable to act on it prior to the April Revolution. The hwan (South Korean currency) lost half of its value against the dollar between fall 1960 and spring 1961.
Park’s administration started by announcing its five-year economic development plan based on an export-oriented industrialization policy. Top priority was placed on the growth of a self-reliant economy and modernization. “Development First, Unification Later” became the slogan of the times and the economy grew rapidly with vast improvements in industrial structure, especially in the basic and heavy chemical industries. Capital was needed for such developments, so the Park regime used the influx of foreign aid from Japan and the United States to provide loans to export businesses, with preferential treatment in obtaining low-interest bank loans and tax benefits. Cooperating with the government, these businesses would later become chaebols, business conglomerates that are typically global multinationals and own numerous international enterprises controlled by a chairman with power over all the operations.
Relations with Japan were normalized by the Korea-Japan treaty ratified in 1965. The treaty brought Japanese funds in the form of loans and compensation for the damages suffered during the colonial era without an official apology from the Japanese government, sparking much protest across the nation. The government also kept close ties with the United States and continued to receive large amounts of aid. A status of forces agreement was concluded in 1966. Soon thereafter, Korea joined the Vietnam War. Economic and technological growth during this period improved the standard of living, which expanded opportunities for education. Workers with higher education were absorbed by the rapidly growing industrial and commercial sectors, and urban population surged. Construction of the Gyeongbu Expressway was completed and linked Seoul to the nation’s southeastern region and the port cities of Incheon and Busan.
South Korean citizens perform a card stunt for President Park Chung-hee on South Korean Army day, October 1, 1973. Photo by Baek Jong-sik.
Unlike in most other countries, the incredible economic growth in South Korean did not go hand in hand with democratization. Despite the authoritarian regime,
South Korea’s tiger economy soared at an annual average of 10% for over 30 years in a period of rapid transformation called the Miracle on the Han River. A long legacy of openness and focus in innovation made it successful.
Despite the immense economic growth, however, the standard of living for city laborers and farmers was still low. Laborers were working for low wages to increase the price competitiveness for the export-oriented economy plan and farmers were in near poverty as the government controlled prices. As the rural economy steadily lost ground and caused dissent among the farmers, however, the government decided to implement measures to increase farm productivity and income by instituting the Saemauel Movement (“New Village Movement”) in 1971. The movement’s goal was to improve the quality of rural life, modernize both rural and urban societies, and narrow the income gap between them.
Despite social and political unrest, the economy continued to flourish under the authoritarian rule with the export-based industrialization policy. The first two five-year economic development plans were successful and the 3rd and 4th five-year plans focused on expanding the heavy and chemical industries, raising the capability for steel production and oil refining. As most of the development had come from foreign capital, most of the profit went back to repaying the loans and interests. In the 1980s, tight monetary laws and low interest rates contributed to price stability and helped the economy boom with notable growth in the electronics, semi-conductor, and automobile industries. The country opened up to foreign investments and GDP rose as Korean exports increased. This rapid economic growth, however, widened the gap between the rich and the poor, the urban and rural regions, and also exacerbated inter-regional conflicts. These dissensions, added to the hard-line measures taken against opposition to the government, fed intense rural and student movements, which had grown since the beginning of the republic.
In the first half of the 1990s, in already democratic South Korea, the economy continued a stable and strong growth. Things changed quickly in 1997 with the Asian Financial Crisis. By 1997, the IMF had approved a USD $21 billion loan, that would be part of a USD $58.4 billion bailout plan. By January 1998, the government had shut down a third of Korea’s merchant banks. Actions by the South Korean government and debt swaps by international lenders contained the country’s financial problems. Much of South Korea’s recovery from the Asian Financial Crisis can be attributed to labor adjustments (i.e. a dynamic and productive labor market with flexible wage rates) and alternative funding sources.
The Miracle on the Han River
In the 2000s, Korea’s economy moved away from the centrally planned, government-directed investment model toward a more market-oriented one. These economic reforms helped it maintain one of Asia’s few expanding economies.
South Korea’s mixed economy ranks 11th nominal and 13th purchasing power parity GDP in the world, identifying it as one of the G-20 major economies. South Korea is the most industrialized member of the OECDE with a high-income economy and massive investments in education bringing the country from mass illiteracy to a major international technological powerhouse. The country’s national economy benefits from a highly skilled workforce, and South Koreans are among the most educated societies in the world with one of the highest percentage of individuals holding a tertiary education degree. The South Korean economy continues to be heavily dependent on international trade and in 2014, the country was the 5th largest exporter and 7th largest importer in the world. The incredible economic development from the early 1960s to the late 1990s and becoming one of the fastest-growing developed countries in the 2000s has compelled South Koreans to refer to this growth as the Miracle on the Han River. South Korea was also one of the few developed countries that were able to avoid a recession during the global financial crisis of 2007-2008.
35.4: The Indian Subcontinent
35.4.1: The Indian Independence Movement
Gandhi was the pivotal figure of the Indian independence movement. His ideal of non-violent civil disobedience not only attracted mass following in India and shaped its successful struggle for a sovereign state, but also influenced social justice movements across the world.
Learning Objective
Describe Gandhi’s role in the movement for Indian independence
Key Points
The Indian independence
movement, spanning 190 years, encompassed activities and ideas aiming to end the East India
Company rule (1757–1858) and the British Indian Empire (1858–1947) in
the Indian subcontinent. Its most decisive phase has been associated with Mahatma Gandhi, who in
today’s India is commonly referred to as “the father of the nation.”
Gandhi spent
21 years in South Africa, where he developed his political views, ethics, and
political leadership skills. He was a prominent leader of the Indian
nationalist movement in South Africa and a vocal opponent of basic
discrimination and abusive labor treatment as well as oppressive police
control. During these protests, Gandhi perfected the concept of satyagraha (“insistence
on truth”) that he would later implement in India.
Gandhi returned to India
in 1915 and joined the Indian National Congress, a key participant in the Indian independence movement. His ideas and
strategies of non-violent civil disobedience initially appeared impractical, but his vision brought millions of ordinary
Indians into the movement, transforming it from an elitist struggle to a
national one.
Gandhi
took leadership of the Congress in 1920, when he also started the
Non-Cooperation Movement. The
movement urged the use of Indian
materials as alternatives to those shipped from Britain. It also urged people to
boycott British educational institutions and law courts, resign from government
employment, refuse to pay taxes, and forsake British titles and honors. It enjoyed widespread popular support and the resulting unparalleled
magnitude of disorder presented a serious challenge to the British rule.
Gandhi
stayed out of active politics for most of the
1920s but emerged from seclusion by
undertaking his most famous campaign, a march of about 240 miles (400 km)
from his commune in Ahmedabad to Dandi, on the coast of Gujarat between March
11 and April 6, 1930. The march, known as the Salt
March, was an act
of civil disobedience against the British empire and the unjust salt tax of the
British.
Gandhi
initially favored offering “nonviolent moral support” to the British
effort when World War II broke out in 1939. As the war progressed, he intensified his demand for independence,
calling for the British to Quit
India. At
the end of the war, the British gave clear indications that power would be
transferred to Indian hands.
With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence
Act 1947, Pakistan and India became two separate sovereign
states. As
a rule, Gandhi was opposed to the concept of partition as it contradicted his
vision of religious unity.
Key Terms
satyagraha
A Hindu term, loosely translated as insistence on truth or holding onto truth or truth force, that refers to a particular form of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance. The term was coined and developed by Mahatma Gandhi, who deployed the philosophy in the Indian independence movement and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa for Indian rights. The theory influenced Martin Luther King, Jr.’s and James Bevel’s campaigns during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and many other social justice movements.
Salt March
An act of nonviolent civil disobedience in colonial India initiated by Mahatma Gandhi to produce salt from the seawater in the coastal village of Dandi, as was the practice of the local populace until British officials introduced taxation on salt production, deemed their sea-salt reclamation activities illegal, and repeatedly used force to stop it. The 24-day march began on March 12, 1930, as a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. It gained worldwide attention, which gave impetus to the Indian independence movement and inspired the nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement.
Quit India Movement
A civil disobedience movement launched in Bombay by Mahatma Gandhi on August 8, 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British Rule of India. Gandhi made a call to Do or Die in a speech delivered in Bombay at the Gowalia Tank Maidan. The All-India Congress Committee launched a mass protest demanding what Gandhi called “An Orderly British Withdrawal” from India. Almost the entire leadership of the Indian National Congress was imprisoned without trial within hours of Gandhi’s speech. Sporadic small-scale violence took place around the country and the British arrested tens of thousands of leaders.
Non-Cooperation Movement
A significant phase of the Indian independence movement from British rule, led by Mahatma Gandhi, that aimed to resist through nonviolent means. Protesters would refuse to buy British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts, and picket liquor shops. The ideas of ahimsa (no harm) and nonviolence and Gandhi’s ability to rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of Indian independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement through the summer of 1920.
Indian National Congress
One of two major political parties in India, founded in 1885 during the British Raj. Its founders include Allan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Dinshaw Wacha. In the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries, it became a pivotal participant in the Indian independence movement, with more than 15 million members and 70 million participants in its opposition to British colonial rule in India.
Gandhi’s Return to India
The Indian independence movement encompassed activities and ideas aiming to end the East India Company rule (1757–1858) and the British Indian Empire (1858–1947) in the Indian subcontinent. The movement spanned a total of 190 years (1757-1947) but its most decisive phase has been associated with Mahatma Gandhi, who in today’s India is commonly referred to as “the father of the nation.”
In 1893 at the age of 24, Gandhi arrived in South Africa to work as a legal representative for the Muslim Indian Traders in Pretoria. He spent 21 years in South Africa, where he developed his political views, ethics, and political leadership skills. He was a prominent leader of the Indian nationalist movement in South Africa and a vocal opponent of basic discrimination and abusive labor treatment as well as oppressive police control. During these protests, Gandhi ad perfected the concept of satyagraha (“insistence on truth”). In 1914, his strategies succeeded. The legislation against Indians was repealed and all Indian political prisoners were released. Gandhi accomplished this through extensive use of non-violent protest, such as boycotting, protest marching, and fasting.
Gandhi returned to India in 1915 with an international reputation as a leading Indian nationalist, theorist, and organizer. He joined the Indian National Congress, a pivotal participant in the Indian independence movement, and was introduced to Indian issues, politics, and the Indian people primarily by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Gokhale was a key leader of the Congress Party best known for his restraint and moderation and his insistence on working inside the system. Gandhi took Gokhale’s liberal approach based on British Whiggish traditions and transformed it to be wholly Indian. He initially entered the political fray not with calls for a nation-state but in support of the unified commerce-oriented territory championed by the Congress Party. Gandhi believed that the industrial and educational development that the Europeans had brought with them were required to alleviate many of India’s problems. Gandhi’s ideas of and strategies for non-violent civil disobedience initially appeared impractical to some Indians and Congress members. But his vision brought millions of ordinary Indians into the movement, transforming it from an elitist struggle to a national one. The nationalist cause was expanded to include the interests and industries that formed the economy of common Indians.
Gandhi’s Leadership: Civil Disobedience
Gandhi took leadership of the Congress in 1920 when he started the Non-Cooperation Movement. He convinced other leaders of the need for a movement in support of Khilafat (a pan-Islamic, political protest campaign launched by Muslims in British India to influence the British government)
as well as swaraj (self rule). The movement urged the use of khadi (handspun and hand-woven cloth) and Indian material as alternatives to those shipped from Britain. It also urged people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, resign from government employment, refuse to pay taxes, and forsake British titles and honors. The movement enjoyed widespread popular support and the resulting unparalleled magnitude of disorder presented a serious challenge to the British rule. However, Gandhi called off the movement following the Chauri Chaura incident, which saw the death of 22 policemen at the hands of an angry mob. In 1922, Gandhi was sentenced to six years of prison, but was released after serving two.
Without Gandhi’s unifying personality, the Indian National Congress began to splinter during his years in prison, splitting into two factions, one led by Chitta Ranjan Das and Motilal Nehru favoring party participation in the legislatures, and the other led by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, opposing this move. Further, cooperation among Hindus and Muslims, which was strong at the height of the nonviolence campaign, broke down. Gandhi attempted to bridge these differences through many means, including a three-week fast in the autumn of 1924, but with limited success.
Mahatma Gandhi spinning yarn, in the late 1920s, author unknown.
Gandhi expanded his nonviolence platform to include the swadeshi policy—the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially British goods. Linked to this was his advocacy that khadi (homespun cloth) be worn by all Indians instead of British-made textiles. Gandhi exhorted Indian men and women, rich or poor, to spend time each day spinning khadi in support of the independence movement. Gandhi even invented a small, portable spinning wheel that could be folded into the size of a small typewriter.
Salt March
Gandhi stayed out of active politics and thus the limelight for most of the 1920s. He focused instead on resolving the wedge between the Swaraj Party and the Indian National Congress and expanding initiatives against untouchability, alcoholism, ignorance, and poverty. He emerged from his long seclusion by undertaking his most famous campaign, a march of about 240 miles (400 km) from his commune in Ahmedabad to Dandi, on the coast of Gujarat, between March 11 and April 6, 1930. The march, known as the Dandi March (Salt March) or the Salt Satyagraha, was an act of civil disobedience against the British empire and its unjust salt tax. In response to the local practice of producing salt out of seawater, the British introduced taxation on salt production, deemed sea-salt reclamation activities illegal, and repeatedly used force to stop these activities. The 24-day march began as a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly. Gandhi and thousands of his followers broke the law by making their own salt from seawater (at the Gulf of Khambhat). The march was a turning point for the Indian independence movement.
For the next few years, the Congress and the government were locked in conflict and negotiations until the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935. By then, the rift between the Congress and the Muslim League was unbridgeable. The Muslim League disputed the claim of the Congress to represent all people of India, while the Congress disputed the Muslim League’s claim to voice the aspirations of all Muslims.
The 1935 Act, the voluminous and final constitutional effort at governing British India, articulated three major goals: establishing a loose federal structure, achieving provincial autonomy, and safeguarding minority interests through separate electorates. The federal provisions, intended to unite princely states and British India at the center, were not implemented because of ambiguities in safeguarding the existing privileges of princes. In February 1937, however, provincial autonomy became a reality when elections were held. The Congress emerged as the dominant party with a clear majority in five provinces and held an upper hand in two, while the Muslim League performed poorly.
Demonstration against British rule in India, c. 1930s, author unknown.
The Civil Disobedience Movement indicated a new part in the process of the Indian self-rule struggle. As a whole, it was a failure, but it brought the Indian population together under the Indian National Congress’s leadership. The movement made the Indian people strive even more towards self-rule.
Quit India Movement
Gandhi initially favored offering “nonviolent moral support” to the British effort when World War II broke out in 1939, but the Congressional leaders were appalled by the unilateral inclusion of India in the war without consultation of Indian representatives. All Congressmen resigned from office. After long deliberations, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied to India. As the war progressed, he intensified his demand for independence, calling for the British to Quit India in a speech at in Bombay at Gowalia Tank Maidan. This was Gandhi’s and the Congress Party’s most definitive revolt aimed at securing the British exit from India. Quit India became the most forceful movement in the history of the struggle, with mass arrests and some acts of violence.
Gandhi and the entire Congress Working Committee were arrested in Bombay by the British a day after the Quit India resolution was passed. He was imprisoned for two years, during which his wife Kasturba died after 18 months’ imprisonment. He was released in 1944 because of his failing health and necessary surgery. The Raj did not want him to die in prison and enrage his many supporters. Gandhi came out of detention to an altered political scene: the Muslim League was now a political power and while the leaders of Congress languished in jail, other parties supported the war and gained organizational strength. At the end of the war, the British gave clear indications that power would be transferred to Indian hands. At this point, Gandhi called off the struggle and around 100,000 political prisoners were released, including the Congress’s leadership.
Partition and Independence
As a rule, Gandhi was opposed to the concept of partition as it contradicted his vision of religious unity (the Muslim League passed a resolution to divide British India in 1943). He suggested an agreement that required the Congress and Muslim League to cooperate and attain independence under a provisional government; thereafter, the question of partition could be resolved by a plebiscite in the districts with a Muslim majority.
On June 3, 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on August 14, 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on August 15, 1947, India became a sovereign state. Eventually, August 15 became Independence Day for India. Both Pakistan and India had the right to remain in or remove themselves from the British Commonwealth. In 1949, India decided to remain in the Commonwealth.
Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims followed. India’s partition and independence were accompanied by more than half a million killed in violent clashed as 10–12 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims crossed the borders dividing India and Pakistan. Gandhi, having vowed to spend the day of independence fasting and spinning, was in Calcutta where he prayed, confronted rioters, and worked with other leaders to stop the communal killing.
Gandhi influenced important leaders and political movements. Leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, including Martin Luther King, James Lawson, and James Bevel, drew from the writings of Gandhi in the development of their own theories about nonviolence. Anti-apartheid activist and former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was also inspired by Gandhi. Others include Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (prominent Muslim leader), Steve Biko (anti-apartheid activist in South Africa), and Aung San Suu Kyi (democratic leader in Burma).
35.4.2: Partition and Religious Tensions
The partition of British India into Hindu-dominated India and Muslim-dominated Pakistan was a victory of the Muslim League’s vision of a separate state for Indian Muslims. It resulted in massive unrest, the biggest population movements in history, and political tensions that continue until today.
Learning Objective
Assess the pros and cons of dividing the Hindu and Muslim populations of India into separate states
Key Points
Indian society under British rule was very diverse, reflecting the history of kingdoms and
empires that had occupied the territory for centuries and consisting of multiple
religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. In this multitude of cultures,
the main factor of division would become religion, specifically a growing
divide between the two largest religious groups: Muslims and Hindus.
The
political event that sowed the seed of division was the Partition of Bengal: the division of the largest administrative
subdivision in British India, the Bengal Province, into the Muslim-majority
province of Eastern Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of West
Bengal. The Hindu elite of Bengal protested staunchly, leading the Muslim elite in India to
organize the All India Muslim League in 1906. The organization would be crucial to the eventual creation of a separate Muslim state.
After the Muslim League reached out to the masses, it attracted hundreds of
thousands of new members. Its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah was now well-positioned to negotiate with the
British from a position of power. The League, in contrast to the Indian National Congress, supported Britain in the war
effort. When Congress leaders were arrested in 1942, the League received an opportunity to spread its message.
Rejecting the notion of united India, Jinnah proclaimed the Two-Nation Theory, which argues that the
primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the South Asian
subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and
therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations, regardless of
ethnic or other commonalities.
As independence approached, the violence between
Hindus and Muslims continued.
With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the date for the transfer of power was advanced. In
June 1947, a partition of the country along religious
lines, in stark opposition to Gandhi’s views, was decided. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh
areas were assigned to the new state of India and predominantly Muslim areas to
the new state of Pakistan.
The majority of Indians remained in place
with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and
Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In the riots which
preceded the partition in the Punjab Province, between 200,000
and 2 million people were killed in the retributive genocide between the
religions. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims were
displaced during the partition. It was the largest mass migration in human
history.
Key Terms
Two-Nation Theory
The theory argues that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the South Asian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities. This ideology was directly linked to the Muslim demands for the creation of Pakistan in British India.
Direct Action Day
August 16, 1946, originally
announced by the Muslim League Council to peacefully highlight the Muslim demand for a separate state, became a day of widespread riot and manslaughter between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India.
Indian National Congress
One of two major political parties in India, founded in 1885 during the British Raj. Its founders include Allan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Dinshaw Wacha. In the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries, it became a pivotal participant in the Indian independence movement, with over 15 million members and over 70 million participants in its opposition to British colonial rule in India.
Partition of Bengal
A 1905 division of Bengal that separated the largely Muslim eastern areas from the largely Hindu western areas. It was one of the key events that initiated the divide between Muslims and Hindus in India and eventually led to the 1947 Partition and the creation of two separate states: predominantly-Hindu India and predominantly-Muslim Pakistan.
All India Muslim League
A political party established during the early years of the 20th century in the British Indian Empire. Its strong advocacy for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan, successfully led to the partition of British India in 1947 by the British Empire.
Hindus and Muslims in British India: A Growing Divide
In general, the British-run government and British commentators consciously used the term “people of India” and avoided speaking of an “Indian nation.” This was cited as a key reason for British control of the country; since Indians were not a nation, they were not capable of national self-government. While some Indian leaders insisted that Indians were one nation, others agreed that Indians were not yet a nation while recognizing that they could become one. Indian society under the British rule was, in fact, very diverse and did not easily match the predominant nationalist paradigms of what a nation should be. It reflected the long history of kingdoms and empires that had occupied the territory for centuries and consisted of multiple religious, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds. In this multitude of cultures, the main factor of division would become religion, specifically a growing divide between the two largest religious groups: Muslims and Hindus.
The political event that sowed the seed of division was the Partition of Bengal. In 1905, then-Viceroy Lord Curzon divided the largest administrative subdivision in British India, the Bengal Province, into the Muslim-majority province of Eastern Bengal and Assam and the Hindu-majority province of West Bengal (present-day Indian states of West Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha). Curzon’s act, the Partition of Bengal, would transform nationalist politics. The Hindu elite of Bengal, among them many who owned land in East Bengal that was leased out to Muslim peasants, protested staunchly.
The Hindu protests against the partition of Bengal led the Muslim elite in India to organize the All India Muslim League in 1906. The League favored the partition of Bengal, since it gave them a Muslim majority in the eastern half. The Muslim elite expected that a new province with a Muslim majority would directly benefit Muslims aspiring to political power. The partition of Bengal was rescinded in 1911. King George V announced the capital would be moved from Calcutta to Delhi, a Muslim stronghold.
While the Muslim League was for decades a small elite group, it grew rapidly once it became an organization that reached out to the masses, gaining hundreds of thousands members in regions with significant Muslim population.
Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali
Jinnah was now well-positioned to negotiate with the British. With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow declared war on India’s behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Indian National Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort and maintained its control of the government in three major provinces: Bengal, Sind, and the Punjab.
Two-Nation Theory
Jinnah repeatedly warned that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. In 1940 in Lahore, the League passed the “Lahore Resolution,” demanding that, “the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.” As the Congress was secular, it strongly opposed having any religious state and insisted there was a natural unity to India. It repeatedly blamed the British for “divide and rule” tactics based on prompting Muslims to think of themselves as alien from Hindus. Jinnah rejected the notion of a united India and emphasized that religious communities were more basic than an artificial nationalism, proclaiming the Two-Nation Theory. The theory argues that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the South Asian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities. This ideology was directly linked to the Muslim demands for the creation of Pakistan.
Partition of British India
In 1942, with the Japanese fast moving up the Malayan Peninsula after the Fall of Singapore and with the Americans supporting independence for India, Winston Churchill, the wartime Prime Minister of Britain, sent
an offer of dominion status to India at the end of the war in return for the Congress’s support for the war effort. Not wishing to lose the support of the allies the British had already secured, including the Muslim League, the offer included a clause stating that no part of the British Indian Empire would be forced to join the post-war Dominion. As a result of the proviso, the proposals were rejected by the Congress, which since its founding as a polite group of lawyers in 1885, saw itself as the representative of all Indians of all faiths. In response to the Congress’s Quit India Movement and with their resources and attention already spread thin by a global war, the nervous British immediately jailed the Congress leaders and kept them in jail until August 1945. The Muslim League was now free for the next three years to spread its message. Consequently, the Muslim League’s ranks surged during the war.
In 1946, new elections were called in India. Earlier, at the end of the war in 1945, the colonial government announced the public trial of three senior officers of Bose’s defeated Indian National Army who stood accused of treason. Now as the trials began, the Congress leadership, although ambivalent towards the INA, chose to defend the accused officers. The subsequent convictions of the officers, the public outcry against the convictions, and the eventual remission of the sentences created positive propaganda for the Congress, which only helped in the party’s subsequent electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces. The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed August 16, 1946, the Direct Action Day with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day violent Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout British India.
Dead and wounded after the Direct Action Day, which developed into pitched battles as Muslim and Hindu mobs rioted across Calcutta in 1946.
The “Direct Action” was announced by the Muslim League Council to show the strength of Muslim feelings both to British and Congress because Muslims feared that if the British just pulled out, they would surely suffer at the hands of overwhelming Hindu majority. This resulted in the worst communal riots that British India had seen.
As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date of the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Sardar Patel, Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines in stark opposition to Gandhi’s views. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new state of India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new state of Pakistan. The plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal.
With the speedy passage
through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 p.m. on
August 14, 1947, Pakistan was declared a separate state, and just
after midnight, on August 15, 1947, India became a sovereign state. Both Pakistan and India had
the right to remain in or remove themselves from the British Commonwealth. In
1949, India decided to remain in the Commonwealth.
Consequences of the Partition
The great majority of Indians remained in place with independence, but in border areas millions of people (Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu) relocated across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, there was much bloodshed. In Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi’s presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited.
In the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab Province, it is believed that between 200,000 and 2 million people were killed in the retributive genocide between the religions. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims were displaced during the partition. It was the largest mass migration in human history.
According to Richard Symonds, at the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and 12 million became homeless as a result of the forced migrations.
The Partition was a highly controversial arrangement and remains a cause of tension on the Indian subcontinent today. Some critics allege that British haste led to increased cruelties during the Partition. Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated and the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. Both states failed, resulting in a complete breakdown of law and order. Many died in riots, massacres, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety.
A special refugee train at Ambala Station during partition of India
Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly formed states in the months immediately following Partition. The 1951 Census of Pakistan identified the number of displaced persons in Pakistan at 7,226,600, presumably all Muslims who had entered Pakistan from India. Similarly, the 1951 Census of India enumerated 7,295,870 displaced persons, apparently all Hindus and Sikhs who had moved to India from Pakistan immediately after the Partition.
A cross-border student initiative, The History Project, was launched in 2014 to explore the differences in perception of the events during the British era which led to the partition. The project resulted in a book that explains both interpretations of the shared history in Pakistan and India.
35.4.3: The Green Revolution
India’s Green Revolution has produced extreme increases in food production, turning India from an import- and food aid-dependent state to a self-sufficient one. However, it has left many poor farmers out of the gains of modern agriculture and contributed to serious environmental and public health issues.
Learning Objective
List some of the innovations that led to increased food production in India
Key Points
The Green Revolution refers to the research
and development of technology transfer initiatives between the 1930s
and the late 1960s that increased agricultural
production worldwide, particularly in the developing world.
The initiatives are credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.
Before the mid-1960s, India relied on imports
and food aid to meet domestic requirements. However, two years of severe
drought in 1965 and 1966 convinced the government to reform the agricultural
policy. India adopted significant policy reforms focused on the goal of
food grain self-sufficiency. This ushered in India’s Green Revolution. It began
with the decision to adopt superior yielding, disease-resistant wheat varieties in combination with better farming knowledge to improve productivity.
The initial increase in production was centered
on the irrigated areas of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar
Pradesh. With the farmers and the government officials focusing on farm
productivity and knowledge transfer, India’s total grain production soared. With agricultural policy success in wheat,
India’s Green Revolution technology spread to rice.
India adopted IR8, a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI), that could produce more grains of rice per plant
when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation.
Since irrigation
infrastructure was very poor, Indian farmers innovated tube-wells to harvest
ground water. When gains from the new technology reached their limits in the
states of initial adoption, the technology spread in the 1970s and 1980s to the
states of eastern India — Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal. The lasting benefits
of the improved seeds and new technology extended principally to the irrigated
areas, which account for about one-third of the harvested crop area.
A
main criticism of the effects of the Green Revolution is the cost for many
small farmers using high-yielding varieties, with associated demands of
increased irrigation systems and pesticides. Many farmers have
difficulty paying for the expensive technologies and the gains of the Green
Revolution are hardly available to all Indian farmers, particularly those
cultivating smaller land plots. The increased usage of fertilizers and
pesticides for high-yielding varieties has also contributed serious environmental and public health issues.
Despite the impressive accomplishments of the
Green Revolution, India continues to face massive socioeconomic challenges, including those related to the development of agriculture such as extreme poverty in rural areas, hunger and undernourishment, and farmers’ struggles to find funds to cultivate land.
Key Terms
Green Revolution
A set of research and development of technology transfer initiatives occurring between the 1930s and the late 1960s (with prequels in the work of the agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the 1920s and 1930s), that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, most markedly in the late 1960s.
Global Hunger Index
An index that places a third of weight on proportion of the population that is estimated to be undernourished, a third on the estimated prevalence of low body weight to height ratio in children younger than five, and remaining third weight on the proportion of children dying before the age of five for any reason.
The Green Revolution refers to a set of research and development of technology transfer initiatives occurring between the 1930s and the late 1960s (with prequels in the work of the agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the 1920s and 1930s), that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug (often called the Father of the Green Revolution), who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, and distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
They are credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.
Green Revolution in India
Before the mid-1960s, India relied on imports and food aid to meet domestic requirements. However, two years of severe drought in 1965 and 1966 convinced the government to reform the agricultural policy. India adopted significant policy reforms focused on the goal of food grain self-sufficiency. This ushered in India’s Green Revolution. It began with the decision to adopt superior-yielding, disease-resistant wheat varieties in combination with better farming knowledge to improve productivity. The state of Punjab led India’s green revolution and earned the distinction of being the country’s bread basket.
The initial increase in production was centered on the irrigated areas of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. With the farmers and the government officials focusing on farm productivity and knowledge transfer, India’s total grain production soared. A hectare of Indian wheat farm that produced an average of 0.8 tonnes in 1948, produced 4.7 tonnes of wheat in 1975 from the same land. Such rapid growth in farm productivity enabled India to become self-sufficient by the 1970s. It also empowered the smallholder farmers to seek further means to increase food staples produced per hectare. By 2000, Indian farms were adopting wheat varieties capable of yielding 6 tonnes of wheat per hectare.
With agricultural policy success in wheat, India’s Green Revolution technology spread to rice. However, since irrigation infrastructure was very poor, Indian farmers innovated tube-wells to harvest ground water. When gains from the new technology reached their limits in the states of initial adoption, the technology spread in the 1970s and 1980s to the states of eastern India — Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal. The lasting benefits of the improved seeds and new technology extended principally to the irrigated areas, which account for about one-third of the harvested crop area.
India also adopted IR8, a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), that could produce more grains of rice per plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation. In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K. De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times the yield of traditional rice. IR8 was a success throughout Asia and dubbed the “miracle rice.” In the 1960s, rice yields in India were about two tons per hectare. By the mid-1990s, they had risen to six tons per hectare. In the 1970s, rice cost about $550 a ton. In 2001, it cost under $200 a ton.
In the 1980s, Indian agriculture policy shifted to emphasize other agricultural commodities like oil seeds, fruit, and vegetables. Farmers began adopting improved methods and technologies in dairying, fisheries, and livestock to meet the diversified food needs of a growing population.
Criticism
A main criticism of the effects of the Green Revolution is the cost for small farmers using high-yielding varieties, with their associated demands of increased irrigation systems and pesticides. A case study has demonstrated that the Indian farmers who buy Monsanto BT cotton seeds, sold on the idea that these seeds produced “natural insecticides,” still must pay for expensive pesticides and irrigation systems. This might lead to increased borrowing to finance the change from traditional seed varieties. Many farmers have difficulty paying for the expensive technologies and the gains of the Green Revolution are hardly available to all Indian farmers, particularly those cultivating smaller land plots.
The increased usage of fertilizers and pesticides for high-yielding varieties has also led to decreased soil fertility while the use of electric tube wells decreased groundwater table below the previous level. The negative environmental impacts of the Green Revolution are barely beginning to show their full effects. The widespread chemical pollution in communities that utilize pesticides and herbicides is creating a public health problem that has disproportionately impacted women. In the state of Punjab, touted as a success of Green Revolution, cancer rates have skyrocketed. In a 2008 study by Punjabi University, a high rate of genetic damage among farmers was attributed to pesticide use. Ignorance on the appropriate use of pesticides resulted in heavy use, improper disposal, the use of pesticides as kitchen containers, and contamination of drinking water with heavy metals.
Women farmers at work in their vegetable plots near Kullu town, Himachal Pradesh, India
The Green Revolution brought a modern approach to agriculture by incorporating irrigation systems, genetically modified seed variations, insecticide and pesticide usage, and numerous land reforms. It had an explosive impact, providing unprecedented agricultural productivity in India and turning the country from a food importer to an exporter. Yet the Green Revolution also caused agricultural prices to drop, which damaged India’s small farmers.
Continuous Challenges
India’s agricultural sector today still faces issues of efficiency due to lack of mechanization and small farmers who live in poor conditions. In India, traditional agriculture is still dominant as many farmers depend on livestock in crop production, for manure as fertilizers, and the use of animal-powered ploughs. According to 2011 statistics, the average farm in India is about 1.5 acres, minuscule when compared to the average of 50 hectares in France, 178 hectares in United States, and 273 hectares in Canada.
Despite the impressive accomplishments of the Green Revolution, India continues to face massive socioeconomic challenges. In 2006, India contained the largest number of people living below the World Bank’s international poverty line of US$1.25 per day, the proportion having decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005 and 25% in 2011. According to a Food and Agriculture Organization report in 2015, 15% of the Indian population is undernourished. Since 1991, economic inequality between India’s states has consistently grown: the per capita net state domestic product of the richest states in 2007 was 3.2 times that of the poorest.
Global Hunger Index (GHI) measures hunger by placing a third of weight on proportion of the population that is estimated to be undernourished, a third on the estimated prevalence of low body weight to height ratio in children younger than five, and the remaining third on the proportion of children dying before the age of five for any reason. According to 2011 GHI report, India has improved its performance by 22% in 20 years, from 30.4 to 23.7 over 1990 to 2011 period. However, its performance from 2001 to 2011 has shown little progress, with just 3% improvement. A sharp reduction in the percentage of underweight children has helped India improve its hunger record on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2014. Between 2005 and 2014, the prevalence of underweight children under the age of five fell from 43.5% to 30.7%.
In 2012, the National Crime Records Bureau of India reported 13,754 farmer suicides. Farmer suicides account for 11.2% of all suicides in India. Activists and scholars have offered a number of conflicting reasons for this phenomenon, such as monsoon failure, high debt burdens, genetically modified crops, government policies, public mental health, personal issues, and family problems.
35.4.4: The World’s Largest Democracy
Since the 1947 independence, India has been a constitutional republic and representative democracy, but religious and caste-related violence, terrorism, and corruption continue to challenge the Indian democratic system.
Learning Objective
Evaluate democracy in India
Key Points
Being the seventh largest (by area) and the
second most populous country in the world, the Republic of India is the largest
democracy by electorate. India is a federation with a parliamentary
system governed under the Constitution of India, which serves as the
country’s supreme legal document. It is a constitutional republic and
representative democracy, in which “majority rule is tempered by
minority rights protected by law.”
The Constitution of India, which came into being in
1950, states in its preamble that India is a sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic republic. India’s form of government is traditionally
described as “quasi-federal” with a strong center and weak states.
India is a federation composed of 29 states and seven union territories.
The
federal government comprises executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The
President of India is the head of the state while the Prime Minister of India is the head
of government and exercises most executive power, leading the Council of Ministers. The legislature of India is a bicameral
parliament. A unitary
three-tier independent judiciary comprises the Supreme Court, 24 High
Courts, and a large number of trial courts.
India
has a multi-party system, where there are a number of national as well as
regional parties. As with any other democracy, political parties represent
different sections among the Indian society and regions and their core values
play a major role in the politics of India.
In
recent decades, Indian politics has become a dynastic affair. This phenomenon
is seen both at the national and state levels.
Indian society is very diverse in religion, region, language,
caste, and race. This has led to the rise of political parties with agendas
catering to one or a mix of these groups.
Economic issues like poverty, unemployment, and
development substantially influence politics, although different parties
propose dramatically different approaches.
Indian democracy faces many challenges. Terrorism, Naxalism, religious violence, and caste-related violence
are important issues that affect the political environment of the Indian
nation. Further, corruption has serious implications for both
protecting the rule of law and ensuring access to justice.
Key Terms
vote bank
A loyal bloc of voters from a single community that consistently backs a certain candidate or political formation in democratic elections. Such behavior is often the result of an expectation of real or imagined benefits from the political formations, often at the cost of other communities.
Indian National Congress
One of two major political parties
in India, founded in 1885 during the British Raj. Its founders include Allan
Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Dinshaw Wacha. In the late 19th and early
to mid-20th centuries, it became a pivotal participant in the Indian
independence movement, with over 15 million members and over 70 million
participants in its opposition to British colonial rule in India.
vote bank politics
The practice of creating and maintaining loyal blocs of voters through divisive policies. As it encourages voters to vote on the basis of narrow communal considerations, often against their better judgement, it is considered harmful to the principles of representative democracy.
Naxalism
Ideology associated with and an informal name given to communist groups that were born out of the Sino-Soviet split in the Indian communist movement. Ideologically they belong to various trends of Maoism. Initially the movement had its centre in West Bengal. In recent years, they have spread into less developed areas of rural central and eastern India. Some factions are considered terrorists by the Government of India and various state governments in India.
The Indian Government
As the seventh largest (by area) and the second most populous country in the world, the Republic of India is the largest democracy by electorate.
India is a federation with a parliamentary system governed under the Constitution of India, which serves as the country’s supreme legal document. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy in which “majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.” Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the federal government and the states. The government abides by constitutional checks and balances. The Constitution of India, which came into being in 1950, states in its preamble that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. India’s form of government, traditionally described as “quasi-federal” with a strong center and weak states, has grown increasingly federal since the late 1990s as a result of political, economic, and social changes.
The federal government comprises executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The President of India is the head of state and is elected indirectly by a national electoral college for a five-year term. The Prime Minister of India is the head of government and exercises most executive power. Appointed by the president, the prime minister is by convention supported by the party or political alliance holding the majority of seats in the lower house of parliament and leads the Council of Ministers. The legislature of India is the bicameral parliament. It comprises the upper house called the Rajya Sabha (“Council of States” with
245 members
elected indirectly by the state and territorial legislatures, who serve six-year terms) and the lower called the Lok Sabha (“House of the People” with 545 members, all but two directly elected by popular vote for five-year terms). India has a unitary three-tier independent judiciary that comprises the Supreme Court, 24 High Courts, and a large number of trial courts.
India is a federation composed of 29 states and seven union territories. All states and two union territories have their own governments. The executive of each state is the Governor (equivalent to the president of India), whose role is ceremonial. The real power resides with the Chief Minister (equivalent to the Prime Minister) and the state council of ministers. States may either have a unicameral or bicameral legislature, varying from state to state.
India has a multi-party system, with a number of national as well as regional parties. As with any other democracy, political parties represent different sections among the Indian society and regions and their core values play a major role in the politics of India. Through the elections, any party may gain simple majority in the lower house. Coalitions are formed in case no single party gains a simple majority in the lower house. Unless a party or a coalition have a majority in the lower house, a government cannot be formed by that party or the coalition.
In recent decades, Indian politics has become a dynastic affair. This phenomenon is seen both at the national and state levels. One example of dynastic politics has been the Nehru–Gandhi family, which produced three Indian prime ministers and is leading the Indian National Congress party. At the state level too, a number of political parties are led by family members of the previous leaders.
Indira Gandhi,
the daughter of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru,
served as prime minister for three consecutive terms (1966–77) and a fourth term (1980–84).
Politics in India has often been a family affair.
Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma) served as her father’s personal assistant and hostess during his tenure as prime minister between 1947 and 1964. She was elected Congress President in 1959.
In 1984, two of Gandhi’s bodyguards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, shot her with their service weapons in the garden of the Prime Minister’s residence in New Delhi.
Challenges of Indian Democracy
The Indian society is very diverse, with substantial differences in religion, region, language, caste, and race. This has led to the rise of political parties with agendas catering to one or a mix of these groups. Some parties openly profess their focus on a particular group while others claim to be universal in nature, but tend to draw support from sections of the population. For example, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (the National People’s Party) has a vote bank among the Yadav and Muslim population of Bihar, and the All India Trinamool Congress does not have any significant support outside West Bengal. The narrow focus and vote bank politics of most parties, even in the central government and central legislature, sidelines national issues such as economic welfare and national security. Moreover, internal security is also threatened as incidences of political parties instigating and leading violence between two opposing groups of people is a frequent occurrence.
Economic issues like poverty, unemployment, and development substantially influence politics, although different parties propose dramatically different approaches. Garibi hatao (eradicate poverty) has been a slogan of the Indian National Congress for a long time. The well known Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) encourages a free market economy. Conversely, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) vehemently supports left-wing politics like land-for-all and right to work, and strongly opposes neo-liberal policies such as globalization, capitalism, and privatization.
Terrorism, Naxalism (ideology associated with communist groups that were born out of the Sino-Soviet split in the Indian communist movement), religious violence, and caste-related violence are important issues that affect the political environment of the Indian nation. Furthermore, corruption is a problem that has serious implications for both protecting the rule of law and ensuring access to justice.
In 2008, the Washington Post reported that nearly a fourth of the 540 Indian Parliament members faced criminal charges, “including human trafficking, child prostitution immigration rackets, embezzlement, rape and even murder.”
Many of the biggest scandals since 2010 have involved very high level government officials, including cabinet ministers and chief ministers.
A 2005 study done by the Transparency International in India found that more than 62% of the people had firsthand experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in a public office.
35.4.5: India’s Growing Economy
Since the introduction of economic liberalization reforms in the 1990s, India has experienced impressive growth and joined the elite club of the fastest developing economies in the world, though large segments of the population still live in poverty. Severe economic disparities exist among states in terms of income, literacy rates, life expectancy, and living conditions.
Learning Objective
Give examples of India’s increasing share of the global economy
Key Points
Indian economic policy after independence was
influenced by the colonial experience and its exploitative nature.
Indian leaders were largely influenced by British social democracy and the
planned economy of the Soviet Union. Domestic policy tended towards
protectionism and economic interventionism, while trade and foreign
investment policies were relatively liberal.
The collapse of the Soviet Union,
India’s major trading partner, and the Gulf War, which caused a spike in oil prices,
resulted in a major balance-of-payments crisis for India, which found itself
facing the prospect of defaulting on its loans. The country asked for a
$1.8 billion bailout loan from the International Monetary Fund,
which in return demanded deregulation.
In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, along
with his finance minister Manmohan Singh, initiated economic liberalization in
1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj, reduced tariffs and interest rates, and ended many public
monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many
sectors.
By
the turn of the 21st century, India had progressed towards a free-market
economy, with a substantial reduction in state control of the economy and
increased financial liberalization. Today,
the economy of India is the sixth-largest in the world
measured by nominal GDP and the third-largest by purchasing power
parity. The country is classified as a newly industrialized country,
one of the G-20 major economies, a member of BRICS, and a developing
economy with an average growth rate of approximately 7% over the last two
decades.
Among the positive outcomes of the economic development is better access to primary education, increased literacy, and reduced poverty. However, in terms of both access to education and poverty level, India continues to face massive challenges.
Despite
the impressive economic growth, India experiences a plethora of
social issues, including corruption, the lack of proper sanitation, debt bondage and
other forms of bonded labor, child labor, child marriage, and gender-based violence. A substantial segment of the caste-based society has limited access to quality health care and education.
Severe economic disparities exist among states in terms of income, literacy rates, life
expectancy, and living conditions.
Key Terms
G-20
An international forum for the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies. It was founded in 1999 with the aim of studying, reviewing, and promoting high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability.
BRICS
The acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies. The association’s members are all leading developing or newly industrialized countries, but they are distinguished by their large, sometimes fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional affairs. All five are G-20 members.
Licence Raj
The elaborate system of licences, regulations, and accompanying red tape required to set up and run businesses in India between 1947 and 1990.
Economic Policies After Independence
Indian economic policy after independence was influenced by the colonial experience and its exploitative nature, as well as by British social democracy and the planned economy of the Soviet Union. Domestic policy tended towards protectionism, with a strong emphasis on import substitution industrialization, economic interventionism, a large government-run public sector, business regulation, and central planning. At the same time, trade and foreign investment policies were relatively liberal. Steel, mining, machine tools, telecommunications, insurance, and power plants, among other industries, were effectively nationalized in the mid-1950s. Economists referred to the rate of growth of the Indian economy in the first three decades after independence as the Hindu rate of growth because of the unfavorable comparison with growth rates in other Asian countries.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, India’s major trading partner, and the Gulf War, which caused a spike in oil prices, resulted in a major balance-of-payments crisis for India, which found itself facing the prospect of defaulting on its loans. The country asked for a $1.8 billion bailout loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which in return demanded deregulation. In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh, initiated economic liberalization in 1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj (a system of licences, regulations, and accompanying red tape required to set up and run businesses), reduced tariffs and interest rates, and ended many public monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many sectors. Since then, the overall thrust of liberalization has remained the same, although no government has tried to take on powerful lobbies. By the turn of the 21st century, India had progressed towards a free-market economy, with a substantial reduction in state control of the economy and increased financial liberalization.
Today, the economy of India is the sixth-largest in the world measured by nominal GDP and the third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). The country is classified as a newly industrialized country, one of the G-20 major economies, a member of BRICS, and a developing economy with an average growth rate of approximately 7% over the last two decades. Maharashtra is the wealthiest Indian state and has an annual nominal GDP of US$330 billion, nearly equal to that of Portugal and Pakistan combined, and accounts for 12% of the Indian GDP followed by the states of Tamil Nadu (US$150 billion) and Uttar Pradesh (US$130 billion). India’s economy became the world’s fastest growing major economy in the last quarter of 2014, replacing the People’s Republic of China.
India has one of the fastest growing service sectors in the world with an annual growth rate of above 9% since 2001, which contributed to 57% of GDP in 2012-13. India has become a major exporter of IT services, business process outsourcing services, and software services, with $167.0 billion worth of service exports in 2013-14. It is also the fastest-growing part of the economy. The IT industry continues to be the largest private sector employer in the country. India is also the third largest start-up hub in the world with over 3,100 technology start-ups in 2014-15. The agricultural sector is the largest employer in India’s economy but contributes to a declining share of its GDP (17% in 2013-14). India ranks second worldwide in farm output. The industry sector has held a constant share of its economic contribution (26% of GDP in 2013-14). The Indian automobile industry is one of the largest in the world with an annual production of 21.48 million vehicles (mostly two- and three-wheelers) in fiscal year 2013-14. India has $600 billion worth of the retail market in 2015 and one of world’s fastest growing e-commerce markets.
Outcomes of Economic Development
India has made huge progress in terms of increasing the primary education attendance rate and expanding literacy to approximately three-fourths of the population. The literacy rate has grown from 52.2% in 1991 to 74.04% in 2011. The right to education at elementary level has been made fundamental, and legislation has been enacted to further the objective of providing free education to all children. However, the literacy rate of 74% is still lower than the worldwide average and the country suffers from a high drop-out rate (impacted by economic challenges faced by the poorest segments of the society). Further, the literacy rates and educational opportunities vary greatly by region, gender, urban and rural areas, and among different social groups.
There is a continuing debate on whether India’s economic expansion has been pro-poor or anti-poor. Studies suggest that the economic growth has reduced poverty in India although it remains at a substantial level.
In 2012, the Indian government stated 21.9% of its population is below its official poverty threshold. According to United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) program, 270 million or 21.9% people out of 1.2 billion of Indians lived below poverty line of $1.25 in 2011-2012 as compared to 41.6% in 2004-05. It is important to note, however, that the World Bank and UN-accepted poverty line is very low and many of those whose purchasing power falls above it still face massive economic struggles.
A critical problem facing India’s economy is the sharp and growing regional variations among India’s different states and territories in terms of poverty, availability of infrastructure, and socioeconomic development. Severe disparities exist among states in terms of income, literacy rates, life expectancy, and living conditions.
Economic disparities among the States and Union Territories of India, on GDP per capita, PPP basis in 2011
After liberalization, the more advanced states have been better placed to benefit, with well-developed infrastructure and an educated and skilled workforce that attract the manufacturing and service sectors. The governments of less-advanced regions are trying to reduce disparities by offering tax holidays and cheap land and focusing more on sectors like tourism which although geographically and historically determined, can become a source of growth and develop faster than other sectors.
Map shows the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) on a purchasing parity basis (PPP), for 35 states and union territories of India at 2011 US$ equivalent basis. The highest GDP per capita, on PPP basis, was observed in Chandigarh ($9,345 per person), while the lowest was observed in Bihar ($1,019 per person).
Continuous Challenges
Corruption has been one of the pervasive problems affecting India. A 2005 study by Transparency International (TI) found that more than half of those surveyed had firsthand experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in a public office in the previous year. In 1996, bureaucracy and the Licence Raj were suggested as a cause for the institutionalized corruption and inefficiency. More recent reports suggest the causes include excessive regulations and approval requirements, mandated spending programs, monopoly of certain goods and service providers by government-controlled institutions, bureaucracy with discretionary powers, and lack of transparent laws and processes. The Right to Information Act (2005), which requires government officials to furnish information requested by citizens or face punitive action, computerization of services, and various central and state government acts that established vigilance commissions have reduced corruption and opened up avenues to redress grievances.
In 2011, the Indian government concluded that most spending fails to reach its intended recipients. A large, cumbersome bureaucracy sponges up or siphons off spending budgets. India’s absence rates are one of the worst in the world. One study found that 25% of public sector teachers and 40% of government-owned public sector medical workers could not be found at the workplace. Similarly, there are many issues facing Indian scientists, with demands for transparency, a meritocratic system, and an overhaul of the bureaucratic agencies that oversee science and technology.
Despite the impressive economic growth, India continues to experience a plethora of social issues, many associated with countries that lag economically. These include the lack of proper sanitation, debt bondage and other forms of bonded labor, child labor, child marriage, gender-based violence, and poor access to quality health care and education faced by a substantial segment of the caste-based society.
35.4.6: Kashmir and Territorial Disputes
The decision of the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh to make Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir an independent state in the aftermath of the 1947 establishment of independent India and Pakistan has resulted in a violent territorial conflict that still continues.
Learning Objective
Examine the history behind the territorial dispute over Kashmir
Key Points
British rule in India ended in 1947 with the
creation of new states, Pakistan and India. The
562 Indian princely states were left to choose whether to
join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the
Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. He decided to stay independent because he expected
that the state’s Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India and the
Hindus and Sikhs would become vulnerable if he joined Pakistan. The decision initiated a territorial conflict between India and Pakistan, with an additional intervention of China in 1962, that still continues.
Muslim League officials assisted in a large-scale invasion of Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen. The
authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a private war by obstructing supplies of
fuel and essential commodities to Jammu and Kashmir. The
violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in 1947
developed into a widespread massacre of Muslims. The
rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu took control of most of the
western parts of the state and formed a
provisional state Azad Kashmir (until today a self-governing administrative division of Pakistan).
Following
the Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area and Pakistani-backed
Pashtun tribal intervention, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance.
India set the condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive
assistance. The Maharaja complied and the Government of India recognized the accession
of the princely state to India. The resulting
Indo-Pakistani war lasted until the end
of 1948. Despite UN negotiations, no agreement was reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarization.
Following
its failure to seize Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan supported numerous covert groups
in Kashmir using operatives based in its New Delhi embassy. About 30,000 infiltrators
are estimated to have been dispatched in August 1965 as part of the Operation
Gibraltar. The plan was for the infiltrators to mingle with the local populace
and incite them to rebellion. The Operation failed but the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 followed.
Another phase of the conflict took place in December 1971. During
the war, Indian and Pakistani military forces simultaneously clashed after the Eastern Command of
Pakistan military signed the Instrument of Surrender, marking the formation of
East Pakistan as the new nation of Bangladesh.
During the 1990s, escalating tensions and conflict due to separatist
activities in Kashmir and nuclear tests conducted by both countries resulted in the Kargil War (May-July 1999). The
region is currently divided among three countries in a territorial dispute:
Pakistan controls the northwest portion (Northern Areas and Kashmir), India
controls the central and southern portion (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh, and
the People’s Republic of China controls the northeastern portion (Aksai Chin
and the Trans-Karakoram Tract).
Key Terms
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
A military confict, known also as the First Kashmir War, fought between India and Pakistan over the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu from 1947 to 1948. It was the first of four wars fought between the two newly independent nations. Pakistan precipitated the war a few weeks after independence in an effort to secure Kashmir, the future of which hung in the balance. The inconclusive result of the war still affects the geopolitics of both countries.
Operation Gibraltar
A code name for a strategy of Pakistan to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir and start a rebellion against Indian rule. Pakistan hoped to gain control over Kashmir, but the operation was a major failure. The operation sparked the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
A war that was a culmination of skirmishes that took place between April 1965 and September 1965 between Pakistan and India. The conflict began following Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar, designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against Indian rule. India retaliated by launching a full-scale military attack on West Pakistan. The 17-day war caused thousands of casualties on both sides and witnessed the largest engagement of armored vehicles and the largest tank battle since World War II.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
A military confrontation between India and Pakistan that occurred from December 3, 1971, to the Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971. The war began with preemptive aerial strikes on 11 Indian air stations that led to the commencement of hostilities. Lasting just 13 days, it is one of the shortest wars in history.
Line of Control
The military control line between the Indian and Pakistani controlled parts of the former princely state of Kashmir and Jammu—a line which, to this day, does not constitute a legally recognized international boundary but is the de facto border.
Kargil War
An armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the Line of Control.
Partition of British India and Kashmir
British rule in India ended in 1947 with the creation of new states: Pakistan and India. The British Paramountcy over the 562 Indian princely states ended and the states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population ruled by the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh. He decided to stay independent because he expected that the state’s Muslims would be unhappy with accession to India and the Hindus and Sikhs would become vulnerable if he joined Pakistan. Pakistan made various efforts to persuade the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. Faced with the Maharaja’s decision, the Muslim League agents clandestinely worked to encourage the local Muslims to revolt in Poonch. Muslim League officials assisted and possibly organized a large-scale invasion of Kashmir by Pathan tribesmen.
The authorities in Pakistani Punjab waged a private war by obstructing supplies of fuel and essential commodities to Jammu and Kashmir.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The violence in the eastern districts of Jammu that started in September 1947 developed into a widespread massacre of Muslims around October 20, organized and perpetrated by the local Hindus. The Maharaja himself was implicated in some instances. A team of British observers commissioned by India and Pakistan identified 70,000 Muslims killed, while the Azad Kashmir Government claimed that 200,000 Muslims were killed. About 400,000 Muslims fled to West Pakistan and many believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu. The rebel forces in the western districts of Jammu organized under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim, a Muslim Conference leader. They took control of most of the western parts of the State by October 22. On October 24, they formed a provisional Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir) government based in Palandri.
Today, Azad Kashmir is a self-governing administrative division of Pakistan. The territory lies west of the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Following the Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area and Pakistani -backed Pashtun tribal intervention, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. India set the condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive assistance. The Maharaja complied and the Government of India recognized the accession of the princely state to India. Indian troops were sent to the Jammu and Kashmir but Pakistan refused to recognize the accession of Kashmir to India. Governor General Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered to move Pakistani troops to Kashmir at once. However, the Indian and Pakistani forces were still under joint command. With its accession to India, Kashmir became legally Indian territory and the British officers could not a play any role in an inter-dominion war.
Rebel forces from the western districts of the state and the Pakistani Pakhtoon tribesmen made rapid advances. In the Kashmir valley, National Conference volunteers worked with the Indian Army to drive out the raiders. The resulting Indo-Pakistani war, known also as the First Kashmir War, lasted until the end of 1948. In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan border. C. Christine Fair notes that this was the beginning of Pakistan using irregular forces and asymmetric warfare to ensure plausible deniability, which has continued ever since.
Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India’s intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter.
Complex negotiations boiled down to the difference between India requiring an asymmetric treatment of the two countries in the withdrawal arrangements, regarding Pakistan as an aggressor, and Pakistan insisting on parity. The UN mediators tended towards parity, which did not satisfy India. In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, with India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterwards. No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarization.
Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession in October 1947, under which he acceded the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India.
The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy. Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988, many of the democratic reforms introduced by the Indian Government had been reversed. In 1987, a disputed state election created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state’s legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups. In 1988, a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency.
Photo portrait of Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Following its failure to seize Kashmir in 1947, Pakistan supported numerous covert groups in Kashmir using operatives based in its New Delhi embassy. After its military pact with the United States in the 1950s, it studied guerrilla warfare through engagement with the U.S. military. In 1965, it decided that the conditions were ripe for a successful guerrilla war in Kashmir. Under a strategy code named Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan dispatched groups into Indian-administered Kashmir, the majority of whose members were volunteers recruited from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and trained by the Army. About 30,000 infiltrators are estimated to have been dispatched in August 1965 as part of the Operation Gibraltar. The plan was for the infiltrators to mingle with the local populace and incite them to rebellion. Meanwhile, guerrilla warfare would commence, destroying bridges, tunnels, highways, and Indian Army installations and airfields, creating conditions for an armed insurrection in Kashmir. Using the newly acquired sophisticated weapons through the American arms aid, Pakistan believed that it could achieve tactical victories in a quick, limited war. However, the Operation Gibraltar failed as the Kashmiris did not revolt. Instead, they turned in infiltrators to the Indian authorities in substantial numbers and the Indian Army ended up fighting the Pakistani Army regulars.
On September 1, Pakistan launched an attack across the Cease Fire Line, targeting Akhnoor in an effort to cut Indian communications into Kashmir. In response, India broadened the war by launching an attack on Pakistani Punjab across the international border. The war lasted until September 23, ending in a stalemate. Following the Tashkent Agreement, both sides withdrew to their pre-conflict positions and agreed not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Another phase of the conflict took place from December 3 to the Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971. The war began with preemptive aerial strikes on 11 Indian air stations that led to the commencement of hostilities with Pakistan and Indian entry into the war of independence in East Pakistan on the side of Bengali nationalist forces. During the war, Indian and Pakistani military forces simultaneously clashed on the eastern and western front and ended the war after the Eastern Command of Pakistan military signed the Instrument of Surrender, marking the formation of East Pakistan as the new nation of Bangladesh (with India’s support). Approximately between 90,000 and 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoners by the Indian Army. It is estimated that between 300,000 and 3 million civilians were killed in Bangladesh.
Simla Agreement
As a follow-up to the war, a bilateral summit was held at Simla, where India pushed for peace in South Asia. At stake were over 5,ooo square miles of Pakistan’s territory captured by India during the conflict and over 90,000 prisoners of war held in Bangladesh. India was ready to return them in exchange for a “durable solution” to the Kashmir issue. The Simla Agreement was formulated and signed by the two countries, whereby they resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations and maintain the sanctity of the Line of Control. The agreement also stated that the two sides would meet again for establishing durable peace. The envisioned meeting never occurred.
China’s Role
In 1962, troops from the People’s Republic of China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory in the war, resulting in Chinese annexation of the region they call Aksai Chin that has continued since. Another smaller area, the Trans-Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although some of the territory on the Chinese side is claimed by India as part of Kashmir. The line that separates India from China in this region is known as the “Line of Actual Control.”
Current Status
After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, there was a long period with relatively few direct armed conflicts involving military forces. During the 1990s, however, escalating tensions and conflict due to separatist activities in Kashmir, some of which were supported by Pakistan, as well as the conducting of nuclear tests by both countries in 1998, led to an increasingly belligerent atmosphere. In mid-1999, alleged insurgents and Pakistani soldiers from Pakistani Kashmir infiltrated Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in the Kargil War (May-July 1999). Fears of the Kargil War turning into a nuclear war provoked then-United States President Bill Clinton to pressure Pakistan to retreat. The Pakistan Army withdrew their remaining troops from the area, ending the conflict. India regained control of the Kargil peaks, which they now patrol and monitor all year long.
The region is currently divided among three countries in a territorial dispute: Pakistan controls the northwest portion (Northern Areas and Kashmir), India controls the central and southern portion (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh, and the People’s Republic of China controls the northeastern portion (Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract). India continues to assert its sovereignty or rights over the entire region of Kashmir, while Pakistan maintains that it is a disputed territory. Pakistan argues that the status quo cannot be considered as a solution and further insists on a UN-sponsored plebiscite. The Kashmir conflict continues.
35.5: Indochina
35.5.1: France and Indochina
After decades of serving as France’s colony of economic exploitation, Indochina fell under Japanese control during World War II. Although the French regained control of the region after the war, independence movements across Indochina grew strong enough to continue their anti-French struggle.
Learning Objective
Describe the relationship between France and Indochina prior to Indochina’s independence
Key Points
French Indochina, officially known as the
Indochinese Union after 1887 and the Indochinese Federation after 1947, was a
group of French colonial territories in Southeast Asia. The
Vietnamese regions of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina were combined with Cambodia in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and the leased
Chinese territory of Guangzhouwan in 1898.
French Indochina was designated as a colony of economic exploitation by the French
government. Funding for the colonial government came by means of taxes on local
populations and the French government established a near monopoly on the trade
of opium, salt, and rice alcohol.
Unlike in Algeria, French settlement in
Indochina did not occur at a grand scale.
In 1940, colonial administration of French Indochina passed to the Vichy French
government. In September 1940, Japan launched
its invasion of French Indochina. Keeping the French colonial administration, the Japanese
ruled from behind the scenes in a parallel of Vichy France.
Indochinese communists set up hidden
headquarters in 1941 and Ho Chi Minh, a Vietnamese communist leader,
returned to Vietnam from China to lead the Viet Minh independence
movement. In March 1945, the Japanese took direct control of Vietnam.
After the Japanese surrendered in August 1945, the Viet Minh
immediately launched the insurrection (the August
Revolution). Ho Chi Minh declared independence for the newly established Democratic
Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945.
However, the Viet Minh faced various problems in the southern part of the
country, where it had been unable to establish the same degree of control.
On
August 25, the communists established a Provisional Executive Committee with
Tran Van Giau at its head. The committee took over public administration in
Saigon, but followed Allied orders that the Japanese maintain law and order
until Allied troops arrived.
As
southern Vietnam’s disunited resistance forces struggled to push back French
advances, Ho Chi Minh started to negotiate with France in hopes of
preserving national independence while avoiding war. Instead of obtaining French recognition of
Vietnamese “independence,” Ho Chi Minh agreed to his government being
weakly identified as a “free state” within the Indochinese Federation
under the French Union. The reached accord, which called
for a referendum to determine whether the south would rejoin the rest of the
country or remain a separate French territory, left the fate of former
Cochinchina in flux. Negotiations broke down over the fate of
southern Vietnam.
Nearly one year after the August Revolution, Vietnam and France were at war.
After
World War II, the French reestablished control in Laos and Cambodia.
In 1946, the French endorsed the unity of Laos as a constitutional monarchy
within the French Union. In Cambodia, King Sihanouk
reluctantly proclaimed a new constitution in 1947. While it recognized him
as the “spiritual head of the state,” it reduced him to the status of
a constitutional monarch of a Cambodia within the French Union.
Key Terms
Khmer Issarak
A loosely structured anti-French and anti-colonial independence movement in Cambodia, formed around 1945 and composed of several factions, each with its own leader. Most of its bands fought actively from 1945 to 1953, when Cambodia gained independence. The initial objective of the movement was to fight against the French to gain independence. Later, overthrowing the Cambodian government was added to some bands’ agendas.
Vichy France
The common name of the French state headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain during World War II. In particular, it represents the southern, unoccupied “Free Zone” that governed the southern part of the country. From 1940 to 1942, while the regime was the nominal government of France as a whole, Germany militarily occupied northern France and the state was a de facto client and puppet of Nazi Germany.
August Revolution
A revolution launched by the Viet Minh (League for the Independence of Vietnam) against French colonial rule in Vietnam, on August 14, 1945.
Viet Minh
A national independence coalition formed in 1941 with the initial goal to seek independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. After World War II, the organization opposed the reoccupation of Vietnam by France and later opposed South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War.
French Indochina
A grouping of French colonial territories in Southeast Asia. A grouping of the three Vietnamese regions of Tonkin (north), Annam (center), and Cochinchina (south) with Cambodia was formed in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and the leased Chinese territory of Guangzhouwan in 1898.
French Indochina
French Indochina, officially known as the Indochinese Union after 1887 and the Indochinese Federation after 1947, was a grouping of French colonial territories in Southeast Asia. The three Vietnamese regions of Tonkin (north), Annam (center), and Cochinchina (south) were combined with Cambodia in 1887. Laos was added in 1893 and the leased Chinese territory of Guangzhouwan in 1898. The capital was moved from Saigon to Hanoi in 1902 and again to Da Lat (Annam) in 1939. In 1945 it was moved back to Hanoi.
French Indochina was designated as a colonie d’exploitation (colony of economic exploitation) by the French government. Funding for the colonial government came from taxes on local populations, and the French government established a near monopoly on the trade of opium, salt, and rice alcohol. The French administration established quotas of consumption for each Vietnamese village, thereby compelling villagers to purchase and consume set amounts of monopolized goods, including alcohol and opium. The trade of those three products formed about 44% of the colonial government’s budget in 1920 but declined to 20% by 1930. Beginning in the 1930s, France began to
economically diversify the region and exploit it for its natural resources. Cochinchina, Annam, and Tonkin (modern-day Vietnam) became a source of tea, rice, coffee, pepper, coal, zinc, and tin while Cambodia became a center for rice and pepper crops. Only Laos was seen initially as economically nonprofitable, although timber was harvested at a small scale from there.
At the turn of the 20th century, the growing automobile industry in France resulted in the growth of the rubber industry in French Indochina and plantations were built throughout the colony, especially in Annam and Cochinchina. France soon became a leading producer of rubber through its Indochina colony and Indochinese rubber became prized in the industrialized world. The success of rubber plantations resulted in an increase in investment in the colony. With the growing number of investments in the colony’s mines, rubber, and tea and coffee plantations, French Indochina began to industrialize as factories opened in the colony. These new factories produced textiles, cigarettes, beer, and cement which were exported throughout the French Empire.
Unlike in Algeria, French settlement in Indochina did not occur at a grand scale. By 1940, only about 34,000 French civilians lived in French Indochina, along with a smaller number of French military personnel and government workers. The fact that Indochina was the economic colony (as opposed to settlement colony) and its distance from France were the principal reasons why French settlement did not grow in a manner similar to that of French North Africa (which had a population of over 1 million French civilians). Despite this limited presence of the French in the colony, the French language was the principal language of education, government, trade, and media. It became widespread among urban and semi-urban populations and was the principal language of the elite and educated. However, local populations still largely spoke native languages.
World War II
In 1940, France was swiftly defeated by Nazi Germany and colonial administration of French Indochina passed to the Vichy French government, a puppet state of Nazi Germany.
In September 1940, Japan launched its invasion of French Indochina, mirroring its ally Germany’s conquest of metropolitan France. Keeping the French colonial administration, the Japanese ruled from behind the scenes in a parallel of Vichy France. The United States, concerned by this Japanese expansion, put embargoes on exports of steel and oil to Japan. The desire to escape these embargoes and become resource self-sufficient ultimately led to Japan’s decision to attack the British Empire in Hong Kong, Malaya, and Singapore and simultaneously the USA at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1941.
Indochinese communists had set up hidden headquarters in 1941, but most of the Vietnamese resistance to Japan, France, or both, including communist and non-communist groups, was based over the border in China. In 1941, Ho Chi Minh,
a Vietnamese communist leader,
returned to Vietnam from China to lead the Viet Minh independence movement. The “men in black” was a 10,000-member guerrilla force that operated with the Viet Minh, but Ho was soon jailed in China by Chiang Kai-shek’s local authorities.
As part of the Allied fighting against the Japanese, the Chinese formed a nationalist resistance movement, the Dong Minh Hoi, which included communists but was not controlled by them. When the movement did not provide the desired intelligence data, Ho Chi Minh was released from jail and returned to lead an underground centered on the communist Viet Minh. This mission was assisted by Western intelligence agencies, including the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Free French intelligence also tried to affect developments in the Vichy-Japanese collaboration.
Japanese troops on bicycles advance into Saigon, ca. 1941.
Vichy signed the Protocol Concerning Joint Defense and Joint Military Cooperation in 1941. This agreement defined the Franco-Japanese relationship for Indochina until the Japanese abrogated it in March 1945. It gave the Japanese a total of eight airfields and allowed them to have more troops present and use the Indochinese financial system, in return for a fragile French autonomy.
In March 1945, the Japanese imprisoned the Vichy French and took direct control of Vietnam.
After the Japanese removed the French from administrative control in Indochina, they made no attempt to impose their own direct control of the civilian administration. Primarily concerned with the defense of Vietnam against an Allied invasion, the Japanese were not interested in Vietnamese politics. However, they also understood the desirability of a certain degree of administrative continuity. It was to their advantage to install a Vietnamese government that would acquiesce in the Japanese military presence. With this in mind, the Japanese persuaded the Vietnamese emperor, Bảo Đại, to cooperate with Japan and declare Vietnam independent of France. In March 1945, Bảo Đại did just that. Vietnam’s new “independence,” however, rested on the government’s willingness to cooperate with Japan and accept the Japanese military presence. From March until August 1945, Vietnam enjoyed what was called “fake independence,” when all the affairs of Indochinese were still in the hands of the Japanese.
After World War II
Three conflicting visions of post-war French Indochina emerged: Western anticommunists saw the French as protectors of the area from communist expansion; nationalists and anti-colonialists wanted independence from the French; and communists focused on the expansion of communism. Lines between the movements that promoted these three visions were not always clear, and their co-existence shaped the post-war fate of French Indochina.
When the Japanese surrendered, the Viet Minh immediately launched the insurrection, which would be known as the August Revolution. People’s revolutionary committees across the countryside took over administrative positions, often acting on their own initiative, while in the cities the Japanese stood by as the Vietnamese took control. On August 19, the Viet Minh took control of Hanoi, seizing the northern Vietnam in the next few days. Ho Chi Minh declared independence for the newly established Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), headquartered in Hanoi, on September 2, 1945. However, the Viet Minh faced various problems in the southern part of the country. The south was politically more diverse than the north and the Viet Minh had been unable to establish the same degree of control there that they had achieved in the north. There were serious divisions in the independence movement in the south, where different nationalist groups competed for control. On August 25, the communists established a Provisional Executive Committee with Tran Van Giau at its head. The committee took over public administration in Saigon, but followed Allied orders that the Japanese maintain law and order until Allied troops arrived.
The uprising in capital Hanoi on August 19, 1945.
At the Potsdam conference in July 1945, the Allies divided Indochina into two zones at the sixteenth parallel, attaching the southern zone to the Southeast Asia command and leaving the northern part to Chiang Kai-shek’s China, to accept the surrender of the Japanese.
However, in the north, occupation period became a critical opportunity for the Viet Minh to consolidate and triumph over domestic rivals.
As southern Vietnam’s disunited resistance forces struggled to push back French advances, Ho Chi Minh and the DRV started to negotiate with France in hopes of preserving national independence while avoiding war. In March 1946, the two sides reached a preliterate accord. Instead of obtaining French recognition of Vietnamese “independence,” Ho Chi Minh agreed to his government being weakly identified as a “free state” within the Indochinese Federation under the French Union. For their part, the French agreed to two provisions they had no intention of honoring: French troops north of the sixteenth parallel would be limited to 15 thousand men for a period of five years, and a referendum was to be held on the issue of unifying the Vietnamese regions. This agreement entangled the French and Vietnamese in joint military operations and fruitless negotiations for several months. However, the status of southern Vietnam remained the sticking point. The March accord, which called for a referendum to determine whether the south would rejoin the rest of the country or remain a separate French territory, left the fate of former Cochinchina in flux.
The preliminary accord was but the first step toward an intended overall and lasting agreement. Southern Vietnam’s future political status had to be negotiated. From June to September 1946, Ho Chi Minh met with French representatives in Vietnam and France to discuss this and other issues. However, almost immediately after the signing of the March accord, relations began to deteriorate. Negotiations broke down over the issue of the fate of southern Vietnam. As talking failed to bring results, both sides prepared for a military solution. Provocations by both French and Vietnamese troops led to the outbreak of full-scale guerrilla war on December 19, 1946. Nearly one year after the August Revolution, Vietnam and France were at war.
After World War II, the French also reestablished their control in Laos and Cambodia.
In October 1945, supporters of Laotian independence announced the dismissal of the king and formed the new government of Laos, the Lao Issara. However, the Lao Issara was ill-equipped and could only await the inevitable French return. In 1946, the French forced the Lao Issara leadership to flee into exile in Thailand and formally endorsed the unity of Laos as a constitutional monarchy within the French Union.
The Japanese occupation of Cambodia ended with the official surrender of Japan in August 1945 and the Cambodian puppet state lasted until October 1945. Some supporters of the kingdom’s prime minister Son Ngoc Thanh escaped to north-western Cambodia, then still under Thai control, where they banded together as one faction in the Khmer Issarak movement. Although their fortunes rose and fell during the immediate postwar period, by 1954 the Khmer Issarak operating with the Viet Minh by some estimates controlled as much as 50 percent of Cambodia’s territory. King Sihanouk reluctantly proclaimed a new constitution in May 1947. While it recognized him as the “spiritual head of the state,” it reduced him to the status of a constitutional monarch of a Cambodia within the French Union.
35.5.2: Independence in Indochina
The division of Vietnam into the communist North and pro-Western South led to the First Indochina War. Viet Minh forces fought against the French Union from 1945 until the Geneva Conference of 1954 that forced France to abandon all claims to the colonies of Indochina, including Laos and Cambodia.
Learning Objective
Outline the path to independence in French Indochina
Key Points
At
the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, it was decided that
Indochina south of latitude 16° North was to be included in the Southeast Asia
Command under British Admiral Mountbatten. Japanese forces south of
that line surrendered to him and those to the north surrendered to
Chiang Kai-shek. The Chinese accepted the Vietnamese government
under Ho Chi Minh but the British refused to do likewise in Saigon.
On September 2, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. On September 23, with the knowledge of the British Commander in Saigon, French forces
overthrew the local DRV government and declared French authority restored in
Cochinchina. Guerrilla warfare began around Saigon immediately.
The first few years of the war involved a
low-level rural insurgency against French authority. However, after the Chinese
communists reached the northern border of Vietnam in 1949, the conflict turned
into a conventional war between two armies equipped with modern weapons
supplied by the United States and the Soviet Union.
Negotiations between France and the Viet Minh
started in Geneva in April 1954 at the Geneva Conference, when the French Union
and the Viet Minh were still fighting at Dien Bien Phu. The Conference
recognized the 17th parallel north as a “provisional military demarcation
line,” temporarily dividing the country into two zones, communist North
Vietnam and pro-Western South Vietnam. The Geneva Accords promised elections in
1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam.
When
the elections failed to occur, Viet Minh cadres who stayed behind in South
Vietnam were activated and started to fight the government. North Vietnam also
invaded and occupied portions of Laos to assist in supplying the guerrilla
fighting National Liberation Front in South Vietnam. The war gradually
escalated into the Second Indochina War, more commonly known as the Vietnam War
in the West and the American War in Vietnam.
Laos witnessed tensions between pro-independence and pro-French movements. The
Franco-Lao General Convention of 1949 sought appeasement by establishing the Kingdom of
Laos a quasi-independent constitutional monarchy within the French Union. In
1950 additional powers were granted. In 1953, the Franco–Lao Treaty of
Amity and Association transferred remaining French powers to the independent
Royal Lao Government.
The French were able to reimpose the colonial
administration in Cambodia in October 1945.
King Norodom Sihanouk’s “royal
crusade for independence” resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his
demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in
October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and
returned in triumph to Phnom Penh.
Key Terms
Viet Minh
A national
independence coalition formed in 1941 with the initial goal to seek
independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. After World War II, the
organization opposed the reoccupation of Vietnam by France and later opposed
South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War.
Geneva Conference
A 1954 conference among several nations that took place in Geneva, Switzerland, to settle outstanding issues resulting from the Korean War and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were participants throughout the conference, while other countries concerned were represented during the discussion of questions of interest to them. These included the countries that contributed troops to the United Nations forces in the Korean War, and countries that participated in the resolution of the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh.
First Indochina War
The military conflict that began in French Indochina in December 1946 and lasted until August 1954, although fighting between French forces and their Viet Minh opponents in the South dated from September 1945. The conflict pitted a range of forces, including the French Union’s French Far East Expeditionary Corps, led by France and supported by the Vietnamese National Army, against the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh and its People’s Army of Vietnam led by Vo Nguyen Giap. Most of the fighting took place in Tonkin in Northern Vietnam, although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended into the neighboring French Indochina protectorates of Laos and Cambodia.
Franco-Thai War
The 1940–1941 military conflict fought between Thailand (Siam) and France over certain areas of French Indochina.
As a result of the war, France ceded certain provinces from Cambodia and Laos to Thailand.
First Indochina War
At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, the Combined Chiefs of Staff decided that Indochina south of latitude 16° North was to be included in the Southeast Asia Command under British Admiral Mountbatten. Japanese forces located south of that line surrendered to him and those to the north surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. The Chinese accepted the Vietnamese government under Ho Chi Minh, created by resistance forces of the Viet Minh, then in power in Hanoi. The British refused to do likewise in Saigon and deferred to the French, against the ostensible support of the Viet Minh by American
Office of Strategic Services representatives. On September 2, Ho Chi Minh had proclaimed in Hanoi the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). The DRV ruled as the only civil government in all of Vietnam for about 20 days after the abdication of Emperor Bao Dai, who had governed under Japanese rule and thus was considered by Viet Minh a Japanese puppet. On September 23, 1945, with the knowledge of the British Commander in Saigon, French forces overthrew the local DRV government and declared French authority restored in Cochinchina. Guerrilla warfare began around Saigon immediately.
The first few years of the war involved a low-level rural insurgency against French authority. However, after the Chinese communists reached the northern border of Vietnam in 1949, the conflict turned into a conventional war between two armies equipped with modern weapons supplied by the United States and the Soviet Union. French Union forces included colonial troops from the whole former empire (Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese ethnic minorities), French professional troops, and units of the French Foreign Legion. The use of metropolitan recruits was forbidden by the government to prevent the war from becoming even more unpopular at home.
The strategy of pushing the Viet Minh into attacking well-defended bases in remote parts of the country at the end of their logistical trails was validated at the Battle of Na San. The French efforts were made more difficult due to the limited usefulness of armored tanks in a jungle environment, lack of strong air forces for air cover and carpet bombing, and use of foreign recruits from other French colonies. On the other hand, General Vo Nguyen Giap,
the military leader of the Viet Minh considered to be one of the greatest strategists of the 20th century, used efficient and novel tactics of direct fire artillery, convoy ambushes and amassed anti-aircraft guns to impede land or air supply deliveries together with a strategy based on recruiting a sizable regular army facilitated by wide popular support, a guerrilla warfare doctrine, instruction developed in China, and the use of simple and reliable war material provided by the Soviet Union. This combination proved fatal for the Viet Minh’s opponents, culminating in a decisive French defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.
Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh (1942)
The two men were credited for the success of the Viet Menh and People’s Army of Vietnam in the First Indochina War.
Geneva Conference
Negotiations between France and the Viet Minh started in Geneva in April 1954 at the Geneva Conference, when the French Union and the Viet Minh were still fighting at Dien Bien Phu.
The Conference recognized the 17th parallel north as a “provisional military demarcation line,” temporarily dividing the country into two zones, communist North Vietnam and pro-Western South Vietnam. The Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. With respect to the question of reunification, the non-communist Vietnamese delegation objected strenuously to any division of Vietnam, but lost out when the French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of “local commissions.” The United States countered with what became known as the “American Plan,” with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. From his home in France, Emperor Bao Dai appointed Ngo Dinh Diem as Prime Minister of South Vietnam. With American support, in 1955 Diem used a referendum to remove the former Emperor and declare himself the president of the Republic of Vietnam.
When the elections failed to occur, Viet Minh cadres who stayed behind in South Vietnam were activated and started to fight the government. North Vietnam also invaded and occupied portions of Laos to assist in supplying the guerrilla fighting National Liberation Front in South Vietnam. The war gradually escalated into the Second Indochina War, more commonly known as the Vietnam War in the West and the American War in Vietnam.
French Foreign Legion patrol question a suspected member of the Viet Minh
French Union forces included colonial troops from the whole former empire (Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese ethnic minorities), French professional troops, and units of the French Foreign Legion. The use of metropolitan recruits was forbidden by the government to prevent the war from becoming even more unpopular at home. It was called the “dirty war” by the Leftist intellectuals in France.
Laos’ Independence
In 1945, under Japanese pressure, King Sisavangvong declared the independence of Laos. The move allowed the various independence movements in Laos to coalesce into the Lao Issara or Free Lao movement, which was led by Prince Phetsarath and opposed the return of Laos to the French. The Japanese surrender in August 1945 emboldened pro-French factions and Prince Phetsarath was dismissed by King Sisavangvong. Undeterred, Prince Phetsarath staged a coup in September and placed the royal family in Luang Prabang under house arrest. In October 1945, the Lao Issara government was declared under the civil administration of Prince Phetsarath but the French were able to reassert control over Indochina in April 1946. The Lao Issara government fled to Thailand, where they maintained opposition to the French until 1949, when the group split over questions regarding relations with the Viet Minh and the communist Pathet Lao was formed. With the Lao Issara in exile, in August 1946 France instituted a constitutional monarchy in Laos headed by King Sisavangvong and Thailand agreed to return territories seized during the Franco-Thai War in exchange for representation at the United Nations. The Franco-Lao General Convention of 1949 provided most members of the Lao Issara with a negotiated amnesty and sought appeasement by establishing the Kingdom of Laos a quasi-independent constitutional monarchy within the French Union. In 1950 additional powers were granted to the Royal Lao Government, including training and assistance for a national army. In 1953, the Franco–Lao Treaty of Amity and Association transferred remaining French powers to the independent Royal Lao Government. By 1954, the defeat at Dien Bien Phu brought eight years of fighting with the Viet Minh during the First Indochinese War to an end and France abandoned all claims to the colonies of Indochina.
Cambodia’s Independence
Cambodia’s situation at the end of World War II was chaotic. On March 9, 1945, during the Japanese occupation of Cambodia, young king Norodom Sihanouk proclaimed an independent Kingdom of Kampuchea following a formal request by the Japanese. Shortly thereafter the Japanese government nominally ratified the independence of Cambodia and established a consulate in Phnom Penh. After Allied military units entered Cambodia, the Japanese military forces present in the country were disarmed and repatriated. The French were able to reimpose the colonial administration in Phnom Penh in October the same year. Sihanouk’s “royal crusade for independence” resulted in grudging French acquiescence to his demands for a transfer of sovereignty. A partial agreement was struck in October 1953. Sihanouk then declared that independence had been achieved and returned in triumph to Phnom Penh. As a result of the Geneva Conference, Cambodia was able to bring about the withdrawal of the Viet Minh troops from its territory and withstand any residual impingement upon its sovereignty by external powers.
35.5.3: The Geneva Agreements
The 1954 Geneva Conference produced an agreement between
the French and Viet Minh military
commands (but not the pro-Western State of Vietnam) that divided Vietnam along the 17th Parallel, escalating tensions between the North and the South and leading to the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War).
Learning Objective
List the key points of the Geneva Agreements
Key Points
The
Geneva Conference took place between April 26 and July 20, 1954. Its goal was to settle outstanding issues resulting from the
Korean War and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina following the
First Indochina War. The
part of the conference on the Korean question ended without any
declarations or proposals. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of
documents known as the Geneva Accords.
The Western allies did not have a unified
position on what the Conference should achieve in relation to Indochina. Two Vietnamese delegations, one from the communist North and one from the pro-Western South, were also divided on the question of the future of Vietnam. Lengthy negotiations revolved around the questions of the division vs. unification of Vietnam, the spheres of influence in the region, and the status of Laos and Cambodia.
On July
20, the remaining outstanding issues were resolved as the parties agreed that
the partition line should be at the 17th parallel and that the elections for
reunification should be in July 1956, two years after the ceasefire. The
Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam was signed only by French
and Viet Minh military commands, completely bypassing the State of
Vietnam.
The
Geneva Accords, issued on July 21, 1954, set out a “provisional military
demarcation line” running approximately along the 17th Parallel. A 3-mile (4.8 km) wide demilitarized zone was
expected on each side of the demarcation line, and French Union forces were to
regroup to the south of the line while Viet Minh to the north. Free movement of
the population between the zone would be open for 300 days and
neither zone was to join any military alliance or seek military reinforcement.
The International Control Commission, comprising Canada, Poland, and India as chair, was established to monitor
the ceasefire.
Many communist sympathizers viewed South Vietnam
as a French colonial and later American puppet regime. Simultaneously, many
viewed North Vietnam as a communist puppet state. After the cessation of
hostilities, a large migration took place. North Vietnamese, especially
Catholics, intellectuals, business people, land owners, anti-communist
democrats, and members of the middle-class, moved south of the Accords-mandated
ceasefire line.
The
United States replaced the French as a political backup for Ngo Dinh Diem, then Prime
Minister of the State of Vietnam, and he asserted his power in the South. Diem
refused to hold the national elections, citing that the South did not sign and
thus was not bound to the Geneva Accords. North
Vietnam violated the Geneva Accords by failing to fully withdraw Viet Minh
troops from South Vietnam, stifling the movement of North Vietnamese refugees,
and conducting a massive military build-up. The tensions led to the Second Indochinese War, more
commonly known as the Vietnam War or American War in Vietnam.
Key Terms
Viet Cong
A political organization and army, known also as the National Liberation Front, that operated in South Vietnam and Cambodia during the Vietnam War. It was allied with North Vietnam and fought against the armies of South Vietnam and the United States. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled.
Operation Passage to Freedom
A term used by the United States Navy to describe its assistance in transporting in 1954–55 310,000 Vietnamese civilians, soldiers, and non-Vietnamese members of the French Army from communist North Vietnam (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) to South Vietnam (the State of Vietnam, later to become the Republic of Vietnam). The French and other countries may have transported a further 500,000.
First Indochina War
The military conflict that
began in French Indochina in December 1946 and lasted until August 1954, although fighting between French forces and their Viet Minh opponents in
the South dated from September 1945. The conflict pitted a range of forces,
including the French Union’s French Far East Expeditionary Corps, led by
France and supported by the Vietnamese National Army, against the Viet
Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh and its People’s Army of Vietnam led by Vo
Nguyen Giap. Most of the fighting took place in Tonkin in Northern
Vietnam, although the conflict engulfed the entire country and also extended
into the neighboring French Indochina protectorates of Laos and
Cambodia.
Geneva Conference
A 1954 conference among
several nations that took place in Geneva, Switzerland, to settle
outstanding issues resulting from the Korean War and discuss the
possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United
States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of
China were participants throughout the conference, while other countries
concerned were represented during the discussion of questions of interest to
them. These included the countries that contributed troops to the United
Nations forces in the Korean War and countries that participated in the
resolution of the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh.
Geneva Accords
The 1954 settlement that ended the First Indochina War, reached at the end of the Geneva Conference. A ceasefire was signed and France agreed to withdraw its troops from the region. French Indochina was split into three countries: Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Vietnam was to be temporarily divided along the 17th Parallel until elections could be held to unite the country.
Viet Minh
A national
independence coalition formed in 1941 with the initial goal to seek
independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. After World War II, the
organization opposed the reoccupation of Vietnam by France and later opposed
South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War.
The Geneva Conference took place between April 26 and July 20, 1954 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its goal was to settle outstanding issues resulting from the Korean War and discuss the possibility of restoring peace in Indochina as the First Indochina War fighting was still going on when the Conference first gathered. The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China were present throughout the conference, while other countries concerned were represented during the discussion of questions of interest to them. These included the countries that contributed troops to the United Nations forces in the Korean War and countries that participated in the resolution of the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh. The part of the conference on the Korean question ended without any declarations or proposals. On Indochina, the conference produced a set of documents known as the Geneva Accords or Geneva Agreements.
The Geneva Conference, July 21, 1954.
The last plenary session on Indochina in the Palais des Nations. Second left Vyacheslav Molotov, 2 unidentified Russians, Anthony Eden, Sir Harold Caccie, and W.D. Allen. In the foreground North Vietnamese delegation.
Although the eventual Geneva Accords were presented as a consensus view, the settlement was not accepted by the delegates of either the State of Vietnam or the United States.
The Question of Indochina
While the delegates began to assemble in Geneva in late April, the discussions on Indochina did not begin until May 8. The Viet Minh had achieved their decisive victory over the French Union forces at Dien Bien Phu the previous day. The Western allies did not have a unified position on what the Conference should achieve in relation to Indochina. The British delegation favored a negotiated settlement to the conflict. The French delegation was keen to preserve something of France’s position in the region. The Unites States had been supporting the French in Indochina for many years and the Republican Eisenhower administration wanted to ensure that it could not be accused of having lost Indochina to the communists. Its leaders had previously accused the Truman administration of having lost China when the communists successfully dominated the country.
On May 10, Pham Van Dong, leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV; North) delegation set out their position, proposing a ceasefire, separation of the opposing forces, a ban on the introduction of new forces into Indochina, exchange of prisoners, independence and sovereignty for Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, elections for unified governments in each country, withdrawal of all foreign forces, and the inclusion of representatives of the independence movements from Laos and Cambodia, Pathet Lao, and Khmer Issarak in the Conference. On May 12, the State of Vietnam (South) rejected any partition of the country and the United States expressed a similar position the next day. The French sought to implement a physical separation of the opposing forces into enclaves throughout the country, known as the “leopard-skin” approach, which divided the state’s territories between the DRV/Viet Minh and the French Union.
Although behind the scenes the U.S. and French governments continued to discuss the terms for possible U.S. military intervention in Indochina, by mid-June it was clear such intervention would not receive much support among allies and the United States began to consider the possibility that, rather than supporting the French in Indochina, it might be preferable for the French to leave and for the United States to support the new Indochinese states. Unwilling to support the proposed partition or intervention, by mid-June the United States decided to withdraw from major participation in the Conference.
The Soviet and Chinese representatives also argued that the situations in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were not the same and should be treated separately. Consequently, Pham Van Dong agreed the Viet Minh would be prepared to withdraw their forces from Laos and Cambodia provided no foreign bases were established in Indochina. This represented a major blow to the DRV, as they had tried to ensure that the Pathet Lao and Khmer Issarak would join the governments in Laos and Cambodia, respectively, under the leadership of the DRV. The Chinese likely sought to ensure that Laos and Cambodia were not under Vietnam’s influence in the future, but under China’s.
Geneva Accords
After lengthy negotiations, on July 20 the remaining issues were resolved as the parties agreed that the partition line should be at the 17th parallel and that the elections for reunification should be in July 1956, two years after the ceasefire. The Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam was signed only by French and Viet Minh military commands, completely bypassing the State of Vietnam.
The Geneva Accords, issued on July 21, 1954, set out a “provisional military demarcation line” running approximately along the 17th Parallel “on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal.” A 3-mles (4.8 km) wide demilitarized zone was expected on each side of the demarcation line and French Union forces were to regroup to the south of the line while Viet Minh to the north. Free movement of the population between the zone would be open for 300 days and neither zone was to join any military alliance or seek military reinforcement. The International Control Commission (ICC), comprising Canada, Poland (at the time under the communist rule), and India as chair, was established to monitor the ceasefire.
Because the Commission was to decide on issues unanimously, Poland’s presence in the ICC provided the communists with effective veto power over supervision of the treaty. The unsigned Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference called for reunification elections, which the majority of delegates expected to be supervised by the ICC. The Viet Minh never accepted ICC authority over such elections.
The agreement was signed by the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam, France, the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. The State of Vietnam
under emperor Bao Dai rejected the agreement, while the United States stated that it “took note” of the ceasefire agreements and declared that it would “refrain from the threat or use of force to disturb them.” Separate accords were signed by the signatories with the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Laos in relation to Cambodia and Laos respectively.
Outcomes
In October 1954, the last French Union forces left Hanoi. In May 1955, French Union forces withdrew from Saigon to a coastal bases and in April 1956, the last French forces left Vietnam.
Many communist sympathizers viewed South Vietnam as a French colonial and later American puppet regime. Simultaneously, many viewed North Vietnam as a communist puppet state. After the cessation of hostilities, a large migration took place. North Vietnamese, especially Catholics, intellectuals, business people, land owners, anti-communist democrats, and members of the middle-class, moved south of the Accords-mandated ceasefire line during Operation Passage to Freedom. The ICC reported that at least 892,876 North Vietnamese were processed through official refugee stations, while journalists estimated that as many as 2 million more might have fled. Around 52,000 people from the South went North, mostly Viet Minh members and their families.
Anticommunist Vietnamese refugees moving from a French LSM landing ship to the USS Montague during Operation Passage to Freedom in August 1954, photo by H.S. Hemphill.
The mass emigration of northerners was facilitated primarily by the French Air Force and Navy. American naval vessels supplemented the French in evacuating northerners to Saigon, the southern capital. The operation was accompanied by a large humanitarian relief effort, bankrolled in the main by the United States government in an attempt to absorb a large tent city of refugees that had sprung up outside Saigon.
The United States replaced the French as a political backup for Ngo Dinh Diem, then Prime Minister of the State of Vietnam, and he asserted his power in the South. Diem refused to hold the national elections, citing that the South did not sign and thus was not bound to the Geneva Accords and that it was impossible to hold free elections in the communist North. He went on to attempt to crush communist opposition.
North Vietnam violated the Geneva Accords by failing to fully withdraw Viet Minh troops from South Vietnam, stifling the movement of North Vietnamese refugees, and conducting a massive military build-up that more than doubled the number of armed divisions in the North Vietnamese army (while the South Vietnamese army was reduced by 20,000 men). North Vietnam established military operations in the South by providing military supplies and equipment, weaponry, and military personnel and leadership to the Viet Cong (the National Liberation Front created by Ho Chi Minh’s government) in the South. Guerrilla activity in the South escalated, while U.S. military advisers continued to support the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. The tensions led to the Second Indochinese War, more commonly known as the Vietnam War or American War in Vietnam.
35.5.4: The Vietnam War
The 20-year-long Vietnam War between the communist North and pro-Western South backed by the United States has had tragic consequences for the entire region, including the victory of communists in Vietnam, the rise of the Khmer Rouge to power in Cambodia, a massive refugee crisis, and the lasting impact that the use of chemicals by the U.S. military had on the region’s population.
Learning Objective
Explain the events of the Vietnam War and their lasting effects on the country
Key Points
The 1954 Geneva Conference did not end tensions between North and South Vietnam.
In 1955, in a referendum on the
future of the State of Vietnam,
Ngo
Dinh
Diem rigged the poll and was credited with 98.2% of the vote.
Three days later, he declared South Vietnam to be an independent state under
the name Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president. Likewise, Ho Chi
Minh and other communist officials always won at least 99% of the vote in North
Vietnamese “elections.”
Between
1954 and 1957, there was large-scale but disorganized dissidence in the
countryside, which the Diem government succeeded in quelling. However, by
mid-1957 through 1959, incidents of violence increased.
Because of the ongoing
conflict and constant tensions, the beginning date of the Second Indochina War,
known in the US as the Vietnam War and in Vietnam as the American War, is a
matter of debate, with 1955, 1956, and 1959 as potential starting points. Eventually, the war pitted the Communist Vietnam
People’s Army and the Viet Cong against United States troops
and the United States-backed ARVN (Republic of Vietnam soldiers). The war
would last until 1975.
Following
the escalation of the war under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Richard
Nixon began troop withdrawals in 1969. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was
to build up the ARVN so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam.
The policy, known as Vietnamization, largely failed.
Prince Norodom Sihanouk
had proclaimed Cambodia neutral since 1955, but the communists used Cambodian
soil as a base and Sihanouk tolerated their presence because he wished to
avoid being drawn into a wider regional conflict. Under pressure from Washington,
however, he changed this policy in 1969.
The ostensibly neutral
Laos had long been the scene of a civil war, pitting the Laotian government
backed by the United States against the Pathet Lao and its North Vietnamese allies.
The 1973 Paris Peace Accords officially ended direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, but a declared cease-fire across North and South Vietnam did not last long. The final series
of increasingly large-scale offensive operations by North
Vietnam and the Viet Cong began in December 1974. On
April 30, 1975, NVA troops entered the city of Saigon and quickly overcame all
resistance, capturing key buildings and installations.
In 1976, North and
South Vietnam were merged to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Cambodia fell to the communist Khmer Rouge in 1975.
The Pathet Lao overthrew
the monarchy of Laos in 1975, establishing the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic under the leadership of a member of the royal family, Souphanouvong.
Over 3 million people left
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the Indochina refugee crisis. The
widespread use of chemical defoliants by the U.S. military between 1961 and 1971 continues to impact the health of those who survived the war and generations of their descendants.
Key Terms
Second Indochina War
A military conflict known commonly in the United States as the Vietnam War and in Vietnam as Resistance War Against America or the American War, that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1955 (with some sources citing 1956 or 1959 as the starting date) to the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. The North Vietnamese army was supported by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist allies and the South Vietnamese army was supported by the United States, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies. The war is therefore considered a Cold War-era proxy war.
Geneva Conference
A 1954 conference among
several nations that took place in Geneva, Switzerland, to settle
outstanding issues resulting from the Korean War and discuss the
possibility of restoring peace in Indochina. The Soviet Union, the United
States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of
China were participants throughout the conference, while other countries
concerned were represented during the discussion of questions of interest to
them. These included the countries that contributed troops to the United
Nations forces in the Korean War and countries that participated in the
resolution of the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh.
Paris Peace Accords
A peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973, to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries. It ended direct U.S. military combat and temporarily stopped the fighting between North and South Vietnam.
Pathet Lao
A communist political movement and organization in Laos formed in the mid-20th century. The group was ultimately successful in assuming political power in 1975 after the Laotian Civil War. It was always closely associated with Vietnamese communists and fought against the anti-communist forces in the Vietnam War. Eventually, the term became the generic name for Laotian communists.
Khmer Rouge
The name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia. It was formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam, and allied with North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and Pathet Lao during the Vietnam War against the anti-communist forces from 1968 to 1975.
Vietnamization
A policy of the Richard Nixon administration to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War through a program to “expand, equip, and train South Vietnam’s forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops.”
Viet Cong
A political organization
and army, known also as the National Liberation Front, that operated in South
Vietnam and Cambodia during the Vietnam War. It was allied with North
Vietnam and fought against the armies of South Vietnam and the United
States. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network
of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled.
Viet Minh
A national
independence coalition formed in 1941 with the initial goal to seek
independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. After World War II, the
organization opposed the reoccupation of Vietnam by France and later opposed
South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War.
Second Indochina War
Following the Geneva Conference, Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel and civilians were given the opportunity to move freely between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections throughout the country were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government. While the North remained under the control of communists, the South constituted the State of Vietnam, with Bao Dai as Emperor and Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister. Neither the United States government nor the State of Vietnam signed anything at Geneva. With respect to the question of reunification, the non-communist Vietnamese delegation objected strenuously to any division of Vietnam, but lost out when the French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong, who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of “local commissions.” The United States countered with what became known as the “American Plan,” with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom. It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation. In 1957, independent observers from India, Poland, and Canada representing the International Control Commission (ICC) stated that fair, unbiased elections were not possible, with the ICC reporting that neither South nor North Vietnam had honored the armistice agreement.
In a referendum on the future of the State of Vietnam in 1955, Diem rigged the poll supervised by his brother and was credited with 98.2% of the vote, including 133% in Saigon. Three days later, he declared South Vietnam to be an independent state under the name Republic of Vietnam (ROV), with himself as president. Likewise, Ho Chi Minh and other communist officials always won at least 99% of the vote in North Vietnamese “elections.”
Diem also launched the “Denounce the Communists” campaign, during which communists and other anti-government elements were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or executed. He instituted the death penalty against any activity deemed communist in 1956.
Between 1954 and 1957 there was large-scale but disorganized dissidence in the countryside, which the Diem government succeeded in quelling. However, by mid-1957 through 1959, incidents of violence increased. There had been some division among former Viet Minh groups, whose main goal was to hold the elections promised in the Geneva Accords, leading to “wildcat” activities separate from the other communists and anti-government of Vietnam (GVN) activists. In 1960, the National Liberation Front, known more commonly as the Viet Cong, was formally created with the intent of uniting all anti-GVN activists, including non-communists. In 1959, North Vietnam invaded Laos and used 30,000 men to build invasion routes through Laos and Cambodia by 1961. About 40,000 communist soldiers infiltrated into the south from 1961-63. North Vietnam sent 10,000 troops of the North Vietnamese Army to attack the south in 1964, and this figure increased to 100,000 in 1965.
Because of the ongoing conflict and constant tensions, the beginning date of the Second Indochina War, known in the US as the Vietnam War and in Vietnam as the American War, is a matter of debate. U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict” because that was when the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. Other start dates include when Hanoi authorized Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956, or September 26, 1959, when the first battle occurred between the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese army.
Eventually, the war pitted the Communist Vietnam People’s Army (VPA) and the Viet Cong against United States troops and the United States-backed ARVN (Republic of Vietnam soldiers). The war would last until 1975.
Vietnamization
Following the escalation of the war under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations,
Richard Nixon began troop withdrawals in 1969. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as Vietnamization. On October 10, 1969, Nixon ordered a squadron of 18 B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons to race to the border of Soviet airspace to convince the Soviet Union, in accord with the madman theory, that he was capable of anything to end the war.
Nixon also pursued negotiations and began to pursue détente (relaxation policy) with the Soviet Union and rapprochement with China. This policy helped to decrease global tensions. Détente led to nuclear arms reduction on the part of both superpowers but Nixon was disappointed that China and the Soviet Union continued to supply the North Vietnamese with aid. In September 1969, Ho Chi Minh died. Beginning in 1970, American troops were withdrawn from border areas where most of the fighting took place and instead redeployed along the coast and interior.
A Viet Cong prisoner captured in 1967 by the U.S. Army awaits interrogation. He has been placed in a stress position by tying a board between his arms.
A large number of war crimes took place during the Vietnam War. War crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict and included rape, massacres of civilians, bombings of civilian targets, terrorism, the widespread use of torture, and the murder of prisoners of war. Additional common crimes included theft, arson, and the destruction of property not warranted by military necessity.
The United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and the Khmer Rouge were all found guilty of war crimes.
Cambodia and Laos
Prince Norodom Sihanouk had proclaimed Cambodia neutral since 1955, but the communists used Cambodian soil as a base and Sihanouk tolerated their presence because he wished to avoid being drawn into a wider regional conflict. Under pressure from Washington, however, he changed this policy in 1969. In 1970, Prince Sihanouk was deposed by his pro-American prime minister Lon Nol. North Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1970 at the request of Khmer Rouge deputy leader Nuon Chea. U.S. and ARVN forces launched an invasion into Cambodia to attack NVA and Viet Cong bases.
The ostensibly neutral Laos had long been the scene of a civil war, pitting the Laotian government backed by the US against the Pathet Lao and its North Vietnamese allies. After meeting resistance, ARVN forces retreated and fled along roads littered with their own dead. The operation was a fiasco and represented a clear failure of Vietnamization. Vietnamization was again tested by the Easter Offensive of 1972, a massive conventional NVA invasion of South Vietnam. The NVA and Viet Cong quickly overran the northern provinces and in coordination with other forces attacked from Cambodia, threatening to cut the country in half. U.S. troop withdrawals continued. American air power responded, beginning Operation Linebacker, and the offensive was halted. It became clear that without American air power South Vietnam could not survive. The last remaining American ground troops were withdrawn by the end of March 1973. U.S. naval and air forces remained in the Gulf of Tonkin, as well as Thailand and Guam.
No Peace after Paris Peace Accords
The war was the central issue of the 1972 U.S. presidential election. Nixon’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, continued secret negotiations with North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho. On January 15, 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on “Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam” were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. A cease-fire was declared across North and South Vietnam. U.S. prisoners of war were released. The agreement guaranteed the territorial integrity of Vietnam and, like the Geneva Conference of 1954, called for national elections in the North and South.
Despite the accords, military conflict between the South and the North continued. The final
series of increasingly large-scale and ambitious offensive operations by North Vietnam and the Viet Cong began in December 1974. The eventual goal of these operations was to defeat the armed forces and force the surrender of the government of South Vietnam.
The operational plan for what would be known as the Ho Chi Minh Campaign called for the capture of Saigon before May 1. By the end of April, the ARVN had collapsed on all fronts except in the Mekong Delta. Thousands of refugees streamed southward ahead of the main communist onslaught. Chaos, unrest, and panic broke out as hysterical South Vietnamese officials and civilians scrambled to leave Saigon. Martial law was declared. On April 30, 1975, NVA troops entered the city of Saigon and quickly overcame all resistance, capturing key buildings and installations.
Aftermath in Southeast Asia
On July 2, 1976, North and South Vietnam were merged to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Despite speculation that the victorious North Vietnamese would massacre South Vietnamese, there is a widespread consensus that no mass executions took place. However, in the years following the end of the war, up to 300,000 South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps, where many endured torture, starvation, and disease while being forced to perform hard labor. In addition, 200,000 to 400,000 Vietnamese boat people died at sea, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, fell to the communist Khmer Rouge on April 17, 1975. Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge would eventually kill 1-3 million Cambodians out of a population of around 8 million in one of the bloodiest genocides in history. After repeated border clashes in 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ousted the Khmer Rouge, who were being supported by China, in the Cambodian-Vietnamese War. In response, China invaded Vietnam in 1979. The two countries fought a brief border war, known as the Sino-Vietnamese War.
The Pathet Lao overthrew the monarchy of Laos in December 1975, establishing the Lao People’s Democratic Republic under the leadership of a member of the royal family, Souphanouvong. The change in regime was relatively peaceful, although 30,000 former officials were sent to reeducation camps, often enduring harsh conditions for several years.
Over 3 million people left Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the Indochina refugee crisis. Most Asian countries were unwilling to accept the refugees, many of whom fled by boat and were known as boat people. Between 1975 and 1998, an estimated 1.2 million refugees from Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries resettled in the United States, while Canada, Australia, and France resettled over 500,000. China accepted 250,000 people. Of all the countries of Indochina, Laos experienced the largest refugee flight in proportional terms, as 300,000 people out of a total population of 3 million crossed the border into Thailand. Included among their ranks were about 90% of the educated and professional elites. Vietnam retained its pro-Soviet orientation after the war and remained an important ally of the USSR in the region.
Vietnamese women and children in My Lai before being killed in the massacre, March 16, 1968. They were killed seconds after the photo was taken.
Estimates of casualties in the Vietnam War vary widely. They include both civilian and military deaths in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Civilian deaths caused by both sides amounted to a significant percentage of total deaths, perhaps from 30 to nearly 50%. Civilian deaths caused by communist forces, which included the Viet Cong, North Vietnamese Army, Pathet Lao, and Khmer Rouge, mostly resulted from assassinations and terror tactics. Civilian deaths caused by the armed forces of the governments of South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the United States, South Korea, and other allies were primarily the consequence of extensive aerial bombing and the use of massive firepower in military operations conducted in heavily populated areas.
One of the most controversial aspects of the U.S. military effort in Southeast Asia was the widespread use of chemical defoliants between 1961 and 1971. They were used to defoliate large parts of the countryside to prevent the Viet Cong from being able to hide their weapons and encampments under the foliage. These chemicals continue to change the landscape, cause diseases and birth defects, and poison the food chain today. Vietnamese victims affected by Agent Orange attempted a class action lawsuit against Dow Chemical and other U.S. chemical manufacturers, but District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein dismissed their case. They appealed, but the dismissal was cemented in 2008 by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As of 2006, the Vietnamese government estimates that there are over 4,000,000 victims of dioxin poisoning in Vietnam, although the United States government denies any conclusive scientific links between Agent Orange and the Vietnamese victims of dioxin poisoning. In some areas of southern Vietnam, dioxin levels remain at over 100 times the accepted international standard. The U.S. Veterans Administration has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple melanoma, diabetes type 2, B-cell lymphomas, soft-tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spina bifida in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
35.5.5: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge
The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975-1979) introduced an extreme governing system based on the relocation of urban residents to rural areas and halting nearly all economic, social, and cultural activities. It was responsible for mass atrocities known as the Cambodian genocide.
Learning Objective
Summarize the crimes perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge
Key Points
The
history of the Khmer Rouge is tied to the history of the communist movement in
Indochina. In 1951, the Indochinese Communist Party was reorganized into
three national units — the Vietnam Workers’ Party, the Lao Issara (in
Laos), and the Kampuchean (or Khmer) People’s Revolutionary Party. However, during
the 1950s, Khmer students in Paris organized their own communist movement. From their ranks came the men and women who returned home and took
command of the party apparatus during the 1960s, led an effective insurgency
against Lon Nol from 1968 until 1975, and established the regime of Democratic
Kampuchea under the leadership of Pol Pot.
In
1968, the Khmer Rouge was officially formed and its forces launched a national
insurgency across Cambodia. Vietnamese support for the insurgency made it impossible
for the Cambodian military to effectively counter it. For the next two years
the insurgency grew as Prince Sihanouk, head of Cambodia, did very little to stop it. The political appeal of the Khmer Rouge
increased after the removal of Sihanouk as
head of state in 1970 by Premier Lon Nol. Sihanouk, in exile in Beijing, made an alliance with the
Khmer Rouge, after which their ranks swelled from 6,000 to 50,000 fighters. Many of the new recruits for
the Khmer Rouge were apolitical peasants who fought in support of the Prince,
not for communism. On April 17, 1975 the Khmer Rouge
captured Phnom Penh.
The
Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country
from all foreign influences, closing schools, hospitals, and factories,
abolishing banking, finance, and currency, outlawing all religions,
confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to
collective farms, where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy
was to turn Cambodians into “Old People” (as opposed the urban
populations known as “New People”) through agricultural labor.
Money
was abolished, books were burned, and teachers, merchants, and almost the entire
intellectual elite of the country were murdered to make the agricultural
communism, as Pol Pot envisioned it, a reality. The planned relocation to the
countryside resulted in the complete halting of almost all economic
activity.
In 1978, Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack,
ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. At the end of the same year, the
Vietnamese armed forces, along with the Kampuchean United Front for National
Salvation, an organization that included many dissatisfied former Khmer Rouge
members, invaded Cambodia and captured Phnom Penh in January 1979.
The
Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured, and eventually executed anyone
suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed “enemies.” Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and
3 million most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with
perhaps half of those deaths due to executions and the rest from
starvation and disease. Because
of the intense opposition to the Vietnam War, for years many Western scholars denied the genocide perpetrated by the
Khmer Rouge regime.
Key Terms
Democratic Kampuchea
The name of the Khmer Rouge-controlled state that between 1975 and 1979 existed in present-day Cambodia. It was founded when the Khmer Rouge forces defeated the Khmer Republic of Lon Nol in 1975. During its rule between 1975 and 1979, the state and its ruling Khmer Rouge regime was responsible for the deaths of millions of Cambodians through forced labor and genocide. After losing control of most of Cambodian territory to Vietnamese occupation, it survived as a rump state supported by China.
Cambodian Genocide
Mass attrocities carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979, in which an estimated 1.5 to 3 million people died.
Khmer Rouge
The name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia. It was formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam, and allied with North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and Pathet Lao during the Vietnam War against the anti-communist forces from 1968 to 1975.
Khmer Rouge: Rise to Power
The history of the Khmer Rouge is tied to the history of the communist movement in Indochina. In 1951, the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP) was reorganized into three national units — the Vietnam Workers’ Party, the Lao Issara (in Laos), and the Kampuchean (or Khmer) People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP). According to a document issued after the reorganization, the Vietnam Workers’ Party would continue to “supervise” the smaller Laotian and Cambodian movements. Most KPRP leaders and rank-and-file seem to have been either Khmer Krom, or ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia. The party’s appeal to indigenous Khmers appears to have been minimal.
During the 1950s, Khmer students in Paris organized their own communist movement, which had little if any connection to the hard-pressed party in their homeland. From their ranks came the men and women who returned home and took command of the party apparatus during the 1960s, led an effective insurgency against Lon Nol from 1968 until 1975, and established the regime of Democratic Kampuchea. Some members of the Paris group, most notably Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, turned to Marxism-Leninism and joined the French Communist Party. In 1951, the two men went to East Berlin to participate in a youth festival. This experience is considered a turning point in their ideological development. Meeting with Khmers who were fighting with the Viet Minh, they became convinced that only a tightly disciplined party organization and a readiness for armed struggle could achieve revolution. They transformed the Khmer Students Association (KSA), to which most of the 200 or so Khmer students in Paris belonged, into an organization for nationalist and leftist ideas. After returning to Cambodia in 1953, Pol Pot threw himself into party work.
In 1960, 21 leaders of the KPRP held a secret congress in a vacant room of the Phnom Penh railroad station. This pivotal event remains shrouded in mystery because its outcome has become an object of contention (and considerable historical rewriting) between pro-Vietnamese and anti-Vietnamese Khmer communist factions. The question of cooperation with or resistance to Prince Sihanouk (head of the Cambodian state) was thoroughly discussed. The KPRP was renamed the
Workers’ Party of Kampuchea (WPK).
In 1962, Tou Samouth, the WPK secretary, was murdered by the Cambodian government. A year later, Pol Pot was chosen to succeed Tou Samouth as the party’s general secretary. Pol Pot was also put on a list of 34 leftists who were summoned by Sihanouk to join the government and sign statements saying Sihanouk was the only possible leader for the country. Pol Pot and one more leader, Chou Chet, were the only people on the list who escaped. The region where Pol Pot moved to was inhabited by tribal minorities, the Khmer Loeu, whose rough treatment (including resettlement and forced assimilation) at the hands of the central government made them willing recruits for a guerrilla struggle. In 1965, Pol Pot made a visit of several months to North Vietnam and China.
In 1968, the Khmer Rouge was officially formed and its forces launched a national insurgency across Cambodia. Although North Vietnam had not been informed of the decision, its forces provided shelter and weapons to the Khmer Rouge after the insurgency started. Vietnamese support for the insurgency made it impossible for the Cambodian military to effectively counter it. For the next two years the insurgency grew as Sihanouk did very little to stop it. As the insurgency grew stronger, the party finally openly declared itself to be the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK).
The political appeal of the Khmer Rouge increased as a result of the situation created by the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970. Premier Lon Nol, with the support of the National Assembly, deposed Sihanouk. Sihanouk, in exile in Beijing, made an alliance with the Khmer Rouge and became the nominal head of a Khmer Rouge-dominated government-in-exile (known by its French acronym, GRUNK) backed by China. After Sihanouk showed his support for the Khmer Rouge by visiting them in the field, their ranks swelled from 6,000 to 50,000 fighters. Many of the new recruits for the Khmer Rouge were apolitical peasants who fought in support of the Prince, not for communism. Sihanouk’s popular support in rural Cambodia allowed the Khmer Rouge to extend its power and influence to the point that by 1973 it exercised de facto control over the majority of Cambodian territory, although only a minority of its population. Many people in Cambodia who helped the Khmer Rouge against the Lon Nol government thought they were fighting for the restoration of Sihanouk. By 1975, with the Lon Nol government running out of ammunition, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the government would collapse. On April 17, 1975, the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh.
Khmer Rouge Regime
The Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from all foreign influences; closing schools, hospitals, and factories, abolishing banking, finance, and currency; outlawing all religions; confiscating all private property; and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into “Old People” (as opposed the urban populations known as “New People”) through agricultural labor.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labor camps. The total lack of agricultural knowledge by the former city dwellers made famine inevitable. Rural dwellers were often unsympathetic or too frightened to assist them. Such acts as picking wild fruit or berries were seen as “private enterprise” and punished by death. The Khmer Rouge forced people to work for 12 hours, without adequate rest or food. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation. Commercial fishing was banned in 1976, resulting in a loss of primary food sources for millions of Cambodians, 80% of whom rely on fish as their only source of animal protein.
Money was abolished, books were burned, and teachers, merchants, and almost the entire intellectual elite of the country were murdered to make the agricultural communism as Pol Pot envisioned it a reality. The planned relocation to the countryside resulted in the complete halting of almost all economic activity.
All religion was banned. Any people seen taking part in religious rituals or services were executed. Thousands of Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs. Family relationships not sanctioned by the state were also banned and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other. Married couples were only allowed to visit each other on a limited basis. If people were seen engaged in sexual activity, they would be killed immediately.
In many cases, family members were relocated to different parts of the country with all postal and telephone services abolished.
Almost all freedom to travel was abolished. Almost all privacy was eliminated. People were not even allowed to eat in privacy. Instead, they were required to eat with everyone in the commune.
Fall of Khmer Rouge Regime
In 1978, Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack, ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. At the end of the same year, the Vietnamese armed forces, along with the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation, an organization that included many dissatisfied former Khmer Rouge members, invaded Cambodia and captured Phnom Penh in January 1979. Despite a traditional Cambodian fear of Vietnamese domination, defecting Khmer Rouge activists assisted the Vietnamese and with Vietnam’s approval became the core of the new People’s Republic of Kampuchea. At the same time, the Khmer Rouge retreated west and continued to control certain areas near the Thai border for the next decade.
The Khmer Rouge survived into the 1990s as a resistance movement operating in western Cambodia from bases in Thailand. In 1996, following a peace agreement, Pol Pot formally dissolved the organization. He died in 1998, having never been put on trial. Today,
Cambodia is officially a multiparty democracy but in reality, it is a communist-party state dominated by Prime Minister Hun Sen, a recast Khmer Rouge official in power since 1985.
Cambodian Genocide
The Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured, and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed “enemies,” including anyone with connections to the former Cambodian government or with foreign governments, professionals and intellectuals, ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, and other minorities in the Eastern Highlands, Cambodian Christians, Muslims, and Buddhist monks, and “economic saboteurs” – a category that included many former urban dwellers deemed guilty of sabotage due to their lack of agricultural ability. Those who were convicted of treason were taken to a top-secret prison called S-21. The prisoners were rarely given food and, as a result, many people died of starvation. Others died from the severe physical mutilation caused by torture.
Modern research has located 20,000 mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3 million, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths due to executions and the rest from starvation and disease. The Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale University estimates the number of deaths at approximately 1.7 million (21% of the population of the country). A UN investigation reported 2–3 million dead, while UNICEF estimates that 3 million had been killed. An additional 300,000 Cambodians starved to death between 1979 and 1980, largely as a result of the after-effects of Khmer Rouge policy.
Rooms of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum commemorating the Cambodian genocide contain thousands of photos taken by the Khmer Rouge of their victims.
The Khmer Rouge regime targeted various ethnic groups during the genocide, forcibly relocated minority groups, and banned the use of minority languages. The Khmer Rouge banned by decree the existence of ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese, Muslim Cham, and 20 other minorities, which altogether constituted 15% of the population at the beginning of the Khmer Rouge’s rule.
Because of the intense opposition to the Vietnam War, particularly among Western intellectuals, many Western scholars denied the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge regime. Despite the eye-witness accounts by journalists prior to their expulsion during the first few days of Khmer Rouge rule and the later testimony of refugees, many academics in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Australia, and other countries portrayed the Khmer Rouge favorably or at least were skeptical about the stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities. None of them, however, were allowed to visit Cambodia under Khmer Rouge rule and few actually talked to the refugees whose stories they believed to be exaggerated or false. Some Western scholars believed that the Khmer Rouge would free Cambodia from colonialism, capitalism, and the ravages of American bombing and invasion during the Vietnam War. Cambodian scholar Sophal Ear has titled the pro-Khmer Rouge academics as the “Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia” (STAV).
With the takeover of Cambodia by Vietnam in 1979 and the discovery of incontestable evidence, the Khmer Rouge atrocities proved to be entirely accurate. Some former enthusiasts for the Khmer Rouge recanted their previous views, others diverted their interest to other issues, and a few continued to defend the Khmer Rouge.
A few months before his death in 1998, Nate Thayer interviewed Pol Pot. During the interview, Pol Pot stated that he had a clear conscience and denied responsible for the genocide. In 2013, the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen passed legislation that makes the denial of the Cambodian genocide and other war crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge illegal.
After a long decline since the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire came to an end in the aftermath of its defeat in World War I when it was dismantled by the Allies after the war ended in 1918.
Learning Objective
Explain why the Ottoman Empire lost power and prestige
Key Points
The Ottoman Empire was founded by Osman I in the 14th century and reached its apex under Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century, stretching from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north.
In the 19th century, the empire faced challenges in defending itself against foreign invasion and occupation; it ceased to enter conflicts on its own and began to forge alliances with European countries such as France, the Netherlands, Britain, and Russia.
During the Tanzimat period of modernization, the government’s series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the decriminalization of homosexuality, and the replacement of religious law with secular law and guilds with modern factories.
The Ottoman Empire had long been the “sick man of Europe” and after a series of Balkan wars by 1914 was driven out of nearly all of Europe and North Africa.
The Second Constitutional Era began after the Young Turk Revolution (July 3, 1908) with the sultan’s announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of the Ottoman Parliament. This marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
The empire entered WWI as an ally of Germany, and its defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of the war resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its Middle Eastern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France.
The successful Turkish War of Independence against the occupying Allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.
Key Terms
Turkish War of Independence
A war fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. It resulted in the founding of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.
Tanzimat
Literally meaning “reorganization,” a period of reformation in the Ottoman Empire that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. This era was characterized by various attempts to modernize the Ottoman Empire and secure its territorial integrity against nationalist movements from within and aggressive powers from outside of the state.
Young Turks
A political reform movement in the early 20th century that consisted of Ottoman exiles, students, civil servants, and army officers. They favored the replacement of the Ottoman Empire’s absolute monarchy with a constitutional government. Later, their leaders led a rebellion against the absolute rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution. With this revolution, they helped to establish the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, ushering in an era of multi-party democracy for the first time in the country’s history.
Overview: The Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire, also known as the Turkish Empire, was founded at the end of the 13th century in northwestern Anatolia in the vicinity of Bilecik and Söğüt by the Oghuz Turkish tribal leader Osman. After 1354, the Ottomans crossed into Europe, and with the conquest of the Balkans the Ottoman Beylik was transformed into a transcontinental empire. The Ottomans ended the Byzantine Empire with the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed the Conqueror.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century, the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The Ottomans consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which prompted them to initiate a comprehensive process of reform and modernization known as the Tanzimat. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century and joined World War I with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories.
The Empire’s defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its Middle Eastern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France. The successful Turkish War of Independence against the occupying Allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy and caliphate.
Decline and Modernization
Beginning in the late 18th century, the Ottoman Empire faced challenges defending itself against foreign invasion and occupation. In response to these threats, the empire initiated a period of tremendous internal reform which came to be known as the Tanzimat. This succeeded in significantly strengthening the Ottoman central state, despite the empire’s precarious international position. Over the course of the 19th century, the Ottoman state became increasingly powerful and rationalized, exercising a greater degree of influence over its population than in any previous era. The process of reform and modernization in the empire began with the declaration of the Nizam-ı Cedid (New Order) during the reign of Sultan Selim III (r. 1789-1807) and was punctuated by several reform decrees, such as the Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane in 1839 and the Hatt-ı Hümayun in 1856. By the end of this period in 1908, the Ottoman military was somewhat modernized and professionalized according to the model of Western European Armies.
During the Tanzimat period, the government’s series of constitutional reforms led to a fairly modern conscripted army, banking system reforms, the decriminalization of homosexuality, and the replacement of religious law with secular law and guilds with modern factories.
Defeat and Dissolution
The defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922) began with the Second Constitutional Era, a moment of hope and promise established with the Young Turk Revolution. It restored the Ottoman constitution of 1876 and brought in multi-party politics with a two-stage electoral system (electoral law) under the Ottoman parliament. The constitution offered hope by freeing the empire’s citizens to modernize the state’s institutions, rejuvenate its strength, and enable it to hold its own against outside powers. Its guarantee of liberties promised to dissolve inter-communal tensions and transform the empire into a more harmonious place.
Instead, this period became the story of the twilight struggle of the Empire. The Second Constitutional Era began after the Young Turk Revolution (July 3, 1908) with the sultan’s announcement of the restoration of the 1876 constitution and the reconvening of the Ottoman Parliament. This era is dominated by the politics of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) and the movement that would become known as the Young Turks. Although it began as a uniting progressive party, the CUP splintered in 1911 with the founding of the opposition Freedom and Accord Party (Liberal Union or Entente), which poached many of the more liberal Deputies from the CUP. The remaining CUP members, who now took a more dominantly nationalist tone in the face of the enmity of the Balkan Wars, dueled Freedom and Accord in a series of power reversals that ultimately led to the CUP seizing power from the Freedom and Accord in the 1913 Ottoman coup d’état and establishing total dominance over Ottoman politics until the end of World War I.
The Young Turk government had signed a secret treaty with Germany and established the Ottoman-German Alliance in August 1914, aimed against the common Russian enemy but aligning the Empire with the German side. The Ottoman Empire entered World War I after the Goeben and Breslau incident, in which it gave safe harbor to two German ships that were fleeing British ships. These ships, officially transferred to the Ottoman Navy, but effectively still under German control, attacked the Russian port of Sevastopol, thus dragging the Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers in the Middle Eastern theater.
The Ottoman involvement World War I in the Middle Eastern ended with the the Arab Revolt in 1916. This revolt turned the tide against the Ottomans at the Middle Eastern front, where they initially seemed to have the upper hand during the first two years of the war. When the Armistice of Mudros was signed on October 30, 1918, the only parts of the Arabian peninsula still under Ottoman control were Yemen, Asir, the city of Medina, portions of northern Syria, and portions of northern Iraq. These territories were handed over to the British forces on January 23, 1919. The Ottomans were also forced to evacuate the parts of the former Russian Empire in the Caucasus (in present-day Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), which they had gained towards the end of World War I after Russia’s retreat from the war with the Russian Revolution in 1917.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire was solidified. The new countries created from the former territories of the Ottoman Empire currently number 39.
The occupations of Constantinople and Smyrna mobilized the Turkish national movement, which ultimately won the Turkish War of Independence. The formal abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate was performed by Grand National Assembly of Turkey on November 1, 1922. The Sultan was declared persona non grata and exiled from the lands that the Ottoman Dynasty ruled since 1299.
The Dissolution of the the Ottoman Empire
Mehmed VI, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, leaving the country after the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate, November 17, 1922
Photo of Mehmed VI, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, leaving the country after the abolition of the Ottoman sultanate, 17 November 1922. He is walking through an archway surrounded by saluting soldiers.
34.1.2: European Influence on the Ottomans
The “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition, often involving armed conflicts, between the European Powers during the slow, steady disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
Learning Objective
List a few ways in which Europeans pressured the Ottomans for various concessions
Key Points
The “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers (especially Russia, Britain, and France) in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries.
Characterized as the “sick man of Europe,” the relative weakening of the Ottoman Empire’s military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.
During the Greek War of Independence, Russia established major influence and power over the Ottoman Empire.
The Crimean War (1853–1856) was part of this long-running contest between the major European powers for influence over territories of the Empire and focused on the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire.
The continuing collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to two wars in the Balkans, in 1912 and 1913, which in turn was a prelude to world war.
Key Terms
Greek War of Independence
A successful war of independence waged by the Greek revolutionaries between 1821 and 1832 against the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks were later assisted by the Russian Empire, Great Britain, the Kingdom of France, and several other European powers, while the Ottomans were aided by their vassals, the eyalets of Egypt, Algeria, and Tripolitania, and the Beylik of Tunis.
Concert of Europe
A system of dispute resolution adopted by the major conservative powers of Europe to maintain their power, oppose revolutionary movements, weaken the forces of nationalism, and uphold the balance of power. It operated in Europe from the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the early 1820s.
Crimean War
A military conflict fought from October 1853 to March 1856 in which the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire.
Eastern Question
In diplomatic history, this refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries.
The Eastern Question
The Ottoman Empire was a crucial part of the European states system and actively played a role in their affairs, due in part to their coterminous periods of development. In diplomatic history, the “Eastern Question” refers to the strategic competition and political considerations of the European Great Powers in light of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Characterized as the “sick man of Europe,” the empire’s weakened military in the second half of the 18th century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power largely shaped by the Concert of Europe. The Eastern Question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats, Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization program, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries.
The Eastern Question is normally dated to 1774, when the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) ended in defeat for the Ottomans. As the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was thought to be imminent, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic, and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains. Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests. The Eastern Question was put to rest after World War I, one of the outcomes of which was the collapse and division of the Ottoman holdings.
Russian Influence on the Ottomans
The Eastern Question became a major European issue when the Greeks declared independence from the Ottomans in 1821. It was at about this time that the phrase “Eastern Question” was coined. Ever since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, there were rumors that the Emperor of Russia sought to invade the Ottoman Empire, and the Greek Revolt seemed to make an invasion even more likely. The British foreign minister, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, as well as the Austrian foreign minister, Metternich, counselled the Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, not to enter the war. Instead, they pleaded that he maintain the Concert of Europe (the spirit of broad collaboration in Europe which had persisted since Napoleon’s defeat).
As the war continued into 1829, Russia gained a firm advantage over the Ottoman Empire. By prolonging hostilities further, however, Russia would have invited Austria to enter the war, causing considerable suspicion in Britain. Therefore, for the Russians to continue with the war in hopes of destroying the Ottoman Empire would have been inexpedient. At this stage, the King of France, Charles X, proposed the partition of the Ottoman Empire among Austria, Russia, and others, but his scheme was presented too late to produce a result.
Thus, Russia was able to secure neither a decisive defeat nor a partition of the Ottoman Empire and chose instead to degrade it to a mere dependency. In 1829, the Emperor of Russia concluded the Treaty of Adrianople with the Sultan; his empire was granted additional territory along the Black Sea, Russian commercial vessels were granted access to the Dardanelles, and the commercial rights of Russians in the Ottoman Empire were enhanced. The Greek War of Independence was terminated shortly thereafter as Greece was granted independence by the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832.
“The Russian Menace”
“The Russian menace: a Serio-Comic War Map for the Year 1877.” An English cartoon from 1877 showing Russia as a monstrous octopus devouring neighbouring lands, especially the Ottoman Empire. During much of the 19th century, Russia had considerable influence over the Ottomans.
“The Russian menace: a Serio-Comic War Map for the Year 1877” an English cartoon from 1877 showing Russia as a monstrous octopus devouring neighbouring lands, especially the Ottoman Empire.
The Crimean War
The Crimean War (1853–1856) was part of this long-running contest between the major European powers for influence over territories of the declining Ottoman Empire. It ended when the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. The immediate cause was the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, part of the Ottoman Empire. The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics while Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The longer-term causes were the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power at Ottoman expense.
The conflict began during the 1850s with a religious dispute. Under treaties negotiated during the 18th century, France was the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire while Russia was the protector of Orthodox Christians. For several years, however, Catholic and Orthodox monks had disputed possession of the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Palestine. During the early 1850s, the two sides made demands which the Sultan could not possibly satisfy simultaneously. In 1853, the Sultan adjudicated in favor of the French, despite the vehement protestations of the local Orthodox monks.
Germany and the Ottoman Empire
Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom she concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879. Germany also closely allied with the Ottoman Empire and reorganized the Ottoman military and financial system; in return, it received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured them access to several important economic markets and had the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area controlled by Britain. Germany was driven not only by commercial interests, but also by an imperialistic and militaristic rivalry with Britain. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs. Britain also reconciled with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente.
Balkan Wars
The continuing collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to two wars in the Balkans, in 1912 and 1913, which were a prelude to world war. By 1900 nation states had formed in Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia, but many of their ethnic compatriots lived under the control of the Ottoman Empire. In 1912, these countries formed the Balkan League. There were three main causes of the First Balkan War. The Ottoman Empire was unable to reform itself, govern satisfactorily, or deal with the rising ethnic nationalism of its diverse peoples. Second, the Great Powers quarreled among themselves and failed to ensure that the Ottomans would carry out the needed reforms. This led the Balkan states to impose their own solution. Most important, the members of the Balkan League were confident that it could defeat the Turks. Their prediction was accurate, as Constantinople called for terms after six weeks of fighting.
The First Balkan War broke out when the League attacked the Ottoman Empire on October 8, 1912 and was ended seven months later by the Treaty of London. After five centuries, the Ottoman Empire lost virtually all of its possessions in the Balkans.
34.1.3: Ataturk and Turkish Independence
The occupation of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies in the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the Turkish national movement under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal. This led to the Turkish War of Independence, which resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.
Learning Objective
Outline the path taken to a Turkish state and the role played by Ataturk
Key Points
After the Armistice of Mudros ended the Middle Eastern theater of World War I, the Allied forces began a process of occupying the defeated Ottoman Empire.
The occupation of Istanbul and Izmir by the Allies in the aftermath of WWI prompted the establishment of the Turkish National Movement under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a military commander who had distinguished himself during the Battle of Gallipoli.
The Turkish revolutionaries in the National Movement rebelled against the occupation and partitioning established by the Treaty of Sèvres, a conflict which became the Turkish War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923).
After the end of the Turkish-Armenian, Franco-Turkish, and Greco-Turkish fronts of the War of Independence, the Treaty of Sèvres was abandoned and the Treaties of Kars (October 1921) and Lausanne (July 1923) were signed.
The Allies left Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey decided on the establishment of a Republic in Turkey, which was declared on October 29, 1923.
Mustafa Kemal (later given the honorific Atatürk meaning “Father of the Turks”) became the first President of Turkey and embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state.
Key Terms
Atatürk’s Reforms
A series of political, legal, religious, cultural, social, and economic policy changes that were designed to convert the new Republic of Turkey into a secular, modern nation-state and implemented under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in accordance with Kemalist ideology. Central to these reforms were the belief that Turkish society would have to Westernize itself both politically and culturally in order to modernize.
The Turkish War of Independence
A war fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. It led to the founding of the Republic of Turkey.
Turkish National Movement
Encompasses the political and military activities of the Turkish revolutionaries that resulted in the creation and shaping of the modern Republic of Turkey, as a consequence of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent occupation of Constantinople and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies under the terms of the Armistice of Mudros.
Mustafa Kemal
A Turkish army officer, revolutionary, and founder of the Republic of Turkey, serving as its first President from 1923 until his death in 1938. His surname, Atatürk (meaning “Father of the Turks”), was granted to him in 1934 and forbidden to any other person by the Turkish parliament.
Overview
The occupation of some parts of the country by the Allies in the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the Turkish National Movement. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, a military commander who distinguished himself during the Battle of Gallipoli, the Turkish War of Independence was waged with the aim of revoking the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres. By September 18, 1922, the occupying armies were expelled. On November 1, the newly founded parliament formally abolished the Sultanate, thus ending 623 years of Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923, led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed “Republic of Turkey” as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923, in the new capital of Ankara. Mustafa Kemal became the republic’s first President of Turkey.
Background: Allied Occupation of Ottoman Empire
On October 30, 1918, the Armistice of Mudros was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of World War I, bringing hostilities in the Middle Eastern theater of World War I to a close. The treaty granted the Allies the right to occupy forts controlling the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus and the right to occupy “in case of disorder” any territory in case of a threat to security. Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe—the British signatory of the Mudros Armistice—stated the Triple Entente′s public position that they had no intention to dismantle the government of the Ottoman Empire or place it under military occupation by “occupying Constantinople.” However, dismantling the Ottoman government and partitioning the Ottoman Empire among the Allied nations was an objective of the Entente since the start of the war.
On November 13, 1918, a French brigade entered the city to begin the Occupation of Constantinople and its immediate dependencies, followed by a fleet consisting of British, French, Italian, and Greek ships deploying soldiers on the ground the next day. A wave of seizures by the Allies took place in the following months.
Turkish National Movement
The Turkish National Movement encompasses the political and military activities of the Turkish revolutionaries that resulted in the creation and shaping of the modern Republic of Turkey as a consequence of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent occupation of Constantinople and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies under the terms of the Armistice of Mudros.
The national forces were united around the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the authority of the Grand National Assembly set up in Ankara, which pursued the Turkish War of Independence. The movement gathered around a progressively defined political ideology generally termed “Kemalism.” Its basic principles stress the Republic, a form of government representing the power of the electorate, secular administration (laïcité), nationalism, a mixed economy with state participation in many sectors (as opposed to state socialism), and national modernization.
Turkish War of Independence
The Turkish War of Independence (May 19, 1919 – July 24, 1923) was fought between the Turkish nationalists and the proxies of the Allies – namely Greece on the Western front, Armenia on the Eastern, France on the Southern and with them, the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul) – after some parts of Turkey were occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I. Few of the present British, French, and Italian troops were deployed or engaged in combat.
After a series of battles during the Greco-Turkish war, the Greek army advanced as far as the Sakarya River, just eighty kilometers west of the GNA. On August 5, 1921, Mustafa Kemal was promoted to commander in chief of the forces by the GNA. The ensuing Battle of Sakarya was fought from August 23 to September 13, 1921 and ended with the defeat of the Greeks. After this victory, on September 19, 1921, Mustafa Kemal Pasha was given the rank of Mareşal and the title of Gazi by the Grand National Assembly. The Allies, ignoring the extent of Kemal’s successes, hoped to impose a modified version of the Treaty of Sèvres as a peace settlement on Ankara, but the proposal was rejected. In August 1922, Kemal launched an all-out attack on the Greek lines at Afyonkarahisar in the Battle of Dumlupınar and Turkish forces regained control of Smyrna on September 9, 1922. The next day, Mustafa Kemal sent a telegram to the League of Nations saying that the Turkish population was so worked up that the Ankara Government would not be responsible for massacres.
By September 18, 1922, the occupying armies were expelled, and the Ankara-based Turkish regime, which had declared itself the legitimate government of the country on April 23, 1920, started to formalize the legal transition from the old Ottoman into the new Republican political system. On November 1, 1922, the Turkish Parliament in Ankara formally abolished the Sultanate, ending 623 years of monarchical Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of July 24, 1923, led to international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed “Republic of Turkey” as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923, in Ankara, the country’s new capital. The Lausanne treaty stipulated a population exchange between Greece and Turkey in which 1.1 million Greeks left Turkey for Greece in exchange for 380,000 Muslims transferred from Greece to Turkey. On March 3, 1924, the Ottoman Caliphate was officially abolished and the last Caliph was exiled.
Turkish War of Independence
Clockwise from top left: Delegation gathered in Sivas Congress to determine the objectives of the National Struggle; Turkish people carrying ammunition to the front; Kuva-yi Milliye infantry; Turkish horse cavalry in chase; the Turkish army entering Izmir; last troops gathered in Ankara Ulus Square leaving for the front.
Clockwise from top left: Delegation gathered in Sivas Congress to determine the objectives of the National Struggle; Turkish people carrying ammunition to the front; Kuva-yi Milliye infantry; Turkish horse cavalry in chase; The Turkish army entering Izmir; last troops gathered in Ankara Ulus Square leaving for the front.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Presidency
Mustafa Kemal became the republic’s first President of Turkey and subsequently introduced many radical reforms with the aim of founding a new secular republic from the remnants of its Ottoman past. The Turkish parliament presented Mustafa Kemal with the honorific surname “Atatürk” (Father of the Turks) in 1934. For the first 10 years of the new regime, the country saw a steady process of secular Westernization through Atatürk’s Reforms, which included the unification of education; the discontinuation of religious and other titles; the closure of Islamic courts and the replacement of Islamic canon law with a secular civil code modeled after Switzerland’s and a penal code modeled after Italy’s; recognition of the equality between the sexes and the granting of full political rights to women on December 5, 1934; the language reform initiated by the newly founded Turkish Language Association; replacement of the Ottoman Turkish alphabet with the new Turkish alphabet derived from the Latin alphabet; the dress law outlawing the fez); the law on family names; and many others.
34.1.4: The Armenian Genocide
In 1915, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the mass deportation of ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces close to the Ottoman-Russian front. This resulted in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.
Learning Objective
Deconstruct the arguments for and against referring to these events as a genocide
Key Points
The ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire is widely considered a genocide, with an estimated 1.5 million victims. A wave of persecution in the years 1894 to 1896 eventually culminated in the events of the Armenian Genocide in 1915 and 1916.
With World War I in progress, the Ottoman Empire accused the (Christian) Armenians as liable to ally with Imperial Russia, and used this as a pretext to deal with the entire Armenian population as an enemy within their empire.
In 1915, as the Russian Caucasus Army continued to advance in eastern Anatolia, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the deportation of the ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces close to the Ottoman-Russian front. This resulted in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.
Widespread rape, mass burnings, drownings, and other atrocities were an integral part of the genocide.
Governments of Republic of Turkey have since consistently rejected charges of genocide, typically arguing either that those Armenians who died were simply in the way of a war or that killing Armenians was justified by their individual or collective support for the enemies of the Ottoman Empire.
There have been several movements, largely led by the Armenian Diaspora, to official recognize the events of 1915-1916 as a genocide (a termed coined in 1943 in response to these same events). Though this has received widespread academic and political support, it remains controversial.
Key Terms
Red Sunday
An event during the Armenian Genocide in which leaders of the Armenian community in the Ottoman capital of Constantinople, and later other locations, were arrested and moved to two holding centers near Ankara. The order to do so was given by Minister of the Interior Talaat Pasha on April 24, 1915. On that night, the first wave of 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals of Constantinople were arrested. Eventually, arrests and deportations totaled 2,345.
genocide
The United Nations Genocide Convention defines this as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” The term was coined in response to the mass deportation and killing of Armenians by the Ottomans.
Tehcir Law
A law passed by the Ottoman Parliament on May 27, 1915, authorizing the deportation of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population. The resettlement campaign resulted in the deaths of anywhere between 800,000 and more than 1.8 million civilians in what is commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide.
Overview
The Armenian Genocide was the Ottoman government’s systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, mostly Ottoman citizens within the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, the Republic of Turkey. The starting date is conventionally considered April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders from Constantinople to Ankara, the majority of whom were eventually murdered. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labor, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly, and the infirm on death marches to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government in the Assyrian genocide and the Greek genocide, and their treatment is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal policy. Most Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.
Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation to define systematic and premeditated exterminations within legal parameters and coin the word genocide in 1943. The Armenian Genocide is acknowledged as one of the first modern genocides, with scholars noting the organized manner in which the Armenians were eliminated. This is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.
Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide as an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. Recently, it has been faced with repeated calls to join the 29 countries that have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, along with most genocide scholars and historians.
Deportations, Death Marches, Rape, and Mass Burnings
By 1914, Ottoman authorities had already begun a propaganda drive to present Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire as a threat to security. An Ottoman naval officer in the War Office described the planning:
In order to justify this enormous crime the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul. [It included such statements as] ‘the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits [of the Dardanelles].’
On the night of April 23-24, 1915, known as Red Sunday, the Ottoman government rounded up and imprisoned an estimated 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders of the Ottoman capital, Constantinople, and later those in other centers, who were moved to two holding centers near Ankara. This date coincided with Allied troop landings at Gallipoli after unsuccessful Allied naval attempts to break through the Dardanelles to Constantinople in February and March 1915.
On May 29, 1915, the CUP Central Committee passed the Temporary Law of Deportation (“Tehcir Law”), giving the Ottoman government and military authorization to deport anyone it “sensed” as a threat to national security.
With the implementation of Tehcir Law, the confiscation of Armenian property and the slaughter of Armenians that ensued upon its enactment outraged much of the western world. While the Ottoman Empire’s wartime allies offered little protest, a wealth of German and Austrian historical documents has since come to attest to the witnesses’ horror at the killings and mass starvation of Armenians. In the United States, The New York Times reported almost daily on the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the process as “systematic”, “authorized” and “organized by the government.” Theodore Roosevelt would later characterize this as “the greatest crime of the war.”
The Armenians were marched out to the Syrian town of Deir ez-Zor and the surrounding desert. There is no evidence that the Ottoman government provided the extensive facilities and supplies that would have been necessary to sustain the life of hundreds of thousands of Armenian deportees during their forced march to the Syrian desert or after. By August 1915, The New York Times repeated an unattributed report that “the roads and the Euphrates are strewn with corpses of exiles, and those who survive are doomed to certain death. It is a plan to exterminate the whole Armenian people.” Authorities were completely aware that by abandoning the Armenian deportees in the desert they were condemning them to certain death.
Rape was an integral part of the genocide; military commanders told their men to “do to [the women] whatever you wish,” resulting in widespread sexual abuse. Deportees were displayed naked in Damascus and sold as sex slaves in some areas, including Mosul according to the report of the German consul there. This constituted an important source of income for accompanying soldiers and resulted in the deaths of girls and women left behind.
Eitan Belkind was a Nili member who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official, assigned to the headquarters of Kemal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians.
Lt. Hasan Maruf of the Ottoman army describes how a village’s population was taken together and burned. The Commander of the Third Army Vehib’s 12-page affidavit, dated December 5, 1918, was presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment. It reported a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Muş: “The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in the various camps was to burn them.” Vahakn Dadrian wrote that 80,000 Armenians in 90 villages across the Muş plain were burned in “stables and haylofts.”
While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western historians that more than 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Other estimates vary between 800,000 and 1,500,000.
Armenian Genocide
“Those who fell by the wayside. Scenes like this were common all over the Armenian provinces in the spring and summer months of 1915. Death in its several forms—massacre, starvation, exhaustion—destroyed the larger part of the refugees. The Turkish policy was that of extermination under the guise of deportation.”
Photo of dead Armenians lying in a field in 1915 during mass deportations.
Controversy and Terminology
According to Kemal Çiçek, the head of the Armenian Research Group at the Turkish Historical Society, in Turkey there is no official thesis on the Armenian issue. The Republic of Turkey’s formal stance is that the deaths of Armenians during the “relocation” or “deportation” cannot aptly be deemed “genocide,” a position with a plethora of diverging justifications: that the killings were not deliberate or systematically orchestrated; that the killings were justified because Armenians posed a Russian-sympathizing threat as a cultural group; that the Armenians merely starved to death; or various characterizations of marauding “Armenian gangs.”
As a response to continued denial by the Turkish state, many activists from Armenian Diaspora communities have pushed for formal recognition of the Armenian genocide from various governments around the world. Twenty-nine countries and forty-three U.S. states have adopted resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as a bona fide historical event. On March 4, 2010, a U.S. congressional panel narrowly voted that the incident was indeed genocide; within minutes the Turkish government issued a statement critical of “this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a crime it has not committed.”
The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, consisting of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the factuality of the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian Genocide happened before the term “genocide” was coined. English-language words and phrases used by contemporary accounts to characterize the event include “massacres,” “atrocities,” “annihilation,” “holocaust,” “the murder of a nation,” “race extermination,” and “a crime against humanity.”
Armenians After the Genocide: Diaspora
Following the breakup of the Russian Empire in the aftermath of World War I, Armenia was briefly an independent republic from 1918 to 1920. In late 1920, the communists came to power following an invasion of Armenia by the Red Army, and in 1922, Armenia became part of the Transcaucasian SFSR of the Soviet Union, later forming the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1936 to September 21, 1991). In 1991, Armenia declared independence from the USSR and established the second Republic of Armenia.
The modern Armenian diaspora was formed largely after World War I as a result of the Armenian Genocide. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took the region of Western Armenia. As a result of the Armenian Genocide, approximately half a million Armenians were forced to flee to different parts of the world and created new Armenian communities far from their native land. Through marriage and procreation, the number of Armenians in the diaspora who trace their lineage to those Armenians who survived and fled Western Armenia is now several million. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, approximately one million Armenians have joined the diaspora largely as a result of difficult economic conditions in Armenia.
34.2: Partition of the Ottoman Empire
34.2.1: The Sykes-Picot Agreement
The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire was planned in several secret agreements made by the Allies early in the course of World War I, notably the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916.
Learning Objective
Describe the Sykes-Picot Agreement
Key Points
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, with Russia assenting, that defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia, under control of the declining Ottoman Empire.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, and southern Iraq; France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits, and Armenia.
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations, still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
Many historians consider the borders created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement “artificial” and argue they have given rise to many conflicts in the region.
Key Terms
T. E. Lawrence
A British author, archaeologist, military officer, and diplomat. He was renowned for his liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia—a title used for the 1962 film based on his wartime activities.
Triple Entente
The understanding linking the Russian Empire, the French Third Republic, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente on August 31, 1907. The understanding between the three powers, supplemented by agreements with Japan and Portugal, constituted a powerful counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Kingdom of Italy, though Italy did not side with Germany and Austria during World War I.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
A jihadist unrecognised state and militant group that follows a fundamentalist doctrine of Sunni Islam. This group has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations and many individual countries. It is widely known for its videoed beheadings of both soldiers and civilians, including journalists and aid workers, and destruction of cultural heritage sites. The United Nations holds them responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International charged the group with ethnic cleansing on a “historic scale” in northern Iraq.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between Great Britain and France, to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916, and it was signed May 16, 1916. The deal was exposed to the public in 1917. The agreement is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.
The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia received Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.
Given Ottoman defeat in 1918 and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. An international administration was proposed for Palestine as part of the Acre-Haifa zone, intended to be an British enclave in northern Palestine to enable access to the Mediterranean. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946.
The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement; when the Bolsheviks published the agreement on November 23, 1917, after the Russian Revolution, “the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.”
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK’s promises to Arabs made through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.
Sykes-Picot Agreement
Map of Sykes-Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria, and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon’s letter to Sir Edward Grey, May 9, 1916.
Map of Sykes–Picot Agreement showing Eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria and Western Persia, and areas of control and influence agreed between the British and the French.
Consequences
Leading up to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, great interest was generated among the media and academia in the long-term effects of the agreement. It is frequently cited as having created “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without any regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, [which] has resulted in endless conflict.” The extent to which Sykes-Picot actually shaped the borders of the modern Middle East is disputed, and scholars often attribute instability in the region to other factors.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in a 2014 video titled End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.”
Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claimed further that ISIL affected the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.
34.2.2: The United Kingdom in the Middle East
During the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the British promised the international Zionist movement their support in recreating the historic Jewish homeland in Palestine via the Balfour declaration, a move that created much political conflict, still present today.
Learning Objective
Demonstrate how British interests in the Middle East affected the development of the region
Key Points
After secret talks and agreements leading up to and during World War I, at the end of the war the Allies founded the League of Nations, which divided the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence and legal mandates.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, one of the major secret agreements during the war, allocated to Britain control of the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre to allow access to the Mediterranean.
The explicit aims of the British and the other allies, was “the complete and final liberation of the peopls who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks.”
Key to these discussions, especially for the British, was the fate of Palestine and the Jewish people.
During World War I, Britain produced three contrasting statements regarding its ambitions for Palestine, which created conflict at the time and ever since.
Mandatory Palestine became the resulting political entity, under the rule of Britain until 1948.
Key Terms
Balfour Declaration
A letter dated November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It stated British support for “a national home for the Jewish people…”
League of Nations
An intergovernmental organization founded on January 10, 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. It was the first international organization whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. Other issues in this and related treaties included labor conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe.
Zionism
The national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land). It emerged in the late 19th century in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. Soon after this, most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
Mandatory Palestine
A geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948.
During World War I, continued Arab disquiet over Allied intentions led in 1918 to the British “Declaration to the Seven” and the “Anglo-French Declaration,” the latter promising “the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.”
The British were awarded three mandated territories by the League of Nations after WWI: Palestine, Mesopotamia (later Iraq), and control of the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan. A son of Sharif Hussein (who helped lead the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire), Faisal, was installed as King of Iraq, with Transjordan providing a throne for another of Hussein’s sons, Abdullah. Mandatory Palestine was placed under direct British administration, and the Jewish population was allowed to increase, initially under British protection. Most of the Arabian peninsula fell to another British ally, Ibn Saud, who created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
United Kingdom and Palestine
British support for an increased Jewish presence in Palestine, though idealistically embedded in 19th-century evangelical Christian feelings that the country should play a role in Christ’s Second Coming, was primarily geopolitical. Early British political support was precipitated in the 1830s and 1840s as a result of the Eastern Crisis after Muhammad Ali occupied Syria and Palestine. Though these calculations had lapsed as Theodor Herzl’s attempts to obtain international support for his project failed, WWI led to renewed strategic assessments and political bargaining regarding the Middle and Far East.
Zionism was first discussed at the British Cabinet level on November 9, 1914, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.” In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist and President of the Local Government Board Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.” He spoke of Zionist aspirations for a Jewish state in Palestine and of Palestine’s geographical importance to the British Empire. Samuel wrote in his memoirs: “I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. … I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk.”
James Balfour of the Balfour Declaration declared that: “The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”
During WWI, Britain produced three contrasting but feasibly compatible statements about their ambitions for Palestine.
Through British intelligence officer T. E. Lawrence (aka: Lawrence of Arabia), Britain supported the establishment of a united Arab state covering a large area of the Arab Middle East in exchange for Arab support of the British during the war. Thus, the United Kingdom agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honor Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans, but the two sides had different interpretations of this agreement. In the end the UK and France divided up the area under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Further confusing the issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising British support for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine.
At the war’s end the British and French set up a joint “Occupied Enemy Territory Administration” in what had been Ottoman Syria. The British achieved legitimacy for their continued control by obtaining a mandate from the League of Nations in June 1922. The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, “until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations’ consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine, which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Mandatory Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948. The land east of the Jordan, a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, gained independence in 1946.
In a 2002 interview with New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed “A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past… The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.”
Mandatory Palestine
The formal transfer of Jerusalem to British rule. A native priest reads the proclamation from the steps of the Tower of David.
The formal transfer of Jerusalem to British rule. A native priest reads the proclamation from the steps of the Tower of David.
34.2.3: France in the Middle East
After World War I, Syria and Lebanon became a French protectorate under the League of Nations Mandate System, a move that was met immediately with armed resistance from Arab nationalists.
Learning Objective
Connect French politics in the Middle East to the present day
Key Points
After WWI, Syria and Lebanon became a French protectorate (thinly disguised as a League of Nations Mandate).
French control was met immediately with armed resistance, so to combat Arab nationalism France divided the Mandate area into Lebanon and four sub-states.
Although there were uprisings in the respective states, the French purposefully gave different ethnic and religious groups in the Levant their own lands in the hopes of prolonging their rule, keeping the resistance to French rule divided and fragmented.
With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941.
Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but was not recognized as an independent republic until January 1, 1944 .
France bombed Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders, but continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and the British forced the French to evacuate their last troops on April 17, 1946.
Key Terms
League of Nations mandate
The legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League of Nations. Two governing principles formed the core of this system: non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.
Franco-Syrian War
A war that took place during 1920 between the Hashemite rulers of the newly established Arab Kingdom of Syria and France. During a series of engagements that climaxed in the Battle of Maysalun, French forces defeated the forces of the Hashemite monarch King Faisal and his supporters, entering Damascus on July 24, 1920. A new pro-French government was declared in Syria on July 25.
French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon
Officially, the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon (1923−1946), was a League of Nations mandate founded after the First World War for partitioning of the Ottoman Empire concerning Syria and the Lebanon. The Mandate system was considered the antithesis to colonialism, with the governing country acting as a trustee until the inhabitants were able to stand on their own. At that point, the Mandate would terminate and an independent state would be born.
When first arriving in Lebanon, the French were received as liberators by the Christian community, but as they entered Syria, they were faced with a strong resistance, and thus the mandate region was subdivided into six states: Damascus (1920), Aleppo (1920), Alawites (1920), Jabal Druze (1921), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1921, modern-day Hatay), and the State of Greater Lebanon (1920), which became later the modern country of Lebanon.
The drawing of those states was based in part on the sectarian makeup of Syria. However, nearly all the Syrian sects were hostile to the French mandate and the division it created, and there were numerous revolts in all of the Syrian states. Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, on the other hand, were a community with a dream of independence that was realized under the French; therefore, Greater Lebanon was the exception to the newly formed states.
Although there were uprisings in the respective states, the French purposefully gave different ethnic and religious groups in the Levant their own lands in the hopes of prolonging their rule. During this time of world decolonization, the French hoped to focus on fragmenting the various groups in the region, so the local population would not focus on a larger nationalist movement to dispose of colonial rule. In addition, administration of colonial governments was heavily dominated by the French. Local authorities were given very little power and did not have the authority to independently decide policy. The small amount of power that local leaders had could easily be overruled by French officials. The French did everything possible to prevent people in the Levant from developing self-sufficient governing bodies. In 1930, France extended its constitution on to Syria.
French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon
Map showing the states of the French Mandate from 1921–22.
Map showing the states of the French Mandate from 1921–22.
Rise in Conflict
With the defeat of Ottomans in Syria, British troops under General Sir Edmund Allenby entered Damascus in 1918 accompanied by troops of the Arab Revolt led by Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca.
The new Arab administration formed local governments in the major Syrian cities, and the pan-Arab flag was raised all over Syria. The Arabs hoped, with faith in earlier British promises, that the new state would include all the Arab lands stretching from Aleppo in northern Syria to Aden in southern Yemen.
However, in accordance with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France, General Allenby assigned the Arab administration only the interior regions of Syria (the eastern zone). On October 8, French troops disembarked in Beirut and occupied the Lebanese coastal region south to Naqoura (the western zone), replacing British troops there. The French immediately dissolved the local Arab governments in the region.
France demanded full implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, with Syria under its control. On November 26, 1919, British forces withdrew from Damascus to avoid confrontation, leaving the Arab government to face France.
Unrest erupted in Syria when Faisal accepted a compromise with French Prime Minister Clemenceau and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann over Jewish immigration to Palestine. Anti-Hashemite manifestations broke out and Muslim inhabitants in and around Mount Lebanon revolted with fear of being incorporated into a new, mainly Christian state of Greater Lebanon. Part of France’s claim to these territories in the Levant was that France was a protector of the minority Christian communities.
On April 25, 1920, the supreme inter-Allied council that was formulating the Treaty of Sèvres granted France the mandate of Syria (including Lebanon), and granted Britain the Mandate of Palestine (including Jordan) and Iraq. Syrians reacted with violent demonstrations, and a new government headed by Ali Rida al-Rikabi was formed on May 9, 1920. The new government decided to organize general conscription and began forming an army.
On July 14, 1920, General Gouraud issued an ultimatum to Faisal, giving him the choice between submission or abdication. Realizing that the power balance was not in his favor, Faisal chose to cooperate. However, the young minister of war, Youssef al-Azmeh, refused to comply. In the resulting Franco-Syrian War, Syrian troops under al-Azmeh met French forces under General Mariano Goybet at the Battle of Maysaloun. The French won the battle in less than a day. Azmeh died on the battlefield along with many of the Syrian troops. Goybet entered Damascus on July 24, 1920. The Mandate was written in London on July 24, 1922.
End of the Mandate
With the fall of France in 1940 during World War II, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French invaded and occupied the country in July 1941. Syria proclaimed its independence again in 1941 but it wasn’t until January 1, 1944, that it was recognized as an independent republic.
On September 27, 1941, France proclaimed, by virtue of and within the framework of the Mandate, the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian State. The proclamation said “the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act.”
There were protests in 1945 over the slow French withdrawal; the French responded to these protests with artillery. In an effort to stop the movement toward independence, French troops occupied the Syrian parliament in May 1945 and cut off Damascus’s electricity. Training their guns on Damascus’s old city, the French killed 400 Syrians and destroyed hundreds of homes. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and the British forced the French to evacuate the last of its troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that was formed during the mandate.
Although rapid economic development followed the declaration of independence, Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s were marked by upheaval. The early years of independence were marked by political instability.
34.2.4: The Discovery of Oil in the Middle East
The history of the discovery and production of oil in the Middle East exemplifies the “resource curse”: countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like oil, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.
Learning Objective
Analyze the consequences of the discovery of oil in the Middle East
Key Points
In March of 1908, after years of difficult conditions and failure, geologist George Bernard Reynolds discovered oil in Persia (modern-day Iran).
A year later, an oil company in the UK, Burmah Oil, created a subsidiary company to develop oil production in Persia, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), which started volume production of oil by 1913.
Britain’s Royal Navy was under the leadership of Winston Churchill, who wanted to shift its fuel source from coal to oil. The Navy thus became the company’s major customer and a de facto hidden power behind its success.
Iranian popular opposition to the APOC’s royalty terms whereby Iran only received 16% of net profits was widespread and created political discontent throughout the country.
In 1941, during World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, exiled Reza Shah, and put his son, Reza Pahlavi, who was friendlier to their interests, onto the throne.
Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise in the Middle East, most notably in Iran, and the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry; at the same time, the public elected Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister, causing the Abadan Crisis.
Britain was unable to subvert Mossadegh, so British and American intelligence agencies orchestrated a coup d’état to overthrow him and bring Reza Pahlavi back onto the throne.
By 1954, now with a pro-Western leader in place, oil production started again under the control of a new cartel named the “Seven Sisters,” completely based outside the Middle East.
Key Terms
“resource curse”
Also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the fact that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.
953 Iranian Coup
The overthrow of the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on August 19, 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name “Operation Boot”) and the United States (under the name “Operation Ajax”).
Red Line Agreement
The name given to an agreement signed by partners in the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) on July 31, 1928. The aim of the agreement was to formalize the corporate structure of TPC and bind all partners to a “self-denial clause” that prohibited any of its shareholders from independently seeking oil interests in the ex-Ottoman territory. It marked the creation of an oil monopoly, or cartel, of immense influence, spanning a vast territory.
Abadan Crisis
Occurred from 1951 to 1954 after Iran nationalized the Iranian assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and expelled Western companies from oil refineries in the city of Abadan.
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company
The history of the oil industry in Iran is representative of the effects of the discovery of oil in the Middle East, and a prime example of the “resource curse”: the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. It is characterized by political and military conflict, in this case caused by British and American interests in the oil industry.
On April 14, 1909, one year after geologist George Bernard Reynolds discovered oil in Persia (modern-day Iran), Burmah Oil created the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) as a subsidiary and sold shares to the public.
Volume production of Persian oil products eventually started in 1913 from a refinery built at Abadan, for its first 50 years the largest oil refinery in the world. In 1913, shortly before World War I, APOC managers negotiated with a new customer, Winston Churchill, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty of Britain. Churchill, as a part of a three-year expansion program, sought to modernize Britain’s Royal Navy by abandoning the use of coal-fired steamships and adopting oil as fuel for its ships instead. Although Britain had large reserves of coal, oil had advantages in better energy density, allowing a longer steaming range for a ship of the same bunker capacity. Further, Churchill wanted to free Britain from its reliance on the Standard Oil and Royal Dutch-Shell oil companies. In exchange for secure oil supplies for its ships, the British government injected new capital into the company and in doing so, acquired a controlling interest in APOC. The contract that was set up between the British Government and APOC was to hold for 20 years. The British government also became a de facto hidden power behind the oil company.
During this period, Iranian popular opposition to the D’Arcy oil concession and royalty terms whereby Iran only received 16% of net profits was widespread. Since industrial development and planning and other fundamental reforms were predicated on oil revenues, the government’s lack of control over the oil industry served to accentuate the Iranian Government’s misgivings regarding the manner in which APOC conducted its affairs in Iran.
In 1923, Burmah employed Winston Churchill as a paid consultant to lobby the British government to allow APOC to have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources, which were subsequently granted. In 1933, APOC made an agreement with Iran’s Reza Shah, which promised to give laborers better pay and more chance for advancement and build schools, hospitals, roads, and a telephone system. These promises were not kept. In 1935 APOC changed its name to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).
Political Instability and Military Intervention
Following Germany’s invasion of the USSR in June 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union became allies. Britain and the USSR saw the newly opened Trans-Iranian Railway as an attractive route to transport supplies, including oil, from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet Union. Britain and the USSR used concessions extracted in previous interventions to pressure Iran (and, in Britain’s case, Iraq) into allowing the use of their territory for military and logistical purposes. Increased tensions with Britain led to pro-German rallies in Tehran. In August 1941, because Reza Shah refused to expel all German nationals and come down clearly on the Allied side, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, arrested the monarch, and sent him into exile to South Africa, taking control of Iran’s communications and the coveted railway. They put Reza Shah’s son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi onto the Iranian/Persian throne. The new Shah soon signed an agreement pledging full non-military logistical cooperation with the British and Soviets in exchange for full recognition of his country’s independence and a promise to withdraw from Iran within six months of the war’s conclusion.
Following World War II, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise in the Middle East, especially Iranian nationalism. AIOC and the pro-western Iranian government led by Prime Minister Ali Razmara initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC’s concession terms further in Iran’s favor. In May 1949, Britain offered a “supplemental oil agreement” to appease unrest in the country, but it did not satisfy Iranian nationalists since it did not give them the right to audit the AIOC’s books. On March 7, 1951, Prime Minister Haj Haj Ali Razmara was assassinated by the Fadayan-e Islam. Fadayan-e Islam supported the demands of the National Front, which held a minority of seats in Parliament, to nationalize the assets of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalization, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister. This led to the Abadan Crisis in which foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil under British pressure and the Abadan refinery was closed. AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
As the months went on, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mossadegh backfired and led to riots against the Shah and perceived foreign intervention; Mossadegh returned with even greater power. At the same time, however, his coalition was weakening as Britain’s boycott of Iranian oil eliminated a major source of government revenue and strategically made Iranians poorer and thus unhappier by the day.
1953 Iranian Coup
Britain was unable to subvert Mossadegh as its embassy and officials had been evicted from Iran in October 1952. However, they successfully appealed to exaggerated anti-communist sentiments in the U.S., depicting both Mossadegh and Iran as unstable and likely to fall to communism as they weakened.
The anti-Mossadeq plan was orchestrated under the code-name “Operation Ajax” by the CIA, and “Operation Boot” by the British MI6. In August, the American CIA, with the help of bribes to politicians, soldiers, mobs, and newspapers and information from the British embassy and secret service, organized a riot which gave the Shah an excuse to remove Mossadegh.
The Shah seized the opportunity and issued an edict forcefully removing the immensely popular and democratically-elected Mossadegh from power when General Fazlollah Zahedi led tanks to Mossadegh’s residence and arrested him. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to death, but his sentence was later commuted to three years’ solitary confinement in a military prison followed by life in prison.
1953 Iranian Coup
Tanks in the streets of Tehran after the coup, 1953
Photo of a tank covered by men celebrating the Coup in the streets of Tehran, 1953
With a pro-Western Shah and the new pro-Western Prime Minister, Fazlollah Zahedi, Iranian oil began flowing again and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954, tried to return to its old position. However, public opinion was so opposed that the new government could not permit it.
Under pressure from the U.S., British Petroleum was forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies that would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. It was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants. This group of companies, all based outside the Middle East, came to be known as the “Seven Sisters” or the “Consortium for Iran” cartel and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s. Until the oil crisis of 1973, the members of the Seven Sisters controlled around 85% of the world’s known oil reserves. Afterward, the oil industry began to nationalize throughout the Middle East.
34.3: Israel and Palestine
34.3.1: Zionism
Zionism, the national movement for a Jewish homeland that resulted in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, has been controversial since its beginnings in the late 19th century.
Learning Objective
Explain the arguments for and against Zionism
Key Points
After thousands of years of the Jewish diaspora, with Jews living as minorities in countries across the globe, a movement called Zionism, with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland and sovereign state, emerged in the late 19th century.
The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in 1897 following the publication of his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State).
The movement was energized by rising anti-semitism in Europe and anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia and aimed at encouraging Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine.
The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel on May 14, 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people.
Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation to their ancestral homeland of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations.
Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist, racist, and exceptionalist ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the exodus of Palestinians and the subsequent denial of their human rights.
Key Terms
pogrom
A violent riot aimed at the massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. The term originally entered the English language to describe 19th and 20th century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire.
Theodor Herzl
An Austro-Hungarian journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer. He was one of the fathers of modern political Zionism. He formed the World Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish migration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state (Israel).
Ashkenazi Jews
A Jewish diaspora population who coalesced as a distinct community in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium. The traditional diaspora language is Yiddish.
Zionism: A Jewish Homeland
Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land).
After almost two millennia of the Jewish diaspora residing in various countries without a national state, the Zionist movement was founded in the late 19th century by secular Jews, largely as a response by Ashkenazi Jews to rising antisemitism in Europe, exemplified by the Dreyfus affair in France and the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in 1897 following the publication of his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to Ottoman Palestine.
Herzl considered antisemitism an eternal feature of all societies in which Jews lived as minorities, and that only a separation could allow Jews to escape eternal persecution. “Let them give us sovereignty over a piece of the Earth’s surface, just sufficient for the needs of our people, then we will do the rest!” he proclaimed.
Herzl proposed two possible destinations to colonize, Argentina and Palestine. He preferred Argentina for its vast and sparsely populated territory and temperate climate, but conceded that Palestine would have greater attraction because of the historic ties of Jews with that area. He also accepted to evaluate Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for possible Jewish settlement in Great Britain’s East African colonies.
Theodore Herzl
Theodor Herzl is considered the founder of the Zionist movement. In his 1896 book Der Judenstaat, he envisioned the founding of a future independent Jewish state during the 20th century.
A photo of the profile of Theodore Herzl.
Although initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation and antisemitism, Zionism expanded rapidly. In its early stages, supporters considered setting up a Jewish state in the historic territory of Palestine. After World War II and the destruction of Jewish life in Central and Eastern Europe where these alternative movements were rooted, Zionism became the dominant view about a Jewish national state.
Creating an alliance with Great Britain and securing support for Jewish emigration to Palestine, Zionists also recruited European Jews to immigrate there, especially those who lived in areas of the Russian Empire where anti-semitism was prevalent. The alliance with Britain was strained as the latter realized the implications of the Jewish movement for Arabs in Palestine, but the Zionists persisted. The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel on May 14, 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people. The proportion of the world’s Jews living in Israel has steadily grown since the movement emerged.
Until 1948, the primary goals of Zionism were the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, in-gathering of the exiles, and liberation of Jews from the antisemitic discrimination and persecution they experienced during their diaspora. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security.
Major aspects of the Zionist idea are represented in the Israeli Declaration of Independence:
The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses.
Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations to their ancestral homeland. Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist, racist, and exceptionalist ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the exodus of Palestinians and the subsequent denial of their human rights.
Opposition and Controversy
Zionism has been characterized as colonialism and criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, expelling and causing violence towards the Palestinians. Others view Zionism not as colonialist movement, but as a national movement that is contending with that of Palestine. David Hoffman rejected the claim that Zionism is a “settler-colonial undertaking” and instead characterized Zionism as a national program of affirmative action, adding that there is unbroken Jewish presence in Israel back to antiquity.
The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, stated that “There will be no discrimination among citizens of the Jewish state on the basis of race, religion, sex, or class.” However, critics of Zionism consider it a racist movement. According to historian Avi Shlaim, throughout its history up to present day, Zionism “is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population.” Some criticisms of Zionism claim that Judaism’s notion of the “chosen people” is the source of racism in Zionism.
In December 1973, the UN passed a series of resolutions condemning South Africa and included a reference to an “unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism.” At the time there was little cooperation between Israel and South Africa, although the two countries would develop a close relationship during the 1970s. Parallels have also been drawn between aspects of South Africa’s apartheid regime and certain Israeli policies toward the Palestinians that are seen as manifestations of racism in Zionist thinking.
Some critics of anti-Zionism have argued that opposition to Zionism can be hard to distinguish from antisemitism, and that criticism of Israel may be used as an excuse to express viewpoints that might otherwise be considered antisemitic.
On the other hand, anti-Zionist writers such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, and Tariq Ali have argued that the characterization of anti-Zionism as antisemitic is inaccurate, that it sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and actions, and that it is sometimes used as a political ploy in order to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.
Some antisemites have alleged that Zionism was or is part of a Jewish plot to take control of the world. One particular version of these allegations, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” achieved global notability. The protocols are fictional minutes of an imaginary meeting by Jewish leaders of this plot. Analysis and proof of their fraudulent origin goes as far back as 1921. A 1920 German version was extensively used as propaganda by the Nazis and remains widely distributed in the Arab world. The protocols are cited in the 1988 Hamas charter.
34.3.2: The Partitioning of Palestine
The UN Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations that recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States. It was rejected by the Palestinians, leading to a civil war and the end of the British Mandate.
Learning Objective
Analyze the partitioning of Palestine
Key Points
In 1923, the land of Palestine, previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire, was made a British Mandate by the League of Nations.
During WWI, the British made conflicting promises to the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine.
In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike, the British established the Peel Commission, which concluded that the Mandate was not working and proposed a partition of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States. The proposal was rejected by the Palestinians.
At the beginning of WWII, in 1939, the British put a limit on the immigration of Jews into Palestine.
After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration, which led to a new inquiry into partitioning Palestine.
By 1947, the British announced their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and placed the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, which developed a non-binding recommendation for independent Arab and Jewish states.
The proposal was rejected by the Palestinians and civil war broke out.
Key Terms
Arab League
A regional organization of Arab countries in and around North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Arabia. It was formed in Cairo on March 22, 1945 with six members: Kingdom of Egypt, Kingdom of Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Peel Commission
A British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Lord Peel, appointed in 1936 to investigate the causes of unrest in Mandatory Palestine. It was administered by Britain following the six-month-long Arab general strike in Mandatory Palestine.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
A 1947 proposal by the United Nations that recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate.
Jihad
An Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain and spread the religion.
Background and Early Proposals for Partition
The British administration was formalized by the League of Nations under the Palestine Mandate in 1923 as part of the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the Balfour Declaration for the establishment in Palestine of a “National Home” for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out. A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews.
In 1937, following a six-month Arab General Strike and armed insurrection that aimed to pursue national independence and secure the country from foreign control, the British established the Peel Commission. The Jewish population had been attacked during the Arab revolt, leading to the idea that the two populations could not be reconciled. The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become unworkable, and recommended Partition into an Arab state linked to Transjordan, a small Jewish state, and a mandatory zone.
To address problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area, the Commission suggested a land and population transfer involving the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory “in the last resort.” The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants. The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.”
The British Woodhead Commission was set up to examine the practicality of partition. The Peel plan was rejected and two possible alternatives were considered. In 1938 the British government issued a policy statement declaring that “the political, administrative and financial difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and Jewish States inside Palestine are so great that this solution of the problem is impracticable.” Representatives of Arabs and Jews were invited to London for the St. James Conference, which proved unsuccessful.
MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that it was “not part of [the British government’s] policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State,” and sought to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine and restricted Arab land sales to Jews. However, the League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations. The Jewish Agency hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism. Aliyah Bet was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi-controlled Europe despite British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish organization that opposed the British.
After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine, but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and organized an armed resistance. These actions and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, a repeal of the White Paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish, and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. U.S. endorsed the Commission findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions, while the U.K. conditioned its implementation on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt. In effect, the British continued to carry out White Paper policy. The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states and calls for a Jihad and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
By 1947, the British announced their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and placed the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on May 15, 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and surveyed the situation in Palestine, then issued a report on August 31 recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem placed under international administration.
On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, to adopt a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders regardless of race, religion, or gender. Both the United States and Soviet Union supported the resolution. The five members of the Arab League, who were voting members at the time, voted against the Plan.
The Jewish Agency, the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news.
The partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leadership and by most of the Arab population. Meeting in Cairo on November and December 1947, the Arab League adopted a series of resolutions endorsing a military solution to the conflict.
Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on May 14, 1948.
Some Jewish organizations also opposed the proposal. Irgun leader Menachem Begin announced, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.” These views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state.
Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, a civil war broke out and the UN plan was not implemented.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine 1947
A map of the UN plan for partitioning Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem.
The proposed plan divided Palestine into three parts: an Arab State, a Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western Galilee, with the town of Acre, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, an enclave at Jaffa, and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the Gaza Strip, with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. The proposed Jewish State would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain, stretching from Haifa to Rehovot and most of the Negev desert, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now Eilat). The Jerusalem Corpus Separatum included Bethlehem and the surrounding areas.
34.3.3: The Jewish State
The “Jewish state” is a political term used to describe the nation state of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, but the religious versus secular usage of the term and its possible exclusionary implications have been debated since the founding of Israel in 1948.
Learning Objective
Define and describe “the Jewish State”
Key Points
Since the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism, there were waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, but during WWII and the Holocaust, the urgency of Jewish migration out of Europe heightened in conflict with the limits placed on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939.
After World War II, Britain found itself in intense conflict with the Jewish community over immigration, as well as continued conflict with the Arab community.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine, which was rejected by the Palestinians and resulted the outbreak of civil war.
On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”
The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which continued for one year until a cease-fire.
The term “Jewish state” has been in common usage in the media since the establishment of Israel, and the term was used interchangeably with Israel.
Key Terms
Eretz-Israel
The traditional Jewish name for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious, and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine.
Nuremberg Laws
Antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced on September 15, 1935, by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households, and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens. The remainder were classed as state subjects, without citizenship rights.
David Ben-Gurion
The primary founder of the State of Israel and the first Prime Minister of Israel. On May 14, 1948, he formally proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel and was the first to sign the Israeli Declaration of Independence, which he helped write. He led Israel during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and united the various Jewish militias into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Subsequently, he became known as “Israel’s founding father.”
The Founding of Israel
In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany, and in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws made German Jews (and later Austrian and Czech Jews) stateless refugees. Similar rules were applied by the many Nazi allies in Europe. The subsequent growth in Jewish migration and the impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world led to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Britain established the Peel Commission to investigate the situation. The commission did not consider the situation of Jews in Europe, but called for a two-state solution and compulsory transfer of populations. Britain rejected this solution and instead implemented the White Paper of 1939. This planned to end Jewish immigration by 1944 and allow no more than 75,000 additional Jewish migrants. This was disastrous to European Jews, who were already gravely discriminated against and in need of refuge. The British maintained this policy until the end of the Mandate.
During World War II, as the horrors of the Holocaust became known, the Zionist leadership formulated the One Million Plan, a reduction from Ben-Gurion’s previous target of two million immigrants. Following the end of the war, a massive wave of stateless Jews, mainly Holocaust survivors, began migrating to Palestine in small boats in defiance of British rules. The Holocaust united much of the rest of world Jewish community behind the Zionist project. The British either imprisoned these Jews in Cyprus or sent them to the British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. The British, having faced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt against mass Jewish immigration into Palestine, were now facing opposition by Zionist groups in Palestine for subsequent restrictions.
After World War II, Britain found itself in intense conflict with the Jewish community over Jewish immigration limits, as well as continued conflict with the Arab community over limit levels. The Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, prepared an armed struggle against British rule.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. This specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and an area of Jerusalem to be administered by the UN under an international regime. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on May 14, 1948, but the Palestinians rejected the plan.
On December 1, 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab gangs began attacking Jewish targets. The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but in early April 1948 moved onto the offensive. The Arab Palestinian economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.
On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.” The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term Eretz-Israel (“Land of Israel”).
Declaration of the State of Israel
David Ben-Gurion proclaiming the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948.
David Ben-Gurion proclaiming the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. He stands at a conference table, surrounded by people. Above him hangs a picture of Theodor Herzl.
The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandatory Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Contingents from Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Sudan also joined the war. The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception, and some Arab leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea. According to Benny Morris, Jews felt that the invading Arab armies aimed to slaughter the Jews. The Arab League stated that the invasion was to restore law and order and prevent further bloodshed.
After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by or fled from advancing Israeli forces during the conflict—what would become known in Arabic as the Nakba (“catastrophe”).
The Jewish State
The “Jewish state” is a political term used to describe the nation state of Israel. The state of Israel defined itself in its declaration of independence as a “Jewish state,” a term that appeared in the United Nations partition decision of 1947. The term has been in common usage in the media since the establishment of Israel and is used interchangeably with Israel.
Since its establishment, Israel has passed many laws which reflect on the Jewish identity and values of the majority (about 75% in 2016) of its citizens. However, the secular versus religious debate in Israel in particular has focused debate on the Jewish nature of the state. Another aspect of the debate is the status of minorities in Israel, most notably the Israeli Arab population.
There has been ongoing debate in Israel about whether the state should recognize more Jewish culture, encourage Judaism in schools, and enshrine certain laws of Kashrut and Shabbat observance. This debate reflects a historical divide within Zionism and among the Jewish citizens of Israel, which has large secular and traditional/Orthodox minorities as well as a majority that lies somewhere in between.
Secular Zionism, the historically dominant stream, is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a people with a right to self-determination, and to have a state where they would be unafraid of antisemitic attacks and live in peace.
The notion that Israel should be constituted in the name of and maintain a special relationship with a particular group of people, the Jewish people, has drawn much controversy vis-à-vis minority groups living in Israel – the large number of Muslim and Christian Palestinians residing in Israel and, to the extent that those territories are claimed to be governed as part of Israel and not as areas under military occupation, in the West Bank and Gaza. For example, the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah, refers to Jews by name as well as alluding to the concept of Zionism, and contains no mention of Palestinian Arab culture. This anthem therefore excludes non-Jews from its narrative of national identity. Similar criticism has been made of the Israeli flag which resembles the Tallit (a Jewish prayer shawl) and features a Star of David, universally acknowledged as a symbol of Judaism. Critics of Israel as a Jewish state, particularly a nation state, have suggested that it should adopt more inclusive and neutral symbolism.
34.3.4: Palestinian Refugees
During the 1948 Palestine War, around 85% (720,000 people) of the Palestinian Arab population of what became Israel were expelled from their homes, fleeing to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.
Learning Objective
Trace the Palestinian refugee populations in places such as Jordan
Key Points
During the Palestine War of 1948, the first phase of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, 85% of the Palestinian Arab population fled from their homes in what became known as the Palestinian Exodus of 1948.
There is heated debate among historians and politicians as to the causes of the Exodus, and the status of this debate has bearing on the claim of Palestinians to their land.
The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge.
Displaced Palestinian Arabs, known as Palestinian refugees, were settled in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Arab world, with most fleeing to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.
Most Arab nations denied citizenship to the Palestinian refugees, except in Jordan, where most have citizenship or the equivalent rights of citizens.
In a 2007 study, Amnesty International denounced the “appalling social and economic condition” of Palestinians in Lebanon.
Key Terms
Palestinian Exodus of 1948
Also known as the Nakba, this event occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes during the 1948 Palestine war.
refugee
A displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and cannot return home safely because of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Gaza Strip
A small, self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, bordering Egypt on the southwest for 6.8 miles and Israel on the east and north along a 32-mile border. Together with the West Bank, it comprises the territories claimed by the Palestinians as the State of Palestine.
West Bank
A landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories. It shares a border with Jordan across the Jordan River.
Palestinian Exodus of 1948
During the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War that followed, around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (85% of the population) fled or were expelled from their homes, out of approximately 1.2 million Arabs living in former British Mandate of Palestine. This event was known as the Nakba (Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe”).
This number did not include displaced Palestinians inside Israeli-held territory. More than 400 Arab villages and about ten Jewish villages and neighborhoods were depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict, most of during 1948. According to estimates based on earlier census, the total Muslim population in Palestine was 1,143,336 in 1947. After the war, around 156,000 Arabs remained in Israel and became Israeli citizens.
The causes of the exodus are a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare, and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre, which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes; collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders; and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.
In the years after, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Arabs from returning to their homes or claiming their property. Most remained refugees, as do their descendants. The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge.
The Palestinian refugee problem and debate about the Palestinian right of return are also major issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinians and their supporters have staged annual demonstrations and commemorations on May 15 of each year, which is known to them as “Nakba Day.” The popularity and number of participants in these annual Nakba demonstrations has varied over time.
Palestinian Exodus
Palestine refugees making their way from their former homes in Galilee, October–November 1948
Palestine refugees making their way from Galilee in October–November 1948
Life After the Exodus
Displaced Palestinian Arabs, known as Palestinian refugees, were settled in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the Arab world. Most fled to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The United Nations established UNRWA as a relief and human development agency tasked with providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees. Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees, instead keeping them in refugee camps while insisting that they be allowed to return.
Refugee status was also passed to their descendants, who were also largely denied citizenship in Arab states except in Jordan. The Arab League instructed its members to deny Palestinians citizenship “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right of return to their homeland.” More than 1.4 million Palestinians still live in 58 recognized refugee camps, while more than 5 million Palestinians live outside Israel and the Palestinian territories.
More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan. Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship. The percentage of Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps to those who settled outside the camps is the lowest of all UNRWA fields of operations. Palestine refugees are allowed access to public services and health care, as a result, refugee camps are becoming more like poor city suburbs than refugee camps. Most Palestine refugees moved out of the camps to other parts of the country. Following the capture of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, Jordan revoked the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians to thwart any attempt to permanently resettle from the West Bank to Jordan. West Bank Palestinians with family in Jordan or Jordanian citizenship were issued yellow cards guaranteeing them all the rights of Jordanian citizenship if requested.
100,000 Palestinians fled to Lebanon because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and were not allowed to return. As of January 2015, there are 452,669 registered refugees in Lebanon.
In a 2007 study, Amnesty International denounced the “appalling social and economic condition” of Palestinians in Lebanon. Until 2005, Palestinians were forbidden to work in over 70 jobs because they do not have Lebanese citizenship, but this was later reduced to around 20 as of 2007 after liberalization laws. In 2010, Palestinians were granted the same rights to work as other foreigners in the country.
Lebanon gave citizenship to about 50,000 Christian Palestinian refugees during the 1950s and 1960s. In the mid-1990s, about 60,000 Shiite Muslim refugees were granted citizenship. This caused protest from Maronite authorities, leading to citizenship being given to all Christian refugees who were not already citizens.
34.3.5: The Six-Day War
The Six-Day War, which had its origins in the ongoing tense relations between Israel and its neighboring Arab nations, was a decisive victory for Israel, tripling its territory from before the war.
Learning Objective
Describe the events of the Six-Day War
Key Points
Relations between Israel and its neighboring Arab nations had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, fought immediately after the Israel declared itself an independent nation-state.
Issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis and the Suez Crisis of 1956 created an antagonistic stance toward Israel throughout the Arab world, and by June 1967, tensions were at their height.
In reaction to the mobilization of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields, which destroyed nearly the entire Egyptian air force .
Egypt, pretending they won the initial battles, convinced Jordan and then Syria to enter the war, which also resulted in Israeli victories.
At the end of the war, six days later, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Israeli morale and international prestige was greatly increased by the outcome of the war, but their over-confidence may have contributed to future military losses against Egypt in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
Key Terms
Yom Kippur War
A war fought by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The fighting mostly took place in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories that had been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wanted also to reopen the Suez Canal. Neither specifically planned to destroy Israel, although the Israeli leaders could not be sure of that.
1948 Arab–Israeli War
A war between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states, forming the second stage of the 1948 Palestine war. The ongoing civil war between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine transformed into an interstate conflict between Israel and the Arab states following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine.
The Six-Day War, also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria.
Relations between Israel and its neighbors had never fully normalized following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. In the period leading up to June 1967, tensions became dangerously heightened. In reaction to the mobilization of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields. The Egyptians were caught by surprise, and nearly the entire Egyptian air force was destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving the Israelis air superiority. Simultaneously, the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, which again caught the Egyptians by surprise. After some initial resistance, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the evacuation of the Sinai. Israeli forces rushed westward in pursuit of the Egyptians, inflicted heavy losses, and conquered the Sinai.
Nasser induced Syria and Jordan to begin attacks on Israel by using the initially confused situation to claim that Egypt defeated the Israeli air strike. Israeli counterattacks resulted in the seizure of East Jerusalem and the West Bank from the Jordanians, while Israel’s retaliation against Syria resulted in its occupation of the Golan Heights.
On June 11, a ceasefire was signed. Arab casualties were far heavier than those of Israel: fewer than a thousand Israelis were killed compared to over 20,000 from the Arab forces. Israel’s military success was attributed to the element of surprise, an innovative and well-executed battle plan, and the poor quality and leadership of the Arab forces. As a result of the war, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Israeli morale and international prestige were greatly increased by the outcome of the war, and the area under Israeli control tripled. However, the speed and ease of Israel’s victory would lead to a dangerous overconfidence within the ranks of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), contributing to initial Arab successes in the subsequent 1973 Yom Kippur War. The displacement of civilian populations resulting from the war would have long-term consequences, as 300,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank and about 100,000 Syrians left the Golan to become refugees. Across the Arab world, Jewish minority communities were expelled, with refugees going to Israel or Europe.
Results of the Six-Day War
Territory held by Israel before and after the Six Day War. Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Map of Israel and the land seized during the Six-Day War, including the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
Origins of the Conflict
The origins of the Six-Day War include both longstanding and immediate issues. At this time, the earlier foundation of Israel, the resulting Palestinian refugee issue, and Israel’s participation in the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956 were significant grievances for the Arab world. Arab nationalists, led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, continued to be hostile to Israel’s existence and made grave threats against its Jewish population. By the mid-1960s, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors had deteriorated to the extent that a number of border clashes had taken place.
In April 1967, Syria shot at an Israeli tractor plowing in the demilitarized zone, which escalated to a prewar aerial clash. In May 1967, following misinformation about Israeli intentions provided by the Soviet Union, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers who had been stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since the Suez conflict, and announced a blockade of Israel’s access to the Red Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran, which Israel considered an act of war. Tension escalated, with both sides’ armies mobilizing. Less than a month later, Israel launched a surprise strike which began the Six-Day War.
Aftermath
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was able and willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would launch an attack in 1973 in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory.
Following the war, Israel experienced a wave of national euphoria, and the press praised the military’s performance for weeks afterward. New “victory coins” were minted to celebrate. In addition, the world’s interest in Israel grew, and the country’s economy, which had been in crisis before the war, flourished due to an influx of tourists and donations, as well as the extraction of oil from the Sinai’s wells.
In the Arab nations, populations of minority Jews faced persecution and expulsion following the Israeli victory. According to historian and ambassador Michael B. Oren:
Mobs attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco, burning synagogues and assaulting residents. A pogrom in Tripoli, Libya, left 18 Jews dead and 25 injured; the survivors were herded into detention centers. Of Egypt’s 4,000 Jews, 800 were arrested, including the chief rabbis of both Cairo and Alexandria, and their property sequestered by the government. The ancient communities of Damascus and Baghdad were placed under house arrest, their leaders imprisoned and fined. A total of 7,000 Jews were expelled, many with merely a satchel.
Following the war, Israel made an offer for peace that included the return of most of the recently captured territories. According to Chaim Herzog:
On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.
In September, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.” However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centered on the question of Israel’s legitimacy to one focusing on territories and boundaries.
34.4: The Monarchies of the Middle East
34.4.1: Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy organized around Sunni Islam and home to the second largest oil reserves in the world, has enjoyed friendly relations with the West, especially the United States.
Learning Objective
Review the history of the Saudi royal family and how they have stayed in power
Key Points
Saudi Arabia, which was unified from four regions in 1932 by its first king, Ibn Saud, was once one of the poorest nations in the world, but quickly became one of the wealthiest in the Arab world after the discovery of massive oil reserves in 1938.
Since then, its stated foreign policy objectives are to maintain its security and its paramount position on the Arabian Peninsula, and as the world’s largest exporter of oil, to maintain cooperative relations with other oil-producing and major oil-consuming countries.
Consequently, it has enjoyed good relations with the West, especially the United States, as a strategic energy and security ally.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute hereditary monarchy, governed by a king, and the royal family dominates the political system.
The royal family’s vast numbers allow it to control most of the kingdom’s important posts and be involved and present at all levels of government.
The ultraconservative Wahhabi religious movement within Sunni Islam has been called “the predominant feature of Saudi culture,” with its global spread largely financed by the oil and gas trade.
Key Terms
Sunni Islam
The largest denomination of Islam. Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The differences between this sect and Shia Muslims arose from a disagreement over the choice of Muhammad’s successor and subsequently acquired broader political significance, as well as theological and juridical dimensions.
absolute monarchy
A form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority that is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. These are often, but not always, hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state’s authority derives from and is legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.
Saudi Arabia, officially known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is an Arab state in Western Asia constituting the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula. The area of modern-day Saudi Arabia formerly consisted of four distinct regions: Hejaz, Najd, and parts of Eastern Arabia (Al-Ahsa), and Southern Arabia (‘Asir). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932 by Ibn Saud. He united the four regions into a single state through a series of conquests beginning in 1902 with the capture of Riyadh, the ancestral home of his family, the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia has since been an absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamic lines. The ultraconservative Wahhabi religious movement within Sunni Islam has been called “the predominant feature of Saudi culture,” with its global spread largely financed by the oil and gas trade. Saudi Arabia is sometimes called “the Land of the Two Holy Mosques” in reference to Al-Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca) and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi (in Medina), the two holiest places in Islam.
The new kingdom was one of the poorest countries in the world, reliant on limited agriculture and pilgrimage revenues. In 1938, vast reserves of oil were discovered in the Al-Ahsa region along the coast of the Persian Gulf, and full-scale development of the oil fields began in 1941 under the U.S.-controlled Aramco (Arabian American Oil Company). Oil provided Saudi Arabia with economic prosperity and substantial political leverage internationally. Saudi Arabia has since become the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, controlling the world’s second largest oil reserves and the sixth largest gas reserves. The kingdom is categorized as a World Bank high-income economy with a high Human Development Index, and is the only Arab country to be part of the G-20 major economies. However, the economy of Saudi Arabia is the least diversified in the Gulf Cooperation Council, lacking any significant service or production sector (apart from the extraction of resources). The country has attracted criticism for its restrictions on women’s rights and usage of capital punishment.
Oil in Saudi Arabia
Dammam No. 7, the first commercial oil well in Saudi Arabia, struck oil on March 4, 1938. Saudi Arabia has since become the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, controlling the world’s second largest oil reserves, and the sixth largest gas reserves.
Photograph of Dammam No. 7
Politics: Absolute Monarchy
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country’s constitution. No political parties or national elections are permitted. Critics regard it as a totalitarian dictatorship.
In the absence of national elections and political parties, politics in Saudi Arabia takes place in two distinct arenas: within the royal family, the Al Saud, and between the royal family and the rest of Saudi society. Outside of the Al-Saud, participation in the political process is limited to a relatively small segment of the population and takes the form of the royal family consulting with the ulema, tribal sheikhs, and members of important commercial families on major decisions. This process is not reported by the Saudi media.
The king combines legislative, executive, and judicial functions and royal decrees form the basis of the country’s legislation. The king is also the prime minister and presides over the Council of Ministers (Majlis al-Wuzarāʾ), which comprises the first and second deputy prime ministers and other ministers.
The royal family dominates the political system. The family’s vast numbers allow it to control most of the kingdom’s important posts and be involved and present at all levels of government. The number of princes is estimated to be at least 7,000, with most power and influence being wielded by the 200 or so male descendants of Ibn Saud. The key ministries are generally reserved for the royal family, as are the thirteen regional governorships. The royal family is politically divided by factions based on clan loyalties, personal ambitions, and ideological differences.
Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the first king of Saudi Arabia, ruled for 21 years. In 1953, Saud of Saudi Arabia succeeded as the king of Saudi Arabia upon his father’s death, until 1964 when he was deposed in favor of his half brother Faisal of Saudi Arabia, after an intense rivalry, fueled by doubts in the royal family over Saud’s competence. In 1975, Faisal was assassinated by his nephew, Prince Faisal bin Musaid, and was succeeded by his half-brother King Khalid. King Khalid died of a heart attack in June 1982. He was succeeded by his brother, King Fahd, who added the title “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” to his name in 1986 in response to considerable fundamentalist pressure to avoid use of “majesty” in association with anything except God.
Fahd continued to develop close relations with the United States and increased the purchase of American and British military equipment. In response to civil unrest, a number of limited “reforms” were initiated by King Fahd. In March 1992, he introduced the “Basic Law”, which emphasized the duties and responsibilities of a ruler. In December 1993, the Consultative Council was inaugurated. It is composed of a chairman and 60 members—all chosen by the King to respond to dissent while making as few actual changes in the status quo as possible.
In 2005, King Fahd died and was succeeded by Abdullah, who continued the policy of minimum reform and clamping down on protests. The king introduced a number of economic reforms aimed at reducing the country’s reliance on oil revenue: limited deregulation, encouragement of foreign investment, and privatization. In 2015, Abdullah was succeeded as king by his half-brother Salman.
Foreign Relations
Saudi Arabia is a non-aligned state whose stated foreign policy objectives are to maintain its security and paramount position on the Arabian Peninsula, and as the world’s largest exporter of oil, to maintain cooperative relations with other oil-producing and major oil-consuming countries.
Saudi Arabian stated policy is focused on cooperation with the oil-exporting Gulf States, the unity of the Arab world, Islamic strength and solidarity, and support for the United Nations. In practice, the main concerns in recent years have been relations with the United States, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, the perceived threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the effect of oil pricing, and using its oil wealth to increase the influence of Islam and especially the conservative school of Islam supported by the country’s rulers.
United States recognized the government of King Ibn Saud in 1931. In the 1930s, oil exploration by Standard Oil commenced. There was no U.S. ambassador resident in Saudi Arabia until 1943, but as World War II progressed, the United States began to believe that Saudi oil was of strategic importance.
In 1951, under a mutual defense agreement, the U.S. established a permanent U.S. Military Training Mission in the kingdom and agreed to provide training support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. This agreement formed the basis of a longstanding security relationship. The United States is one of Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partners and closest allies, with full diplomatic relations since 1933 that remain strong today. However, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States has been put under pressure since late 2013 after the United States backed from its intervention in the Syrian Civil War and thawed relations with Iran.
34.4.2: Jordan
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy known as one of the safest and most hospitable countries in the region, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with an estimated 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in there.
Learning Objective
Describe the Jordanian monarchy and some characteristics of the regime
Key Points
Jordan is an Arab kingdom in the Middle East, strategically located at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, with a king (currently Abdullah II) and a prime minister.
The king appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution after passing by both parliaments, declares war, and acts as the supreme leader of the armed forces; the king may also dissolve parliament and dismiss the government at his discretion.
Jordan is considered to be among the safest of Arab countries in the Middle East and has avoided long-term terrorism and instability.
In the midst of surrounding turmoil, Jordan has been greatly hospitable, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in the country.
Jordan is a key ally of the United States and UK, and together with Egypt is one of only two Arab nations to have signed peace treaties with Israel, Jordan’s direct neighbor.
Key Terms
constitutional monarchy
A form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy (in which a monarch holds absolute power), in that the monarchs are bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed by an established legal framework.
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
An international organization founded in 1969 consisting of 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion as of 2008. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”
Gulf War
A war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
Jordan, officially The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is an Arab kingdom in Western Asia on the East Bank of the Jordan River. Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the east and south, Iraq to the northeast, Syria to the north, Israel, Palestine, and the Dead Sea to the west and the Red Sea to its extreme southwest. Jordan is strategically located at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The capital, Amman, is Jordan’s most populous city as well as the country’s economic, political, and cultural center.
What is now Jordan has been inhabited by humans since the Paleolithic period. Three stable kingdoms emerged there at the end of the Bronze Age: Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Later rulers include the Nabataean Kingdom, the Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. After the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in 1916 during World War I, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned by Britain and France. The Emirate of Transjordan was established in 1921 by then Emir Abdullah I and became a British protectorate. In 1946, Jordan became an independent state officially known as The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Jordan captured the West Bank during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the name of the state was changed to The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1949. Jordan is a founding member of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and is one of two Arab states to have signed a peace treaty with Israel. The country is a constitutional monarchy, but the king holds wide executive and legislative powers.
Jordan is a relatively small, semi-arid, almost landlocked country with a population numbering at 9.5 million. Sunni Islam, practiced by around 92% of the population, is the dominant religion and coexists with an indigenous Christian minority. Jordan is considered among the safest Arab countries in the Middle East and has avoided long-term terrorism and instability. In the midst of surrounding turmoil, it has been greatly hospitable, accepting refugees from almost all surrounding conflicts as early as 1948, with an estimated 2.1 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Syrian refugees residing in the country. The kingdom is also a refuge to thousands of Iraqi Christians fleeing the Islamic State. While Jordan continues to accept refugees, the recent large influx from Syria placed substantial strain on national resources and infrastructure.
Jordan is classified as a country of “high human development” with an “upper middle income” economy. The Jordanian economy, one of the smallest in the region, is attractive to foreign investors because of its skilled workforce. The country is a major tourist destination, and attracts medical tourism to its well-developed health sector. Nonetheless, a lack of natural resources, large flow of refugees, and regional turmoil have crippled economic growth.
Politics of Jordan
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, but the King holds wide executive and legislative powers. He serves as head of state and commander-in-chief and appoints the prime minister and heads of security directorates. The prime minister is free to choose his own cabinet and regional governors. However, the king may dissolve parliament and dismiss the government.
The Parliament of Jordan consists of two chambers: the upper Senate and the lower House of Representatives. All 65 members of the Senate are directly appointed by the king, they are usually veteran politicians or held previous positions in the House of Representatives or government. The 130 members of the House of Representatives are elected through proportional representation in 23 constituencies on nationwide party lists for a 4-year election cycle. Minimum quotas exist in the House of Representatives for women (15 seats, though they won 20 seats in the 2016 election), Christians (9 seats), and Circassians and Chechens (3 seats). Three constituencies are allocated for the Bedouins of the northern, central, and southern Badias. The king appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution after passing by both parliaments, declares war, and acts as the supreme leader of the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The Cabinet, led by a prime minister, was formerly appointed by the king, but following the 2011 Jordanian protests, King Abdullah agreed to an elected cabinet. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy; a two-thirds vote of “no confidence” by the Chamber can force the cabinet to resign.
King Hussein ruled Jordan from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the Jordanians and Palestinian communities in Jordan. King Hussein ended martial law in 1989 and ended suspension on political parties that was initiated following the loss of the West Bank to Israel and to preserve the status quo in Jordan. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997, 2011, and 2013 elections.
King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter’s death in February 1999. Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the United States. During his first year in power, he refocused the government’s agenda on economic reform.
Jordan’s continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and open political environment led to the emergence of various political parties. Moving toward greater independence, Jordan’s parliament has investigated corruption charges against several regime figures and become the major forum in which differing political views, including those of political Islamists, are expressed.
On February 1, 2012, it was announced that King Abdullah had dismissed his government. This has been interpreted as a pre-emptive move in the context of the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution and unfolding events in nearby Egypt.
King Abdullah of Jordan
The current King of Jordan is Abdullah II, who assumed the throne in 1999.
Close-up photo of King Abdullah of Jordan.
Foreign Relations
The kingdom has followed a pro-Western foreign policy and maintained close relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. During the first Gulf War (1990), these relations were damaged by Jordan’s neutrality and its maintenance of relations with Iraq. Later, Jordan restored its relations with Western countries through its participation in the enforcement of UN sanctions against Iraq and in the Southwest Asia peace process. After King Hussein’s death in 1999, relations between Jordan and the Persian Gulf countries greatly improved.
Jordan is a key ally of the U.S. and UK and together with Egypt, is one of only two Arab nations to have signed peace treaties with Israel, Jordan’s direct neighbor. Jordan supports Palestinian statehood through the two-state solution. The ruling Hashemite family has had custodianship over holy sites in Jerusalem since the beginning of the 20th century, a position reinforced in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Turmoil in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque between Israelis and Palestinians created tensions between Jordan and Israel concerning the former’s role in protecting the Muslim and Christian sites in Jerusalem.
Jordan is a founding member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and of the Arab League.
34.4.3: The Emirates of the Arabian Peninsula
The emirates of the Middle East (the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait) are monarchies ruled by emirs and represent some of the wealthiest Arab nations.
Learning Objective
Compare and contrast the emirates of the Arabian Peninsula
Key Points
Most emirates have either disappeared, been integrated in a larger modern state or changed their rulers’ styles. True emirate-states have become rare, with only three in existence today.
The United Arab Emirates is a federal state that comprises seven federal emirates, each administered by a hereditary emir. These form the electoral college for the federation’s President and Prime Minister.
The UAE is criticized for its human rights record, including the specific interpretations of Sharia law used in its legal system that make flogging and stoning legal punishments.
Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world, backed by the world’s third largest natural gas reserves and oil reserves.
Kuwait is among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and political rights, and Kuwaiti women are among the most emancipated in the Middle East.
Unlike other Gulf states, Kuwait does not have Sharia courts.
Key Terms
Arab Spring
A revolutionary wave of both violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots, coups, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on December 17, 2010, in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread through the Arab League and surrounding countries. Major insurgencies and civil wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen resulted, along with civil uprisings in Bahrain and Egypt; large street demonstrations in Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, and Sudan; and minor protests in Djibouti, Mauritania, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Western Sahara.
Emirate
A political territory is ruled by a dynastic Islamic monarch-style emir. It also means principality.
Apostasy
A person’s formal renunciation of a religion, also used in the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one’s previous beliefs.
Sharia law
The religious law governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.
United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates, or the UAE, is a federal absolute monarchy in Western Asia at the southeast end of the Arabian Peninsula and bordering seas in the Gulf of Oman, occupying the Persian Gulf. It borders with Oman to the east and Saudi Arabia to the south, although the United Arab Emirates shares maritime borders with Qatar in the west and Iran in the north and sea borders with Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain. In 2013, the UAE’s population was 9.2 million, of which 1.4 million are Emirati citizens and 7.8 million are expatriates.
The country is a federation of seven emirates that was established on December 2nd, 1971. The constituent emirates are Abu Dhabi (which serves as the capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain. Each emirate is governed by an absolute monarch; together, they jointly form the Federal Supreme Council. One of the monarchs is selected as the President of the United Arab Emirates. Although elected by the Supreme Council, the presidency and prime ministership are essentially hereditary. The emir of Abu Dhabi holds the presidency, and the emir of Dubai is prime minister.
Islam is the official religion of the UAE,and Arabic is the official language, although English and Indian dialects are widely spoken and are the languages of business and education, especially in Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
The UAE’s oil reserves are the seventh-largest in the world, while its natural gas reserves are the 17th-largest. Sheikh Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi and the first President of the UAE, oversaw the development of the Emirates and steered oil revenues into health care, education, and infrastructure. The UAE’s economy is the most diversified in the Gulf Cooperation Council, with its most populous city of Dubai an important global city and international aviation hub. Nevertheless, the country remains principally reliant on its export of petroleum and natural gas.
The UAE is criticized for its human rights record, including the specific interpretations of Sharia used in its legal system. Flogging and stoning have been legal punishments in the UAE, a requirement derived from Sharia law. Some domestic workers in the UAE are victims of Sharia judicial punishments such as flogging and stoning. The annual Freedom House report on Freedom in the World has listed the United Arab Emirates as “Not Free” every year since 1999, the first year for which records are available on their website. UAE has escaped the Arab Spring; however, more than 100 Emirati activists were jailed and tortured because they sought reforms. Since 2011, the UAE government has increasingly carried out forced disappearances. Many foreign nationals and Emirati citizens have been arrested and abducted by the state.
Burj Khalifa
Burj Khalifa, a skyscraper in Dubai, is the tallest human-made structure in the world.
Photo of the skyscraper Burj Khalifa
Qatar
Qatar is a sovereign country located in Western Asia, occupying the small Qatar Peninsula on the northeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. Its sole land border is with Saudi Arabia to the south, with the rest of its territory surrounded by the Persian Gulf. A strait in the Persian Gulf separates Qatar from the nearby island country of Bahrain, and maritime borders are shared with the United Arab Emirates and Iran.
Following Ottoman rule, Qatar became a British protectorate in the early 20th century until gaining independence in 1971. Qatar has been ruled by the House of Thani since the early 19th century. Sheikh Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani was the founder of the State of Qatar. Qatar is a hereditary monarchy and its head of state is Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Whether it should be regarded as a constitutional or an absolute monarchy is a matter of opinion. In 2003, the constitution was overwhelmingly approved in a referendum, with almost 98% in favor. In 2013, Qatar’s total population was 1.8 million, with 278,000 Qatari citizens and 1.5 million expatriates.
Qatar is a high-income economy and a developed country, backed by the world’s third largest natural gas reserves and oil reserves. The country has the highest per capita income in the world. Qatar is classified by the UN as a country of very high human development and is the most advanced Arab state for human development. Qatar is a significant power in the Arab world, supporting several rebel groups during the Arab Spring both financially and through its globally expanding media group, Al Jazeera Media Network. For its size, Qatar wields disproportionate influence in the world, and has been identified as a middle power.
Sharia law is the main source of Qatari legislation according to Qatar’s Constitution. In practice, Qatar’s legal system is a mixture of civil law and Sharia law. Sharia law is applied to laws pertaining to family law, inheritance, and several criminal acts (including adultery, robbery and murder). In some cases in Sharia-based family courts, a female’s testimony is worth half a man’s. Codified family law was introduced in 2006. Islamic polygamy is allowed in the country. Stoning is a legal punishment in Qatar, while apostasy is a crime punishable by the death penalty. Blasphemy is punishable by up to seven years in prison and proselytizing can be punished by up to 10 years in prison. Homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty.
Emirate of Qatar
Former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013.
Photo of former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and US Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013, seated, talking with one another in a ornately decorated room.
Kuwait
Kuwait is a country in Western Asia. Situated in the northern edge of Eastern Arabia at the tip of the Persian Gulf, it shares borders with Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As of 2016, Kuwait has a population of 4.2 million people; 1.3 million are Kuwaitis and 2.9 million are expatriates (70% of the population).
Oil reserves were discovered in 1938. From 1946 to 1982, the country underwent large-scale modernization. In the 1980s, Kuwait experienced a period of geopolitical instability and an economic crisis following the stock market crash. In 1990, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. The Iraqi occupation came to an end in 1991 after military intervention by coalition forces. At the end of the war, there were extensive efforts to revive the economy and rebuild national infrastructure.
Kuwait is a constitutional emirate with a semi-democratic political system. It has a high-income economy backed by the world’s sixth largest oil reserves. The Kuwaiti dinar is the highest-valued currency in the world. According to the World Bank, the country has the fourth-highest per capita income in the world.
The Constitution of Kuwait was promulgated in 1962. Kuwait is among the Middle East’s freest countries in terms of civil liberties and political rights. Kuwait ranks highly in regional metrics of gender equality, with the region’s highest Global Gender Gap ranking. The court system in Kuwait is secular; unlike other Gulf states, Kuwait does not have Sharia courts.
34.4.4: OPEC
OPEC, whose members are largely from the Middle East, is an oil cartel created in 1960 to counterbalance the political and economic power of the mostly U.S.-based multinational oil companies known as the “Seven Sisters.”
Learning Objective
Explain what OPEC is and why it exists
Key Points
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an oil cartel, mostly made up of Middle Eastern nations, that aims “to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets.”
It was created in 1960, a year after the “Seven Sisters” multinational oil companies unilaterally reduced their posted prices for Venezuelan and Middle Eastern crude oil by 10 percent.
The 1973 oil crisis began in October of that year when the members of the Arab sub-group of OPEC proclaimed an oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from US $3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally.
The embargo caused an oil crisis, with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and economics.
The 1979 (or second) oil crisis or oil shock occurred in the United States due to decreased oil output in the wake of the Iranian Revolution.
Key Terms
Iranian Revolution
The overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States, and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. This was supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and Iranian student movements.
Yom Kippur War
A war fought by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The fighting mostly took place in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, territories occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967.
cartel
An agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics.
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an intergovernmental organization of 13 nations, founded in 1960 in Baghdad by the first five members (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela), and headquartered since 1965 in Vienna. As of 2015, the 13 countries accounted for an estimated 42 percent of global oil production and 73 percent of the world’s “proven” oil reserves, giving OPEC a major influence on global oil prices that were previously determined by American-dominated multinational oil companies.
OPEC’s stated mission is “to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets, in order to secure an efficient, economic, and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” The organization is also a significant provider of information about the international oil market. As of December 2016, OPEC’s members are Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (the de facto leader), United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Two-thirds of OPEC’s oil production and reserves are in its six Middle Eastern countries that surround the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
The formation of OPEC marked a turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources, and OPEC decisions have come to play a prominent role in the global oil market and international relations. The effect is particularly strong when wars or civil disorders lead to extended interruptions in supply. In the 1970s, restrictions in oil production led to a dramatic rise in oil prices and OPEC’s revenue and wealth, with long-lasting and far-reaching consequences for the global economy. In the 1980s, OPEC started setting production targets for its member nations; when the production targets are reduced, oil prices increase, most recently from the organization’s 2008 and 2016 decisions to trim oversupply.
Economists often cite OPEC as a textbook example of a cartel that cooperates to reduce market competition, but whose consultations are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under international law. In December 2014, “OPEC and the oil men” ranked as #3 on Lloyd’s list of “the top 100 most influential people in the shipping industry.” However, their influence on international trade is periodically challenged by the expansion of non-OPEC energy sources, and by the recurring temptation for individual OPEC countries to exceed production ceilings and pursue conflicting self-interests.
History
In 1949, Venezuela and Iran took the earliest steps in the direction of OPEC by inviting Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to improve communication among petroleum-exporting nations as the world recovered from World War II. At the time, some of the world’s largest oil fields were just entering production in the Middle East. The United States had established the Interstate Oil Compact Commission to join the Texas Railroad Commission in limiting overproduction. The US was simultaneously the world’s largest producer and consumer of oil, and the world market was dominated by a group of multinational companies known as the “Seven Sisters,” five of which were headquartered in the U.S. Oil-exporting countries were motivated to form OPEC as a counterweight to this concentration of political and economic power.
In February 1959, the multinational oil companies (MOCs) unilaterally reduced their posted prices for Venezuelan and Middle Eastern crude oil by 10 percent. In September 1960, the Baghdad Conference was held at the initiative of Tariki, Pérez Alfonzo, and Iraqi prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. Government representatives from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela met in Baghdad to discuss ways to increase the price of crude oil produced by their countries and respond to unilateral actions by the MOCs. Despite strong U.S. opposition, according to historian Nathan Citiano, “[t]ogether with Arab and non-Arab producers, Saudi Arabia formed the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries (OPEC) to secure the best price available from the major oil corporations.”
In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab majority of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) declared significant production cuts and an oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, an event known as the 1973 oil crisis. A previous embargo attempt was largely ineffective in response to the Six-Day War in 1967. However, in 1973, the result was a sharp rise in oil prices and OPEC revenues, from US$3/barrel to US$12/barrel, and an emergency period of energy rationing, intensified by panic reactions, declining U.S. oil production, currency devaluations, and a lengthy UK coal-miners dispute.
For a time, the UK imposed an emergency three-day workweek. Seven European nations banned non-essential Sunday driving. U.S. gas stations limited the amount of gasoline that could be dispensed, closed on Sundays, and restricted the days when gasoline could be purchased based on license plate numbers. Even after the embargo ended in March 1974 following intense diplomatic activity, prices continued to rise. The world experienced a global economic recession, with unemployment and inflation surging simultaneously, steep declines in stock and bond prices, major shifts in trade balances and petrodollar flows, and a dramatic end to the post-WWII economic boom.
1973 Oil Crisis
An undersupplied U.S. gasoline station, closed during the oil embargo in 1973
A photo of a gas station in 1973 with a sign next to the pumps saying “PUMPS CLOSED.”
The 1973–1974 oil embargo had lasting effects on the United States and other industrialized nations, which established the International Energy Agency in response. Oil conservation efforts included lower speed limits on highways, smaller and more energy-efficient cars and appliances, year-round daylight saving time, reduced usage of heating and air-conditioning, better insulation, increased support of mass transit, national emergency stockpiles, and greater emphasis on coal, natural gas, ethanol, nuclear, and other alternative energy sources. These long-term efforts became effective enough that U.S. oil consumption would rise only 11 percent during 1980–2014, while real GDP rose 150 percent. But in the 1970s, OPEC nations demonstrated convincingly that their oil could be used as both a political and economic weapon against other nations, at least in the short term.
The 1979 oil crisis occurred in the United States due to decreased oil output in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. Despite the fact that global oil supply decreased by only ~4%, widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than justified by supply. The price of crude oil more than doubled to $39.50 per barrel over the next 12 months, and long lines once again appeared at gas stations as they had in the 1973 oil crisis.
In 1980, following the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War, oil production in Iran nearly stopped, and Iraq’s oil production was severely cut as well. Economic recessions were triggered in the U.S. and other countries. Oil prices did not subside to pre-crisis levels until the mid-1980s.
After 1980, oil prices began a 20-year decline, eventually reaching 60 percent fall-off during the 1990s. As with the 1973 crisis, global politics and power balance were impacted. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded production; the USSR became the top world producer; North Sea and Alaskan oil flooded the market; and OPEC lost influence.
34.5: Iran
34.5.1: Iran under the Shah
After the 1953 coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mosaddegh, the Shah of Iran became increasingly autocratic, and Iran entered a phase of close relations with the United States, modernization, and secularization – all of which contributed to the Shah’s overthrow in 1979.
Learning Objective
Describe Iran’s political climate under the governance of the Shah
Key Points
In 1941, following an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Pahlavi; subsequently, Iran became a major conduit for British and American aid to the Soviet Union until the end of the ongoing war.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, elected as the prime minister in 1951, became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized its petroleum industry and oil reserves.
He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, which was supported by the American and British intelligence agencies (CIA and MI6), thereby increasing the Shah’s power.
After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic and sultanistic, and Iran entered a phase of decades-long, controversial close relations with the United States and other foreign governments.
While the Shah increasingly modernized Iran and claimed to retain it as a fully secular state, arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, the SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition.
Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social, and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage.
Several factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were U.S. and UK support for his regime and clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which on January 17 forced him to leave Iran.
Key Terms
Tudeh Party
An Iranian communist party formed in 1941, with Soleiman Mohsen Eskandari as its head. It had considerable influence in its early years and played an important role during Mohammad Mosaddegh’s campaign to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and his term as prime minister. The crackdown that followed the 1953 coup against Mosaddeq is said to have “destroyed” the party, although it continued.
White Revolution
A far-reaching series of reforms in Iran launched in 1963 by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and lasting until 1978. Mohammad Reza Shah’s reform program was built especially to weaken those classes that supported the traditional system. It consisted of several elements, including land reform, sale of some state-owned factories to finance this land reform, enfranchisement of women, nationalization of forests and pastures, formation of a literacy corps, and institution of profit-sharing schemes for workers in industry.
Shah
A title given to the emperors, kings, princes, and lords of Iran (historically known as Persia).
The Shah of Iran
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran from September 16, 1941, until his overthrow by the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza Shah’s reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized its petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the United States had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.
Under Mohammad Reza’s reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. Concurrent with this celebration, Mohammad Reza changed the benchmark of the Iranian calendar from the hegira (the migration of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina in the year 622) to the beginning of the Persian Empire, measured from Cyrus the Great’s coronation. Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social, and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage. The core of this program was land reform. Modernization and economic growth proceeded at an unprecedented rate, fueled by Iran’s vast petroleum reserves, the third-largest in the world.
A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi’a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization and secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, relations with Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran’s intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number that multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.
Other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, most significantly U.S. and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest transformed into a revolution which on January 17 forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ruhollah Khomeini. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose President, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. Due to his status as the last de facto Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply “the Shah.”
Explanations for why Mohammad Reza was overthrown include his status as a dictator put in place by a non-Muslim Western power, the United States, whose foreign culture was seen as influencing that of Iran. Additional contributing factors included reports of oppression, brutality, corruption, and extravagance. Basic functional failures of the regime have also been blamed: economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation; the regime’s over-ambitious economic program; the failure of its security forces to deal with protest and demonstration; and the overly centralized royal power structure. International policies pursued by the Shah to supplement national income with remarkable increases of oil prices through his leading role in the Organization of the Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) have been stressed as a major cause of a shift of Western interests and priorities. This was reflected in Western politicians and media, especially the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, questioning human rights in Iran, as well as in strengthened economic ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s.
Relations with the United States
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi maintained close ties with the United States during most of his reign. He pursued a Westernizing, modernizing economic policy and a strongly pro-Western foreign policy; he also made a number of visits to America, where he was regarded as a friend. The Shah’s diplomatic foundation was the U.S.’ guarantee that they would protect him, which enabled him to stand up to larger enemies. While the arrangement did not preclude other partnerships and treaties, it provided a somewhat stable environment in which Pahlavi could implement his reforms.
Iran’s long border with America’s Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and its position as the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, made it a “pillar” of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many Iranian students and other citizens resided in the United States, and the country had a positive and welcoming attitude toward Americans.
In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup, in what political scientist Mark Gasiorowski called “a crucial turning point both in Iran’s modern history and in U.S. Iran relations.” He explains that many Iranians argue that “the 1953 coup and the extensive U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely responsible for the shah’s arbitrary rule,” which led to the “deeply anti-American character” of the 1979 revolution.
Following the coup, the United States helped build up the Shah’s regime. In the first three weeks, the American government gave Iran $68 million in emergency aid, and an additional $1.2 billion over the next decade. In this era that ensued until the fall of the shah in 1979, Iran was one of the United States’ closest allies.
During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American presidents. The Shah’s close ties to Washington and his Westernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives.
Relations with United States
The Shah with John F. Kennedy and Robert McNamara in 1962. During the Shah’s rule, the United States and Iran were close allies. In 1953, the United States helped overthrow the Prime Minister in favor of increasing the Shah’s power.
A photo of the Shah of Iran with John F. Kennedy and Robert McNamara in 1962 in a White House office.
34.5.2: The Iranian Revolution
The Iranian Revolution refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States, and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamist organizations and Iranian student movements.
Learning Objective
Examine the reasons for the Iranian Revolution
Key Terms
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
An Iranian Shia Muslim religious leader, revolutionary, and politician. He was the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that saw the overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. Following the revolution, he became the country’s Supreme Leader, a position created in the constitution of the Islamic Republic as the highest-ranking political and religious authority of the nation, which he held until his death.
Gharbzadegi
A pejorative Persian term variously translated as “Westoxification,” “Westitis,” “Euromania,” or “Occidentosis.” It is used to refer to the loss of Iranian cultural identity through the adoption and imitation of Western models and Western criteria in education, the arts, and culture and the subsequent transformation of Iran into a passive market for Western goods and a pawn in Western geopolitics.
Islamic Jurists
Experts in fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic Law, the human understanding of the Sharia (believed by Muslims to represent divine law as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad).
Examples
The Iranian Revolution was a populist, nationalist and Shi’a Islamic revolution that replaced a dictatorial monarchy with a theocracy based on “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists” (or velayat-e faqih).
The reasons why the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown and replaced by an Islamic Republic are the subject of historical debate.
The revolution was in part a conservative backlash against the westernization and secularization efforts of the Western-backed Shah, and a more popular reaction to social injustice and other shortcomings of the regime.
The Shah was perceived by many Iranians as beholden to – if not a puppet of – a non-Muslim Western power (the United States) whose culture was contaminating that of Iran.
The first major demonstrations to overthrow Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi began in January 1978.
The Shah fled Iran in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran after 15 years of exile and was greeted by several million Iranians.
The final collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty occurred shortly after on February 11, when Iran’s military declared itself “neutral” after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.
Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979, when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.
The new theocratic Constitution — whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country — was approved in December 1979.
The Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution, was the revolution that transformed Iran from an absolute monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, one of the leaders of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic. It began in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations and concluded with the approval of the new theocratic Constitution—whereby Ayatollah Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country—in December 1979.
Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that included both secular and religious elements and intensified in January 1978. Between August and December 1978, strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile on January 16, 1979, as the last Persian monarch, leaving his duties to a regency council and an opposition-based prime minister. Ayatollah Khomeini was invited back to Iran by the government, and returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians. The royal reign collapsed shortly after on February 11, when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting, bringing Khomeini to official power. Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979, and approved a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979.
The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world: it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military), occurred in a nation that was enjoying relative prosperity, produced profound change at great speed, was massively popular, resulted in the exile of many Iranians, and replaced a pro-Western semi-absolute monarchy with an anti-Western authoritarian theocracy based on the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). It was a relatively non-violent revolution and helped to redefine modern revolutions although there was violence in its aftermath.
Iranian Revolution
The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, left the country for exile in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting of several million Iranians.
Photo of a mass demonstration in Tehran, 1979. The streets are completely filled with people, many carrying posters, and one man standing above them all on a platform.
Causes of the Revolution
Reasons advanced for the occurrence of the revolution and its populist, nationalist and, later, Shi’a Islamic character include a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah, a liberal backlash to social injustice, a rise in expectations created by the 1973 oil revenue windfall and an overly ambitious economic program, anger over a short, sharp economic contraction in 1977–78, and other shortcomings of the previous regime.
The Shah’s regime became increasingly oppressive, brutal, corrupt, and extravagant. It also suffered from basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation. The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to – if not a puppet of – a non-Muslim Western power (the United States) whose culture was affecting that of Iran. At the same time, support for the Shah may have waned among Western politicians and media – especially under the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter – as a result of the Shah’s support for OPEC petroleum price increases earlier in the decade. When President Carter enacted a policy that countries guilty of human rights violations would be deprived of American arms or aid, some Iranians gathered the courage to post open letters and petitions in the hope that the repression by the government might subside.
That the revolution replaced the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islamism and Khomeini, rather than with another leader and ideology, is credited in part to the spread of the Shia version of the Islamic revival that opposed Westernization and saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the Shi’a Imam Husayn ibn Ali and the Shah in the role of Husayn’s foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I. Other factors include the underestimation of Khomeini’s Islamist movement by both the Shah’s reign – who considered them a minor threat compared to the Marxists and Islamic socialists – and by the secularist, opponents of the government, who thought the Khomeinists could be sidelined.
Ayatollah Khomeini and the Ideology of the Revolution
The post-revolutionary leader – Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his White Revolution. Khomeini was arrested in 1963 after declaring the Shah a “wretched miserable man” who had “embarked on the [path toward] destruction of Islam in Iran.” Three days of major riots throughout Iran followed, with 15,000 dead from police fire as reported by opposition sources. However, anti-revolutionary sources conjectured that just 32 were killed. Khomeini was released after eight months of house arrest and continued his agitation, condemning Iran’s close cooperation with Israel and its capitulations and extension of diplomatic immunity to American government personnel in Iran. In November 1964, Khomeini was rearrested and sent into exile where he remained for 15 years, until the revolution.
In this interim period of “disaffected calm,” the budding Iranian revival began to undermine the idea of Westernization as progress that had been the basis of the Shah’s secular reign and form the ideology of the 1979 revolution. Jalal Al-e-Ahmad’s idea of Gharbzadegi – that Western culture was a plague or an intoxication to be eliminated
– spread through the nation, along with Ali Shariati’s vision of Islam as the one true liberator of the Third World from oppressive colonialism, neo-colonialism, and capitalism and Morteza Motahhari’s popularized retellings of the Shia faith.
Most importantly, Khomeini preached that revolt and especially martyrdom, against injustice and tyranny was part of Shia Islam, and that Muslims should reject the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism, ideas that inspired the revolutionary slogan “Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!”
Away from public view, Khomeini developed the ideology of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) as government, that Muslims – in fact everyone – required “guardianship,” in the form of rule or supervision by the leading Islamic jurist or jurists. Such rule was ultimately “more necessary even than prayer and fasting” in Islam, as it would protect Islam from deviation from traditional sharia law and in so doing eliminate poverty, injustice, and the “plundering” of Muslim land by foreign non-believers.
Ayatollah Khomeini
The post-revolutionary leader – Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his White Revolution. After the revolution, Khomeini told questioners that “the religious dignitaries do not want to rule.”
A portrait photo of Ayatollah Khomeini.
34.5.3: The Islamic Republic of Iran
After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Shah’s pro-Western, autocratic monarchy was replaced by an Islamic Republic based on the principle of rule by Islamic jurists, which reversed most of the modernization and secularization of the prior regime.
Learning Objective
Compare the Islamic Republic with the government under the Shah
Key Points
The 1979 Iranian Revolution brought about the Islamic Republic of Iran, marking a major shift in the country’s political structure, foreign policy, legal system, and culture.
The leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was Iran’s supreme leader until his death in 1989; this era was dominated by the consolidation of the revolution into a theocratic republic under Khomeini and by the costly and bloody war with Iraq.
While the revolution brought about some re-Islamization of Iran, particularly in terms of personal appearance—beards, hijab—it has not prompted a reversal of all modernization or a return to traditional patterns of family life.
The new government began purging itself of the non-Islamist political opposition and of those Islamists who were not considered radical enough.
The Leader of the Revolution (“Supreme Leader”), who is as much a religious leader as a political one, is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On November 4, 1979, a group of Muslim students seized the United States Embassy and took 52 personnel and citizens hostage after the United States refused to return Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to Iran to face trial in the court of the new regime and all but certain execution. This event, known as the Iran hostage crisis, lasted 444 days.
Key Terms
Iran hostage crisis
A diplomatic standoff between Iran and the United States in which 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Iranian students belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who supported the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. It is the longest hostage crisis in recorded history.
Islamic Republic
The name given to several states in countries ruled by Islamic laws. Despite the similar name, their governments and laws substantially differ. The term “Islamic republic” has come to mean several different things, some contradictory. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, this type of state is under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic caliphate and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception, the penal code of the state must be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently.
theocratic
A form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the civilization’s religion or belief.
Impact and Aftermath of the Revolution
One of the most dramatic changes in government in Iran’s history was seen with the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Autocratic monarchy was replaced by an Islamic Republic based on the principle of rule by Islamic jurists, (or “Velayat-e faqih”), where clerics serve as head of state and in many powerful governmental roles. A pro-Western, pro-American foreign policy was exchanged for one of “neither east nor west,” but rather radically Islamist. A rapidly modernizing, capitalist economy was replaced by populist economy and Islamic culture.
The leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was Iran’s supreme leader until his death in 1989. He was followed by Ali Khamenei. This era was dominated by the consolidation of the revolution into a theocratic republic under Khomeini, and by the costly and bloody war with Iraq.
The initial impact of the Islamic revolution around the world was tremendous. In the non-Muslim world it has changed the image of Islam, generating much interest in its politics and spirituality of Islam along with fear and mistrust. In the Mideast and Muslim world, particularly in its early years, it triggered enormous enthusiasm and redoubled opposition to western intervention and influence. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia (the 1979 week-long takeover of the Grand Mosque), Egypt (the 1981 machine-gunning of the Egyptian President Sadat), Syria (the Muslim Brotherhood rebellion in Hama), and Lebanon (the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy and French and American peace-keeping troops).
The immediate nationwide uprisings against the new government began by the 1979 Kurdish rebellion with the Khuzestan uprisings, along with the uprisings in Sistan and Baluchestan Province and other areas. Over the next several years, these were violently subdued by the new Islamic government. The new government began purging itself of non-Islamist political opposition, as well as of those Islamists who were not considered radical enough. Although both nationalists and Marxists initially joined with Islamists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the new regime afterward.
On November 4, 1979, a group of Muslim students seized the United States Embassy and took 52 personnel and citizens hostage after the United States refused to return Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to Iran to face trial in the court of the new regime and all but certain execution. This 444-day event was known as the Iran hostage crisis. Attempts by the Jimmy Carter administration to negotiate for the release of the hostages, and a failed rescue attempt, helped force Carter out of office and brought Ronald Reagan to power. On Jimmy Carter’s final day in office, the last hostages were finally set free as a result of the Algiers Accords.
Iran Hostage Crisis
A group photograph of the fifty-two U.S. hostages in a hospital where they spent a few days after their release. The hostages were released after 444 days of detention in Tehran.
Photo of the US hostages being released after 444 in captivity in Iran.
The Cultural Revolution began in 1980 with a three-year closure of universities for inspection and cleanup in the cultural policy of the education and training system.
The Islamic revolutionary regime of Ayatollah Khomeini dramatically reversed the pro-Western foreign policy of the regime it overthrew. Since then, Iran has oscillated between the two opposing tendencies of revolutionary ardor (promoting the Islamic revolution and struggling against non-Muslim tendencies abroad) and moves towards pragmatism (economic development and normalization of foreign relations). Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa call for the killing of British citizen Salman Rushdie for his allegedly blasphemous book, The Satanic Verses, demonstrated the willingness of the Islamic revolutionaries to sacrifice trade and other ties with western countries to threaten an individual citizen living thousands of miles away.
On the other hand, Khomeini’s death in 1989 led to more pragmatic policies, with Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami leading the charge for stable relations with the west and its own non-Revolutionary-Islamic neighbors such asSaudi Arabia. Following the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran has returned to more a more hardline stance, frequently antagonizing the west and its neighbors while battling for control over the region.
While the revolution brought about some re-Islamization of Iran, particularly in terms of personal appearance—beards, hijab—it has not prompted a total reversal modernization or a return to traditional patterns of family life, such as polygamy and the extended family with numerous children). Despite the lowering of the legal age of marriage for women to 9 and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s support for early marriage for females, the actual average age of marriage for women rose to 22 by 1996.
Government and Politics
The political system of the Islamic Republic is based on the 1979 Constitution and comprises several intricately connected governing bodies. The Leader of the Revolution (“Supreme Leader”) is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations, and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces, and six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the powers of government in the Islamic Republic of Iran are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the “Absolute Guardianship and the Leadership of the Ummah,” which refers to the Supreme Leader of Iran.
After the Supreme Leader, the Constitution defines the President of Iran as the highest state authority. The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years and can only be re-elected for one term. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council before running to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader.
While the revolution did not dismantle the Pahlavi judiciary in its entirety, it replaced, according to historian Ervand Abrahamian, secular-trained jurists “with seminary-educated ones, and codified more features of the sharia into state laws – especially the Law of Retribution.” Women judges were also removed. Between 1979 and 1982, the entire pre-Revolutionary judiciary was purged, and their duties replaced by “Revolutionary Tribunals” set up in every town. These tribunals ruled on “Islamic law,” but were in practice unfair and biased, with inexperienced and often incompetent judges. Many people were executed or given harsh punishments for both political and criminal acts. There were no appeals, and trials often lasted just minutes. In 1982, the regular court system was reinstated, but with the judges now trained in Islamic law.
34.5.4: The Iran-Iraq War
On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi army invaded the Iranian Khuzestan and the Iran–Iraq War began. This conflict is often compared to World War I for its similar fighting tactics and brutality.
Learning Objective
Analyze the reasons for the Iran-Iraq War
Key Points
Shortly after the success of the revolution, revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini began calling for Islamic revolutions across the Muslim world, including Iran’s Arab neighbor Iraq, the one large state besides Iran in the Gulf with a Shia Muslim majority population.
The war began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran in an attempt by Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein to take advantage of the perceived post-revolutionary chaos and military weakness, as well as the Revolution’s unpopularity with Western governments.
The Iraqis used weapons of mass destruction, most notably mustard gas, against Iranian soldiers.
Although the forces of Saddam Hussein made several early advances, by mid-1982 Iranian forces successfully managed to drive the Iraqi army back into Iraq.
In July 1982, with Iraq thrown on the defensive, Iran invaded Iraq and conducted countless offensives in a bid to conquer territory and capture cities, such as Basra.
The war continued until 1988 when the Iraqi army defeated the Iranian forces inside Iraq and pushed the remaining Iranian troops back across the border.
Subsequently, Khomeini accepted a truce mediated by the UN.
An estimated 200,000-240,000 Iranians and 105,000–200,000 Iraqis were killed during the war.
Key Terms
weapons of mass destruction
Nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapons that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. It was originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives.
Kurds
An ethnic group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of eastern and southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), western Iran (Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern or Iraqi Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan or Rojava). They are culturally and linguistically closely related to the Iranian peoples and are thus often classified as Iranian.
sulfur mustard
Commonly known as mustard gas, this cytotoxic and vesicant chemical warfare agent forms large blisters on exposed skin and in the lungs.
The Iran–Iraq War was an armed conflict between Iran and Iraq lasting from September 22, 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, to August 1988. The war followed a long history of border disputes and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq’s long-suppressed Shi’i majority, as well as Iraq’s desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.
Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran’s revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, it made only limited progress into Iran and was quickly repelled. Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive. A number of proxy forces participated in the war, most notably the Iranian People’s Mujahedin of Iran siding with Ba’athist Iraq and Iraqi Kurdish militias of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan siding with Iran—all suffering a major blow by the end of the conflict.
Despite United Nations Security Council calls for a ceasefire, hostilities continued until August 20, 1988. The war finally ended with United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, a UN-brokered ceasefire accepted by both sides. At the war’s conclusion, it took several weeks for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran to evacuate Iraqi territory and honor prewar international borders set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.
The war cost both sides in lives and economic damage: about half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers and an equivalent number of civilians died, with many more injured; however, the war brought neither reparations nor changes in borders. The conflict has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man’s land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq.
At the time of the conflict, the United Nations Security Council issued statements that “chemical weapons had been used in the war.” UN statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors “the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian[s] as well as Iraqi Kurds.” The Security Council did not identify Iraq as the aggressor of the war until December 11, 1991, 12 years after Iraq invaded Iran and 16 months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
Iran-Iraq War
Participation of child soldiers on Iranian front (top left); Bodies of Iranian civilians killed in the Iraqi invasion (top right); Port quarter view of USS Stark listing to port after being mistakenly struck by an Iraqi warplane (middle left); Pro-Iraq PMOI forces killed in Operation Mersad (middle right); Iraqi prisoners of war after the re-capture of Khorramshahr by Iranians (below left); ZU-23-2 being used by the Iranian Army (below right).
A photo collage of the Iran-Iraq War. Participation of child soldiers on Iranian front (top left); Bodies of Iranian civilians killed in the Iraqi invasion (top right); Port quarter view of USS Stark listing to port after being mistakenly struck by an Iraqi warplane (middle left); Pro-Iraq PMOI forces killed in Operation Mersad (middle right); Iraqi prisoners of war after the re-capture of Khorramshahr by Iranians (below left); ZU-23-2 being used by the Iranian Army (below right).
Origins
Since the Ottoman–Persian Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, Iran (known as “Persia” prior to 1935) and the Ottomans fought over Iraq (then known as Mesopotamia) and full control of the Shatt al-Arab until the signing of the Treaty of Zuhab in 1639, which established the final borders between the two countries. The Shatt al-Arab was considered an important channel for both states’ oil exports, and in 1937, Iran and the newly independent Iraq signed a treaty to settle the dispute. In the same year, Iran and Iraq both joined the Treaty of Saadabad, and relations between the two states remained good for decades afterwards.
In April 1969, Iran abrogated the 1937 treaty over the Shatt al-Arab river, and as such ceased paying tolls to Iraq when its ships used the waterway. The Shah justified his move by arguing that almost all river borders around the world ran along the thalweg and claiming that because most of the ships that used the waterway were Iranian, the 1937 treaty was unfair to Iran. Iraq threatened war over the Iranian move, but when on April 24 1969, an Iranian tanker escorted by Iranian warships sailed down the river, Iraq—the militarily weaker state—did nothing. Iran’s abrogation of the treaty marked the beginning of a period of acute Iraqi-Iranian tension that was to last until the 1975 Algiers Agreement.
In the 1975 Algiers Agreement, Iraq made territorial concessions—including the Shatt al-Arab waterway—in exchange for normalized relations. In return for Iraq recognizing that the frontier on the waterway ran along the entire thalweg, Iran ended its support of Iraq’s Kurdish guerrillas. Iraqis viewed the Algiers Agreement as humiliating.
Tensions between Iraq and Iran were fueled by Iran’s Islamic revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force in contrast to Iraq’s Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq’s goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab, the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran’s Revolution, which overthrew Iran’s Shah, seen as a common enemy. It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On July 17, 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed. Iran’s new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the secular Ba’ath party discriminated against and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed.
Saddam’s primary interest in war may have also stemmed from his desire to right the supposed “wrong” of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower. Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the “leader of the Arab world” and achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf. He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation.
A successful invasion of Iran would enlarge its petroleum reserves and make it the region’s dominant power. With Iran engulfed in chaos, an opportunity for Iraq to annex the oil-rich Khuzestan Province materialized. In addition, Khuzestan’s large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator for Arabs from Persian rule. Fellow Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (despite being hostile to Iraq) encouraged Iraq to attack, as they feared that an Islamic revolution would take place within their own borders.
34.6: Afghanistan
34.6.1: Afghanistan and the Cold War
During the early Cold War, Afghanistan attempted to maintain a non-aligned status, receiving aid from both the Soviet Union and the United States, but ended up relying heavily on assistance from the Soviets.
Learning Objective
Detail how the Cold War spilled over into Afghanistan
Key Points
In the late 19th century, Afghanistan became a buffer state in the “Great Game” between British India and the Russian Empire.
Following the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919, King Amanullah unsuccessfully attempted to modernize the country, but throughout the first half of the 20th century maintained good relations with the Soviets.
Afghanistan remained neutral and was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War.
However, it got caught up in the Cold War rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by supporting Afghanistan’s infrastructure.
In 1958, Afghanistan’s prime minister Daud Khan tried to create a treaty with America against the Soviet Union because he was frightened of a potential Soviet invasion and needed modern weapons.
After the Americans turned down the Afghanistan government, the Soviet Union provided financial aid, military personal training, and modern weapons, such as AK-47s and rocket launchers.
Prime Minister Daud Khan was forced to resign in 1963 because of the dependence he had created on the Soviet Union.
Key Terms
Great Game
A term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighboring territories in Central and Southern Asia. Russia was fearful of British commercial and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of Russia adding “the jewel in the crown,” India, to the vast empire it was building in Asia. This resulted in an atmosphere of distrust and constant threat of war between the two empires.
Mohammed Zahir Shah
The last King of Afghanistan, reigning from November 8, 1933, until he was deposed on July 17, 1973. During his four decades of rule, he became a prominent Afghan figure worldwide, establishing friendly relations with many countries and modernizing his country.
Afghan-Soviet Relations
In the 19th century, Afghanistan served as a strategic buffer state between Czarist Russian and the British Empire in the subcontinent during the so-called Great Game. Around the 1830s, Imperial Russia wanted to conquer Afghanistan because of the potential economic profit.
Afghanistan’s relations with Moscow became more cordial after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The Soviet Union was the first country to establish diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in 1919 after the Third Anglo-Afghan war and signed an Afghan-Soviet nonaggression pact in 1921, which also provided for Afghan transit rights through the Soviet Union. Early Soviet assistance included financial aid, aircraft and attendant technical personnel, and telegraph operators.
After the Third Anglo-Afghan War and the signing of the Treaty of Rawalpindi on August 19, 1919, King Amanullah Khan declared Afghanistan a sovereign and fully independent state. He moved to end his country’s traditional isolation by establishing diplomatic relations with the international community and following a 1927–28 tour of Europe and Turkey, introduced several reforms intended to modernize his nation. A key force behind these reforms was Mahmud Tarzi, an ardent supporter of the education of women. He fought for Article 68 of Afghanistan’s 1923 constitution, which made elementary education compulsory. Slavery was abolished in 1923.
Some of the reforms that were actually put in place, such as the abolition of the traditional burqa for women and the opening of a number of coeducational schools, quickly alienated many tribal and religious leaders. Faced with overwhelming armed opposition, Amanullah Khan was forced to abdicate in January 1929 after Kabul fell to rebel forces led by Habibullah Kalakani. Prince Mohammed Nadir Shah, Amanullah’s cousin, in turn defeated and killed Kalakani in November 1929 and was declared King Nadir Shah. He abandoned the reforms of Amanullah Khan in favor of a more gradual approach to modernization but was assassinated in 1933 by Abdul Khaliq, a Hazara school student.
Mohammed Zahir Shah, Nadir Shah’s 19-year-old son, succeeded to the throne and reigned from 1933 to 1973. Until 1946, Zahir Shah ruled with the assistance of his uncle, who held the post of Prime Minister and continued the policies of Nadir Shah. Another of Zahir Shah’s uncles, Shah Mahmud Khan, became Prime Minister in 1946 and began an experiment allowing greater political freedom, but reversed the policy when it went further than he expected. He was replaced in 1953 by Mohammed Daoud Khan, the king’s cousin and brother-in-law. Daoud Khan sought a closer relationship with the Soviet Union and a more distant one towards Pakistan. Afghanistan remained neutral and was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War. However, it was a beneficiary of the latter rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by building Afghanistan’s main highways, airports, and other vital infrastructure. On per capita basis, Afghanistan received more Soviet development aid than any other country.
Zahir Shah
Zahir Shah, the last king of Afghanistan, who reigned from 1933 to 1973.
A photo of Zahir Shah, king of Afghanistan, seated in a chair in military attire.
Relations During the Cold War
The Cold War spanned from the 1950s to the 1990s and was full of conflict between America and Russia. The main superpowers waged war through proxies, or super allies, because any direct conflict with each other could result in nuclear war. The Cold War shaped the Russian mindset about developing countries.
Afghan-American relations became important during the start of the Cold War. In 1958, Prime Minister Daoud Khan became the first Afghan to speak before the United States Congress in Washington, DC. His presentation focused on a number of issues but most importantly underscored the importance of U.S.-Afghan relations. While in Washington, Daoud met with President Dwight Eisenhower, signed an important cultural exchange agreement, and reaffirmed personal relations with Vice President Nixon that began during the latter’s trip to Kabul in 1953.
At that time, the United States declined Afghanistan’s request for defense cooperation but extended an economic assistance program focused on the development of Afghanistan’s physical infrastructure—roads, dams, and power plants. Later, U.S. aid shifted from infrastructure projects to technical assistance programs to develop the skills needed to build a modern economy. Contacts between the United States and Afghanistan increased during the 1950s, especially during the Cuban Revolution between 1953 and 1959. While the Soviet Union was supporting Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the United States was focusing on Afghanistan for strategic purposes: to counter the spread of communism and the strength of the Soviet Union into South Asia, particularly the Persian Gulf.
At the beginning of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1953, the Soviet government had three main long-term objectives. The first was to threaten the Iranian oilfields or put themselves in a position to do so in the coming years. The second was to strengthen influence in the Indian Peninsula. The last goal was to divert western weapons to unproductive areas.
Leading up to the Soviet intervention in the 1970s, Afghanistan’s policy was that of non-alignment, meaning they did not want a superpower ally. However, they still remained on good terms with both America and the Soviet Union. In 1958, Khan tried to create a treaty with America against the Soviet Union because he was frightened of a potential Soviet invasion and needed modern weapons. After the Americans turned down the Afghanistan government, Afghanistan asked U.S.S.R. for aid. With this agreement, the Soviet Union provided financial aid, military personal training, and modern weapons, such as AK-47s and rocket launchers. Daud Khan was forced to resign in 1963 because of the dependence he created on the Soviet Union.
34.6.2: Rise of Anti-Soviet Sentiment
Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan, who was the former Prime Minister of Afghanistan, seized power in a 1973 coup and became Afghanistan’s first president, making plans to diminish the nation’s relationships with the Soviet Union and instead forge closer contacts with the West.
Learning Objective
Connect Soviet involvement in Afghanistan to the rise of anti-Soviet efforts
Key Points
In 1973, while King Zahir Shah was on an official overseas visit, Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan, a former Prime Minister of Afghanistan, launched a bloodless coup and became the first President of Afghanistan.
In opposition to his foreign policy as Prime Minister, Daoud sought to distance himself from the Soviets and forge closer relations with the West, especially the United States.
President Daoud met Leonid Brezhnev on a state visit to Moscow from April 12 to 15, 1977, and told the latter that Afghanistan would remain free, and that the Soviet Union would never be allowed to dictate how the country should be governed.
Daoud tried to modernize and improve the economy of Afghanistan, but made little progress.
The PDPA, a Soviet-backed communist party, seized power in a military coup in 1978 best known as the Saur Revolution.
Although supported by the Soviets, the actions taken by the leaders of the PDPA further strained relations with the USSR, which eventually led to their planning an military intervention.
Key Terms
Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan
The Prime Minister of Afghanistan from 1953 to 1963 who later became the first President of Afghanistan. He overthrew the Musahiban monarchy of his first cousin Mohammed Zahir Shah and declared himself as the first President of Afghanistan from 1973 until his assassination in 1978 as a result of the Saur Revolution led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). He was known for his progressive policies, his efforts for the improvement of women’s rights, and for initiating two five-year modernization plans that increased the labor force by about 50 percent.
Leonid Brezhnev
The General Secretary of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), presiding over the country from 1964 until his death in 1982. His 18-year term as General Secretary was second only to that of Joseph Stalin in duration. During his rule, the global influence of the Soviet Union grew dramatically, in part because of the expansion of the Soviet military during this time. His tenure as leader was marked by the beginning of an era of economic and social stagnation in the Soviet Union.
Saur Revolution
A revolution led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) against the rule of self-proclaimed Afghan President Mohammed Daoud Khan on April 27-28, 1978. It led to civil war and the intervention of the Soviet Union.
Republic of Afghanistan
Amid charges of corruption and malfeasance against the royal family and poor economic conditions created by the severe 1971–72 drought, former Prime Minister Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan seized power in a non-violent coup on July 17, 1973, while Zahir Shah was receiving treatment for eye problems and therapy for lumbago in Italy. Daoud abolished the monarchy, abrogated the 1964 constitution, and declared Afghanistan a republic with himself as its first President and Prime Minister. To counteract his previous mishaps as Prime Minister, Daud led Afghanistan back towards independence and non-alignment. Additionally, Daud sent troops as well as diplomats to surrounding nations to build up foreign relations and decrease Afghanistan’s dependence on the Soviet Union.
President Daoud met Leonid Brezhnev on a state visit to Moscow from April 12 to 15, 1977. Daoud asked for a private meeting with the Soviet leader to discuss the increased pattern of Soviet actions in Afghanistan. In particular, he discussed the intensified Soviet attempt to unite the two factions of the Afghan communist parties, Parcham and Khalq. Brezhnev described Afghanistan’s non-alignment as important to the USSR and essential to the promotion of peace in Asia, but warned him about the presence of experts from NATO countries stationed in the northern parts of Afghanistan. Daoud bluntly replied that Afghanistan would remain free, and that the Soviet Union would never be allowed to dictate how the country should be governed.
After returning to Afghanistan, Daoud made plans to diminish his government’s relationships with the Soviet Union, and instead forge closer contacts with the West as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iran. Afghanistan signed a cooperative military treaty with Egypt and by 1977, the Afghan military and police force were being trained by Egyptian Armed forces. This angered the Soviet Union because Egypt took the same route in 1974 and distanced itself from the Soviets.
During Daoud’s presidency, relations with the Soviet Union continually deteriorated. The Soviets saw his shift to a more Western-friendly leadership as dangerous, including criticism of Cuba’s membership in the Non-aligned Movement and the expulsion of Soviet military and economic advisers. The suppression of political opposition furthermore turned the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Party (PDPA), an important ally in the 1973 coup against the king, against him.
In 1976, Daoud established a seven-year economic plan for the country. He started military training programs with India and commenced economic development talks with Imperial Iran. Daoud also turned his attention to oil-rich Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and others for financial assistance.
Daoud had however achieved little of what he had set out to accomplish in 1978. The Afghan economy hadn’t made any real progress and the Afghan standard of living had not risen. Daoud also garnered much criticism for his single party constitution in 1977, which alienated him from his political supporters. By this time, the two main factions of the PDPA, previously locked in a power struggle, had reached a fragile agreement for reconciliation. Communist-sympathizing army officials were already planning a move against the government. According to Hafizullah Amin, who became Afghan head of state in 1979, the PDPA started plotting the coup in 1976, two years before it materialized.
Saur Revolution
In April 1978, the communist PDPA seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide. The Pakistani government provided these rebels with covert training centers, while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government. Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA — the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham — resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of a Parchami coup.
In September 1979, Nur Muhammad Taraki, the leader of PDPA, was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. During his short stay in power (104 days), Amin became committed to establishing a collective leadership. When Taraki was ousted, Amin promised “from now on there will be no one-man government …” Attempting to pacify the population, he released a list of 18,000 people who had been executed and blamed the executions on Taraki. Amin was disliked by the Afghan people. During his rule, opposition to the communist regime increased and the government lost control over the countryside. The state of the Afghan military deteriorated under Amin; due to desertions, the number of military personnel in the Afghan army decreased from 100,000 in the immediate aftermath of the Saur Revolution to somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000.
Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, the Special Commission of the Politburo on Afghanistan, consisting of Yuri Andropov, Andrei Gromyko, Dmitriy Ustinov, and Boris Ponomarev, wanted to end the impression that the Soviet government supported Amin’s leadership and policies.
Amin remained trustful of the Soviet Union until the very end, despite the deterioration of official relations with the Soviet Union. When the Afghan intelligence service handed Amin a report that the Soviet Union would invade the country and topple him, Amin claimed the report was a product of imperialism.
Saur Revolution
The day after the Marxist revolution on April 28, 1978.
A photo of several tanks surrounding a building the day after the Marxist revolution on April 28, 1978.
34.6.3: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
On December 27, 1979, Soviet Union forces stormed the Tajbeg Palace in Afghanistan and killed Afghan President Hafizullah Amin, then installed Babrak Karmal as Amin’s successor.
Learning Objective
Review the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the challenges it faced
Key Points
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978.
By mid-1978, a rebellion started, with rebels attacking the local military garrison in the Nuristan region of eastern Afghanistan. Civil war soon spread throughout the country.
In September 1979, Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin seized power, arresting and killing President Taraki.
Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin’s actions had destabilized the situation in Afghanistan and the USSR started to discuss how to respond.
Deteriorating relations and worsening rebellions led the Soviet government, under leader Leonid Brezhnev, to deploy the 40th Army on December 24, 1979; arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup, killing president Amin and installing Soviet loyalist Babrak Karmal from a rival faction.
The Soviets did not foresee taking such an active role in fighting the rebels; however, their arrival had the opposite effect as it incensed instead of pacified the people, causing the mujahideen rebels to gain strength and numbers.
The fighting became the Soviet-Afghan War, which lasted for over nine years and was often brutal, with the mujahideen staging guerrilla-style tactics with weapons supplied by the U.S. and other allies.
The UN, along with much of the international community, was highly critical of the Soviet actions.
Key Terms
Babrak Karmal
An Afghan politician installed as president of Afghanistan by the USSR when they invaded in 1979. Policy failures and the stalemate that ensued after the Soviet intervention led the Soviet leadership to become highly critical of his leadership. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union deposed him and replaced him with Mohammad Najibullah.
KGB
The main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991, acting as internal security, intelligence, and secret police.
People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)
A socialist party established on January 1, 1965. While a minority, the party helped former prime minister of Afghanistan, Mohammed Daoud Khan, overthrow his cousin, Mohammed Zahir Shah, and established the Republic of Afghanistan. Later in 1978 this party, with help from the Afghan National Army, seized power from Daoud in what is known as the Saur Revolution.
Background
Prior to the arrival of Soviet troops, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power after a 1978 coup, installing Nur Mohammad Taraki as president. The party initiated a series of radical modernization reforms throughout the country that were deeply unpopular, particularly among the more traditional rural population and the established power structures. The government vigorously suppressed any opposition and arrested thousands, executing as many as 27,000 political prisoners. Anti-government armed groups were formed, and by April 1979 large parts of the country were in open rebellion. The government itself was highly unstable with in-party rivalry, and in September 1979 the president was deposed by followers of Hafizullah Amin, who then became president.
Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin’s actions had destabilized the situation in Afghanistan. Following his initial coup against and killing of President Taraki, the KGB station in Kabul warned Moscow that Amin’s leadership would lead to “harsh repressions, and as a result, the activation and consolidation of the opposition.”
Despite earlier commitments to not intervene in Afghanistan, as the situation continued to deteriorate from May–December 1979, Moscow changed its mind on dispatching Soviet troops. The reasons for this turnabout are not entirely clear, and several speculative arguments include the grave internal situation and inability for the Afghan government to quell the rebellion; the effects of the Iranian Revolution that brought an Islamic theocracy into power, leading to fears that religious fanaticism would spread through Afghanistan and into Soviet Muslim Central Asian republics; and the deteriorating ties with the United States. Conservatives believe that this process was reflective of growing Soviet political influence in the world and that Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979 was an attempt to preserve, stabilize, and militarily intervene on behalf of the communist regime and thus improve their own political standing.
Soviet Invasion and Coup d’état
On October 31, 1979, Soviet informants to the Afghan Armed Forces, under orders from the inner circle of advisers under Soviet premier Brezhnev, relayed information for them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet Airborne Forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17. His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country to work out their initial routes and locations.
On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB and GRU special forces officers, occupied major governmental, military, and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target – the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.
That operation began at 7 p.m. when the KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul’s communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 7:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied. The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.
A Soviet-organized government, led by Parcham’s Babrak Karmal but inclusive of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war .
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 tank in Kabul.
Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 tank in Kabul during the Soviet invasion.
International Reaction
Foreign ministers from 34 Islamic nations adopted a resolution that condemned the Soviet intervention and demanded “the immediate, urgent and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops” from the Muslim nation of Afghanistan. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution protesting the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by a vote of 104–18. According to political scientist Gilles Kepel, the Soviet intervention or “invasion” was “viewed with horror” in the West, considered a “fresh twist” on the geo-political “Great Game” of the 19th Century in which Britain feared that Russia sought access to the Indian Ocean and posed “a threat to Western security,” explicitly violating “the world balance of power agreed upon at Yalta” in 1945.
War Continues
Soviet troops occupied the cities and main arteries of communication, while the mujahideen waged guerrilla war in small groups in the almost 80 percent of the country that escaped government and Soviet control. Soviets used their air power to deal harshly with both rebels and civilians, leveling villages to deny safe haven to the enemy, destroying vital irrigation ditches, and laying millions of land mines.
The Soviets did not foresee taking on such an active role in fighting the rebels and attempted to downplay their involvement as light assistance to the Afghan army. However, the arrival of the Soviets had the opposite effect as it incensed instead of pacified the people, causing the mujahideen to gain in strength and numbers. Originally the Soviets thought their forces would strengthen the backbone of the Afghan army and provide assistance by securing major cities, lines of communication, and transportation. The Afghan army forces had a high desertion rate and were loath to fight, especially since the Soviet forces pushed them into infantry roles while they manned the armored vehicles and artillery.
The mujahideen favored sabotage operations such as damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, and blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members and laid siege to small rural outposts.
By the mid-1980s, the Soviet contingent was increased to 108,800 and fighting increased throughout the country, but the military and diplomatic cost of the war to the USSR was high. By mid-1987 the Soviet Union, now under reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, announced it would start withdrawing its forces. The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to its length, it has sometimes been referred to as the “Soviet Union’s Vietnam War” by the Western media, and is thought to be a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union.
34.6.4: The United States and the Mujahideen
The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet mujahideen rebels through the Pakistani intelligence services in a program called Operation Cyclone.
Learning Objective
Discuss the ties between the United States and the mujahideen
Key Points
Although U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s focus was more on Iran during the months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he initiated a covert program through the CIA to financially support the Afghan rebels, the mujahideen, in July 1979.
After the Soviet invasion in December 1979, which was a surprise to Carter, the CIA expanded the program, code-named Operation Cyclone, and began providing weapons along with money to the mujahideen through the Pakistani intelligence services.
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. More than $20 billion in U.S. funds was funneled into the country to train and arm Afghan resistance groups.
The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviets.
The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that in the 1990s, the United States conducted a “buy-back” program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists, an effort which was covertly renewed in the early 2000s.
Conspiracy theorists have alleged that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were beneficiaries of CIA assistance, a claim which is refuted by many experts.
Key Terms
Reagan Doctrine
A strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to overwhelm the global influence of the Soviet Union in an attempt to end the Cold War. Under this doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements to “roll back” Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Operation Cyclone
The code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
mujahideen
The term for one engaged in Jihad. In English usage, it originally referred to the guerrilla type military outfits led by the Muslim Afghan warriors in the Soviet–- War, but now may refer to jihadist outfits in other countries.
U.S. Response to Afghan-Soviet War
American President Jimmy Carter was surprised by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community during 1978 and 1979—reiterated as late as September 29, 1979—was that “Moscow would not intervene in force even if it appeared likely that the Khalq government was about to collapse.” Indeed, Carter’s diary entries from November 1979 until the Soviet invasion in late December contain only two short references to Afghanistan, and are instead preoccupied with the ongoing hostage crisis in Iran. Despite the focus on Iran, Carter had authorized a collaboration between the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and through the ISI, the CIA began providing $500,000 worth of non-lethal assistance to the mujahideen on July 3, 1979—several months before the Soviet invasion.
In the aftermath of the invasion, Carter was determined to respond vigorously to what he considered a dangerous provocation. In a televised speech, he announced sanctions on the Soviet Union, promised renewed aid to Pakistan, and committed the United States to the Persian Gulf’s defense. Carter also called for a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, which raised a bitter controversy.
The thrust of U.S. policy for the duration of the war was determined by Carter in early 1980 when he initiated a program to arm the mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI and secured a pledge from Saudi Arabia to match U.S. funding for this purpose. U.S. support for the mujahideen accelerated under Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, at a final cost to U.S. taxpayers of some $3 billion.
Operation Cyclone
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily toward supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken. Funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).
President Reagan greatly expanded the program as part of the Reagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad. To execute this policy, Reagan deployed CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary officers to equip the mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army. Although the CIA and Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson received the most attention for their roles, the key architect of the strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young CIA paramilitary officer working for Gust Avrakotos, the CIA’s regional head who had a close relationship with Wilson. Vicker’s strategy was to use a broad mix of weapons, tactics, logistics, and training programs to enhance the rebels’ ability to fight a guerrilla war against the Soviets. Reagan’s program assisted in ending the Soviet’s occupation in Afghanistan.
The United States offered two packages of economic assistance and military sales to support Pakistan’s role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The first six-year assistance package (1981–87) amounted to $3.2 billion, equally divided between economic assistance and military sales. The U.S. also sold 40 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan during 1983–87 at a cost of $1.2 billion outside the assistance package. The second six-year assistance package (1987–93) amounted to $4.2 billion. Out of this, $2.28 billion was allocated for economic assistance in the form of grants or loan that carried the interest rate of 2–3 percent. The rest of the allocation ($1.74 billion) was in the form of credit for military purchases. More than $20 billion in U.S. funds was funneled into the country to train and arm the Afghan resistance groups. The support proved vital to the mujahideen’s efforts against the Soviets.
The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that in the 1990s, the United States conducted a “buy-back” program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This program may have been covertly renewed following the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in late 2001 out of fear that remaining Stingers could be used against U.S. forces in the country.
The Soviets were unable to quell the insurgency and withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, precipitating the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, the decision to route U.S. aid through Pakistan led to massive fraud as weapons sent to Karachi were frequently sold on the local market rather than delivered to the Afghan rebels. Karachi soon “became one of the most violent cities in the world.” Pakistan also controlled which rebels received assistance. Of the seven mujahideen groups supported by Zia’s government, four espoused Islamic fundamentalist beliefs—and these fundamentalists received most of the funding.
Conspiracy theorists have alleged that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were beneficiaries of CIA assistance. This is refuted by experts such as Steve Coll—who notes that declassified CIA records and interviews with CIA officers do not support such claims—and Peter Bergen, who concludes: “The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence.” U.S. funding went to the Afghan mujahideen, not the Arab volunteers who arrived to assist them.
Reagan and the Mujahideen
President Reagan meeting with Afghan mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983
President Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983
34.6.5: Emergence of Extremism
The Taliban is an Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement that rose to power in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in 1989 and ruled from 1996-2001, enforcing a strict interpretation of Islamic law that resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women.
Learning Objective
Generalize how the conflict in Afghanistan led to the rise of Islamism and the Taliban
Key Points
In 1989, with mounting international pressure and military losses against the Afghan rebels, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, ending the Soviet-Afghan War.
Fighting in Afghanistan continued, with the Afghan government under the leadership of President Mohammad Najibullah launching attacks against the rebels without international support.
Afghanistan descended into political chaos and an estimated 25,000 people died during this period.
Southern and eastern Afghanistan were under the control of local commanders and in 1994, the Taliban, a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement, took control of southern Afghanistan and forced the surrender of dozens of local leaders.
In 1996, the Taliban seized Kabul (the capital) and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, imposing a strict form of Sharia, which resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women, including sex trafficking and massacres.
In 2001, the Taliban was overthrown and a new government established, but Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world due to a lack of foreign investment, government corruption, and the continued Taliban insurgency.
Key Terms
Taliban
A Sunni Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan currently waging war (an insurgency, or jihad) within that country. From 1996 to 2001, it held power in Afghanistan and enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law, of which the international community and leading Muslims have been highly critical.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
An Islamic state established in September 1996 when the Taliban began its rule of Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul. At its peak, the Taliban established control over approximately 90% of the country, whereas parts of the northeast were held by the Northern Alliance. The regime ended on December 9, 2001, forced out by the Northern Alliance backed by U.S. air forces.
Al Qaeda
A militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Osama bin Laden
The founder of al-Qaeda, the organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States, along with numerous other mass-casualty attacks worldwide.
Soviet Withdrawal From Afghanistan
Faced with mounting international pressure and numerous casualties, the Soviets withdrew in 1989 but continued to support Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah until 1992. Following the Soviet withdrawal, some of the foreign volunteers (including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda) and young Afghan refugees, went on to continue violent jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and abroad. According to political scientist Mohammed H. Hafez, some of the thousands of Afghan Arabs who left Afghanistan went on to become “capable leaders, religious ideologues and military commanders,” who played “vital roles” as insurgents or terrorists in places such as Algeria, Egypt, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugee children in Pakistan were educated in madrases “in a spirit of conservatism and religious rigor,” explains political scientist Gilles Kepel, and went on to fill the ranks and leadership of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sipah-e-Sahaba in Pakistan. When the Soviet Union fell shortly after its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the volunteers were overjoyed, believing that—in the words of Osama bin Laden—the credit for “the dissolution of the Soviet Union … goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan … the US had no mentionable role.”
Continued Civil War
From 1989 until 1992, Najibullah’s government tried to solve the ongoing civil war with economic and military aid, but without Soviet troops on the ground. Pakistan’s spy agency (ISI), headed by Hamid Gul at the time, was interested in a trans-national Islamic revolution that would cover Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. For this purpose, Pakistan masterminded an attack on Jalalabad for the mujahideen to establish its own government in Afghanistan. Najibullah tried to build support for his government by portraying his government as Islamic, and in the 1990 constitution the country officially became an Islamic state and all references of communism were removed. Nevertheless, Najibullah did not win any significant support, and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, he was left without foreign aid. This coupled with the internal collapse of his government led to his ousting from power in April 1992. After the fall of Najibullah’s government, the post-communist Islamic State of Afghanistan was established by the Peshawar Accord, a peace and power-sharing agreement under which all the Afghan parties were united in April 1992, except for the Pakistani supported Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar started a bombardment campaign against the capital city Kabul, which marked the beginning of a new phase in the war.
Due to the sudden initiation of the war, working government departments, police units, and a system of justice and accountability for the newly created Islamic State of Afghanistan did not have time to form. Atrocities were committed by individuals of the different armed factions while Kabul descended into lawlessness and chaos. For civilians there was little security from murder, rape, and extortion. An estimated 25,000 people died during the most intense period of bombardment by Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i Islami and the Junbish-i Milli forces of Abdul Rashid Dostum, who created an alliance with Hekmatyar in 1994. Half a million people fled Afghanistan.
Southern and eastern Afghanistan were under the control of local commanders such as Gul Agha Sherzai and others. In 1994, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a political-religious force. The Taliban first took control of southern Afghanistan in 1994 and forced the surrender of dozens of local Pashtun leaders.
In late 1994, forces of military commander Ahmad Shah Massoud held on to Kabul. Rabbani’s government took steps to reopen courts, restore law and order, and initiate a nationwide political process with the goal of national consolidation and democratic elections. Massoud invited Taliban leaders to join the process but they refused.
Afghan Civil War
A totally destroyed section of Kabul during the civil war in 1993.
A totally destroyed section of Kabul in 1993.
Taliban Takes Power
The Taliban’s early victories in late 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses. The Taliban attempted to capture Kabul in early 1995 but were repelled by forces under Massoud. In September 1996 as the Taliban, with military support from Pakistan and financial support from Saudi Arabia, prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul. The Taliban seized Kabul in the same month and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They imposed a strict form of Sharia, similar to that found in Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban have been condemned internationally for the harsh enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, which has resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women. During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians, and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. In its post-9/11 insurgency, the group has been accused of using terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. Several Taliban and al-Qaeda commanders also ran a network of human trafficking, abducting women and selling them into sex slavery in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
After the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, Massoud and Dostum formed the Northern Alliance. The Taliban defeated Dostum’s forces during the Battles of Mazar-i-Sharif (1997–98). Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Pervez Musharraf, began sending thousands of Pakistanis to help the Taliban defeat the Northern Alliance. From 1996 to 2001, the al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri was also operating inside Afghanistan. From 1990 to September 2001, around 400,000 Afghans died in the internal mini-wars.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
Map of the situation in Afghanistan in late 1996; Massoud (red), Dostum (green) and Taliban (yellow) territories.
The map shows that the southern two thirds of Afghanistan was Taliban territory. The remaining third of the country was divided between Dostums territory in the northwest and Massouds territory in the northeast. The Dostums territory and Massouds territory together comprised the Northern Alliance.
On September 9, 2001, Massoud was assassinated by two Arab suicide attackers in Panjshir province of Afghanistan. Two days later, the September 11 attacks were carried out in the United States. The U.S. government suspected Osama bin Laden as the perpetrator of the attacks, and demanded that the Taliban hand him over. After refusing to comply, the October 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom was launched. During the initial invasion, U.S. and UK forces bombed al-Qaeda training camps. The United States began working with the Northern Alliance to remove the Taliban from power.
Fall of the Taliban: Continued Insurgency
In December 2001, after the Taliban government was overthrown and the new Afghan government under President Hamid Karzai was formed, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council to assist the Karzai administration and provide basic security. Taliban forces also began regrouping inside Pakistan, while more coalition troops entered Afghanistan and began rebuilding the war-torn country.
Shortly after their fall from power, the Taliban began an insurgency to regain control of Afghanistan. Over the next decade, ISAF and Afghan troops led many offensives against the Taliban but failed to fully defeat them. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world due to a lack of foreign investment, government corruption, and the Taliban insurgency.
33.1.1: French West Africa’s Move Toward Independence
French West Africa was a federation of eight French colonial territories in Africa that existed from 1895 until 1960, when the colonies established independence from France.
Learning Objective
Describe the move towards independence in French West Africa
Key Points
As the French pursued their part in the “scramble for Africa” in the 1880s and 1890s, they conquered large inland areas and soon dubbed them “Military Territories.”
In the late 1890s, the French government began to rein in the territorial expansion of the military officers in charge of these territories and transferred all the territories west of Gabon to a single governor based in Senegal.
These territories were formally named French West Africa.
Until after the Second World War, almost no Africans living in the colonies of France were citizens of France; rather, they were “French Subjects,” lacking rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote.
Following World War II, the French government began extending limited political rights in its colonies, such as including some African subjects in the governing bodies of the colonies and giving limited citizenship rights to natives.
In 1960, a further revision of the French constitution, compelled by the failure of the French Indochina War and the tensions in Algeria, allowed members of the French Community (the successor to the French colonial empire) to unilaterally change their own constitutions, resulting in the end of French West Africa.
Key Terms
French Subjects
Residents of French colonies who unlike French citizens, lacked rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote.
Protectorate
A dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy and some independence while still retaining the suzerainty of a greater sovereign state.
scramble for Africa
The invasion, occupation, division, colonization, and annexation of African territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914.
French West Africa was a federation of eight French colonial territories in Africa: Mauritania, Senegal, French Sudan (now Mali), French Guinea (now Guinea), Côte d’Ivoire, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), Dahomey (now Benin), and Niger. The capital of the federation was Dakar. The federation existed from 1895 until 1960.
Background: French Colonial Empire
The French colonial empire constituted the overseas colonies, protectorates, and mandate territories under French rule from the 16th century onward. A distinction is made between the “first colonial empire,” which was mostly lost by 1814, and the “second colonial empire,” which began with the conquest of Algiers in 1830. The second empire came to an end after the loss of bitter wars in Vietnam (1955) and Algeria (1962), and peaceful decolonization elsewhere after 1960.
The French colonial empire began to fall during the Second World War, when various parts were occupied by foreign powers (Japan in Indochina, Britain in Syria, Lebanon, and Madagascar, the USA and Britain in Morocco and Algeria, and Germany and Italy in Tunisia). However, control was gradually reestablished by Charles de Gaulle. The French Union, included in the Constitution of 1946, nominally replaced the former colonial empire, but officials in Paris remained in full control. The colonies were given local assemblies with only limited local power and budgets. A group of elites known as evolués emerged: natives of the overseas territories who lived in metropolitan France.
The French Union was replaced in the new Constitution of 1958 by the French Community. Only Guinea refused by referendum to take part in the new colonial organization. However, the French Community dissolved itself in the midst of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960 with local referendums. A few colonies chose instead to remain part of France under the status of overseas territories. Robert Aldrich argues that with Algerian independence in 1962, the Empire had practically come to an end, as the remaining colonies were quite small and lacked active nationalist movements.
Rights and Representation in French Territories
As the French pursued their part in the “scramble for Africa” in the 1880s and 1890s, they conquered large inland areas, at first ruling them as either a part of the Senegal colony or as independent entities. These conquered areas were usually governed by French Army officers and dubbed “Military Territories.” In the late 1890s, the French government began to rein in the territorial expansion of its “officers on the ground” and transferred all the territories west of Gabon to a single Governor based in Senegal reporting directly to the Minister of Overseas Affairs. The first Governor General of Senegal was named in 1895, and in 1904, the territories he oversaw were formally named French West Africa (AOF). Gabon would later become the seat of its own federation French Equatorial Africa (AEF), to border its western neighbor on the modern boundary between Niger and Chad.
Until after the Second World War, almost all Africans living in the colonies of France were not citizens of France. Rather, they were “French Subjects,” lacking rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote. The exception were the Four Communes of Senegal; those areas had been towns of the tiny Senegal Colony in 1848 when, at the abolition of slavery by the French Second Republic, all residents of France were granted equal political rights. Anyone able to prove they were born in these towns was legally French. They could vote in parliamentary elections, previously dominated by white and Métis residents of Senegal.
The Four Communes of Senegal were entitled to elect a Deputy to represent them in the French Parliament in the years 1848–1852, 1871–1876, and 1879–1940. In 1914, the first African, Blaise Diagne, was elected as the Deputy for Senegal in the French Parliament. In 1916, Diagne pushed through the National Assembly a law (Loi Blaise Diagne) granting full citizenship to all residents of the so-called Four Communes. In return, he promised to help recruit millions of Africans to fight in World War I. Thereafter, all black Africans of Dakar, Gorée, Saint-Louis, and Rufisque could vote to send a representative to the French National Assembly.
After the Fall of France during World War II in June 1940 and the two battles of Dakar against the Free French Forces in July and September 1940, authorities in West Africa declared allegiance to the Vichy regime, as did the colony of French Gabon in AEF. While the latter fell to Free France already after the Battle of Gabon in November 1940, West Africa remained under Vichy control until the Allied landings in North Africa (operation Torch) in November 1942.
French West Africa
A “Section Chief” in the building of the Dakar–Niger Railway, pushed by African workers, Kayes, Mali, 1904
A photo of a white French “Section Chief” being pushed on a rail cart by two black African workers in Mali, 1904.
Toward Independence
Following World War II, the French government began extending limited political rights in its colonies. In 1945 the French Provisional Government allocated ten seats to French West Africa in the new Constituent Assembly, called to write a new French Constitution. Of these, five would be elected by citizens (which only in the Four Communes could an African hope to win) and five by African subjects. The elections brought to prominence a new generation of French-educated Africans. On October 21, 1945 six Africans were elected: the Four Communes citizens chose Lamine Guèye, Senegal/Mauritania Léopold Sédar Senghor, Côte d’Ivoire/Upper Volta Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Dahomey/Togo Sourou-Migan Apithy, Soudan-Niger Fily Dabo Sissoko, and Guinea Yacine Diallo. They were all re-elected to the 2nd Constituent Assembly on June 2, 1946.
In 1946, the Loi Lamine Guèye granted limited citizenship rights to natives of the African colonies. The French Empire was renamed the French Union on October 27, 1946, when the new constitution of the French Fourth Republic was established. In late 1946 under this new constitution, each territory was for the first time (excepting the Four Communes) able to elect local representatives, albeit on a limited franchise, to newly established General Councils. These elected bodies had limited consultative powers, although they did approve local budgets. The Loi Cadre of June 23, 1956 brought universal suffrage to elections held after that date in all French African colonies. The first elections under universal suffrage in French West Africa were the municipal elections of late 1956. On March 31, 1957, under universal suffrage, territorial Assembly elections were held in each of the eight colonies (Togo as a UN trust Territory was by this stage on a different trajectory). The leaders of the winning parties were appointed to the newly instituted positions of Vice-Presidents of the respective Governing Councils — French Colonial Governors remained as Presidents.
The Constitution of the French Fifth Republic of 1958 again changed the structure of the colonies from the French Union to the French Community. Each territory was to become a “Protectorate,” with the consultative assembly named a National Assembly. The Governor appointed by the French was renamed the “High Commissioner” and made head of state of each territory. The Assembly would name an African as Head of Government with advisory powers to the Head of State. Legally, the federation ceased to exist after the September 1958 referendum to approve this French Community. All the colonies except Guinea voted to remain in the new structure. Guineans voted overwhelmingly for independence. In 1960, a further revision of the French constitution, compelled by the failure of the French Indochina War and the tensions in Algeria, allowed members of the French Community to unilaterally change their own constitutions. Senegal and former French Sudan became the Mali Federation (1960–61), while Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) and Dahomey (now Benin) subsequently formed the short-lived Sahel-Benin Union, later the Conseil de l’Entente.
33.1.2: The Algerian War of Independence
The Algerian War of Independence was a war between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) from 1954 to 1962, which led to Algeria’s independence from France and was infamous for the extensive use of torture by both sides.
Learning Objective
Argue for and against the tactics used by the FLN in order to gain independence
Key Points
In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony and, in 1848, was declared by the constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France.
The Algerian War was fought between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) between 1954 and 1962 and was characterized by complex guerrilla warfare and the extensive use of torture by both sides.
The conflict started in the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, when FLN guerrillas attacked military and civilian targets throughout Algeria in what became known as the Toussaint Rouge (Red All-Saints’ Day).
The FLN turned to killing civilians during the Philippeville Massacre, which brought on harsh retaliation by the French army.
After major demonstrations in favor of independence from the end of 1960 and a United Nations resolution recognizing the right to independence, De Gaulle decided to open a series of negotiations with the FLN, which concluded with the signing of the Évian Accords on March 1962.
Key Terms
“scorched earth”
A military strategy that targets anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. Specifically, all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area.
Pieds-Noirs
A term referring to Christian and Jewish people whose families migrated from all parts of the Mediterranean to French Algeria, the French protectorate in Morocco, or the French protectorate of Tunisia, where many lived for several generations before being expelled at the end of French rule in North Africa between 1956 and 1962.
guerrilla warfare
A form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.
Overview
The Algerian War, also known as the Algerian War of Independence or the Algerian Revolution, was a war between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (French: Front de Libération Nationale – FLN) from 1954 to 1962 and led to Algerian independence from France. An important decolonization war, this complex conflict was characterized by guerrilla warfare, maquis fighting, and the use of torture by both sides. The conflict also became a civil war between loyalist Algerians supporting a French Algeria and their Algerian nationalist counterparts.
Effectively started by members of the National Liberation Front on November 1, 1954, during the Toussaint Rouge (“Red All Saints’ Day”), the conflict shook the foundations of the weak and unstable Fourth French Republic (1946–58) and led to its replacement by the Fifth Republic with Charles de Gaulle as President. Although the French military campaigns greatly weakened the FLN’s military, with most prominent FLN leaders killed or arrested and terror attacks effectively stopped, the brutality of the methods employed by the French forces failed to win hearts and minds in Algeria, alienated support in metropolitan France, and discredited French prestige abroad.
After major demonstrations in favor of independence from the end of 1960 and a United Nations resolution recognizing the right to independence, De Gaulle decided to open a series of negotiations with the FLN, concluding with the signing of the Évian Accords on March 1962. A referendum took place on April 8, 1962 and the French electorate approved the Évian Accords. The final result was 91% in favor of the ratification of this agreement and on July 1, the Accords were subject to a second referendum in Algeria, where 99.72% voted for independence and just 0.28% against.
The planned French withdrawal led to a state crisis, various assassination attempts on de Gaulle, and attempts at military coups. Most of the former were carried out by the Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS), an underground organization formed mainly from French military personnel supporting a French Algeria, which committed a large number of bombings and murders both in Algeria and in the homeland to stop the planned independence.
Algerian War
French forces killed Algerian rebels, December 1954
A photo of several French solders standing around the dead bodies of Algerian rebels.
Philippeville Massacre
The FLN adopted tactics similar to those of nationalist groups in Asia, and the French did not realize the seriousness of the challenge they faced until 1955 when the FLN moved into urbanized areas. An important watershed in the War of Independence was the massacre of Pieds-Noirs civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville (now known as Skikda) in August 1955. Before this operation, FLN policy was to attack only military and government-related targets. The commander of the Constantine region, however, decided a drastic escalation was needed. The killing by the FLN and its supporters of 123 civilians, elderly women, and babies, including 71 French, shocked Governor General Jacques Soustelle into calling for more repressive measures against the rebels. The government claimed it killed 1,273 guerrillas in retaliation; according to the FLN and to The Times, 12,000 Algerians were massacred by the armed forces and police as well as Pieds-Noirs gangs. Soustelle’s repression was an early cause of the Algerian population’s rallying to the FLN. After Philippeville, Soustelle declared sterner measures and an all-out war began. In 1956, demonstrations by French Algerians caused the French government to not make reforms.
Guerrilla Warfare
During 1956 and 1957, the FLN successfully applied hit-and-run tactics in accordance with guerrilla warfare theory. Whilst some was aimed at military targets, a significant amount was invested in a terror campaign against those deemed to support or encourage French authority. This resulted in acts of sadistic torture and brutal violence against all, including women and children. Specializing in ambushes and night raids and avoiding direct contact with superior French firepower, the internal forces targeted army patrols, military encampments, police posts, and colonial farms, mines, and factories, as well as transportation and communications facilities. Once an engagement was broken off, the guerrillas merged with the population in the countryside, in accordance with Mao’s theories. Kidnapping was commonplace, as were the ritual murder and mutilation of civilians. At first, the FLN targeted only Muslim officials of the colonial regime; later, they coerced, maimed, or killed village elders, government employees, and even simple peasants who refused to support them. Throat slitting and decapitation were commonly used by the FLN as mechanisms of terror. During the first two-and-a-half years of the conflict, the guerrillas killed an estimated 6,352 Muslim and 1,035 non-Muslim civilians.
Although successfully provoking fear and uncertainty within both communities in Algeria, the revolutionaries’ coercive tactics suggested they had not yet inspired the bulk of the Muslim people to revolt against French colonial rule. Gradually, however, the FLN gained control in certain sectors of the Aurès, the Kabylie, and other mountainous areas around Constantine and south of Algiers and Oran. In these places, the FLN established a simple but effective—although frequently temporary—military administration that was able to collect taxes and food and recruit manpower, but was unable to hold large, fixed positions.
Guerilla Warfare
Muslim civilians killed by the FLN, March 22, 1956
Photo of several civilians laying dead across a road.
French Use of Torture
Torture was used since the beginning of the colonization of Algeria, initiated by the July Monarchy in 1830. Directed by Marshall Bugeaud, who became the first Governor-General of Algeria, the conquest of Algeria was marked by a “scorched earth” policy and the use of torture, e legitimized by a racist ideology. The armed struggle of the FLN and of its armed wing, the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) was for self-determination. The French state itself refused to see the colonial conflict as a war, as that would recognize the other party as a legitimate entity. Thus, until August 10, 1999, the French Republic persisted in calling the Algerian War a simple “operation of public order” against the FLN “terrorism.” Thus, the military did not consider themselves tied by the Geneva Conventions, ratified by France in 1951.
Violence increased on both sides from 1954 to 1956. In 1957, the Minister of Interior declared a state of emergency in Algeria, and the government granted extraordinary powers to General Massu. The Battle of Algiers from January to October 1957 remains to this day a textbook example of counter-insurgency operations. General Massu’s 10th Paratroop Division made widespread use of methods used during the Indochina War (1947–54), including systematic use of torture against civilians, a block warden system (quadrillage), illegal executions, and forced disappearances, in particular through what would later become known as “death flights,” in which victims are dropped to their death from airplanes or helicopters into large bodies of water. Although the use of torture quickly became well-known and was opposed by the left-wing opposition, the French state repeatedly denied its employment, censoring more than 250 books, newspapers and films (in metropolitan France alone) which dealt with the subject and 586 in Algeria.
33.1.3: Moroccan Independence
France’s exile of Sultan Mohammed V in 1953 to Madagascar and his replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa sparked active opposition to French and Spanish rule and led to Moroccan independence in 1956.
Learning Objective
Order the events that led to Moroccan independence
Key Points
The French Protectorate in Morocco was established by the Treaty of Fez in 1912.
Between 1921 and 1926, a Berber uprising in the Rif Mountains led by Abd el-Krim led to the establishment of the Republic of the Rif; the rebellion was eventually suppressed by French and Spanish troops.
In 1943, the Istiqlal Party (Independence Party) was founded to press for independence with discreet US support; that party subsequently provided most of the leadership for the nationalist movement.
France’s exile of Sultan Mohammed V in 1953 to Madagascar and his replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa sparked active opposition to the French and Spanish protectorates.
France allowed Mohammed V to return in 1955, and the negotiations that led to Moroccan independence began the following year.
In March 1956 the French protectorate was ended and Morocco regained its independence from France as the “Kingdom of Morocco.”
Key Terms
protectorate
A dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy and some independence while retaining the suzerainty of a greater sovereign state. Unlike colonies, they have local rulers and experience rare cases of immigration of settlers from the country it has suzerainty of.
Atlantic Charter
A pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-WWII world, including no territorial aggrandizement; no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people; self-determination; restoration of self-government to those deprived of it; reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations.
Rif War
Also called the Second Moroccan War, this war was fought in the early 1920s between the colonial power Spain (later joined by France) and the Berbers of the Rif mountainous region.
French and Spanish Rule in Morocco
As Europe industrialized, North Africa was increasingly prized for its potential for colonization. France showed a strong interest in Morocco as early as 1830, not only to protect the border of its Algerian territory but also because of the strategic position of Morocco on two oceans. In 1860, a dispute over Spain’s Ceuta enclave led Spain to declare war. Victorious Spain won a further enclave and an enlarged Ceuta in the settlement. In 1884, Spain created a protectorate in the coastal areas of Morocco.
In 1904, France and Spain carved out zones of influence in Morocco. Recognition by the United Kingdom of France’s sphere of influence provoked a strong reaction from the German Empire, and a crisis loomed in 1905. The matter was resolved at the Algeciras Conference in 1906. The Agadir Crisis of 1911 increased tensions between European powers. The 1912 Treaty of Fez made Morocco a protectorate of France, triggering the 1912 Fez riots. From a legal point of view, the treaty did not deprive Morocco of its status as a sovereign state as the Sultan reigned but did not rule. Spain continued to operate its coastal protectorate. By the same treaty, Spain assumed the role of protecting power over the northern and southern Saharan zones.
Tens of thousands of colonists entered Morocco. Some bought large amounts of the rich agricultural land, while others organized the exploitation and modernization of mines and harbors. Interest groups that formed among these elements continually pressured France to increase its control over Morocco – a control which was also made necessary by the continuous wars among Moroccan tribes, part of which had taken sides with the French since the beginning of the conquest. Governor General Marshall Hubert Lyautey sincerely admired Moroccan culture and succeeded in imposing a joint Moroccan-French administration while creating a modern school system. Several divisions of Moroccan soldiers served in the French army in both World War I and World War II, and in the Spanish Nationalist Army in the Spanish Civil War and after. The institution of slavery was abolished in 1925.
Moroccan Resistance
Sultan Yusef’s reign from 1912 to 1927 was turbulent and marked with frequent uprisings against Spain and France. The most serious of these was a Berber uprising in the Rif Mountains called the Rif War, led by Abd al-Karim who at first inflicted several defeats on the Spanish forces by using guerrilla tactics and captured European weapons and managed to establish a republic in the Rif. Though this rebellion originally began in the Spanish-controlled area in the north of the country, it reached the French-controlled area until a coalition of France and Spain finally defeated the rebels in 1925. To ensure their own safety, the French moved the court from Fez to Rabat, which has served as the capital of the country ever since.
Rif Rebellion
Abd al-Karim boarding a train in Fez on his way to exile after the Rif Rebellion was defeated in 1925.
Photo of Abd el-Krim boarding a train in Fes on his way to exile.
In December 1934, a small group of nationalists, members of the newly formed Moroccan Action Committee, proposed a Plan of Reforms that called for a return to indirect rule as envisaged by the Treaty of Fez, admission of Moroccans to government positions, and establishment of representative councils. The Action Committee used moderate tactics to suggest reforms including petitions, newspaper editorials, and personal appeals to French. Nationalist political parties, which subsequently arose under the French protectorate, based their arguments for Moroccan independence on World War II declarations such as the Atlantic Charter.
Toward Independence
During World War II, the badly divided nationalist movement became more cohesive, and informed Moroccans dared to consider the real possibility of political change in the post-war era. However, the nationalists were disappointed in their belief that the Allied victory in Morocco would pave the way for independence. In January 1944, the Istiqlal Party, which subsequently provided most of the leadership for the nationalist movement, released a manifesto demanding full independence, national reunification, and a democratic constitution. The sultan approved the manifesto before its submission to the French resident general, who answered that no basic change in the protectorate status was being considered.
The general sympathy of the sultan for the nationalists was evident by the end of the war, although he still hoped to see complete independence achieved gradually. By contrast, the residency, supported by French economic interests and vigorously backed by most of the colonists, adamantly refused to consider even reforms short of independence. Official intransigence contributed to increased animosity between the nationalists and the colonists and gradually widened the split between the sultan and the resident general.
Mohammed V and his family were transferred to Madagascar in January 1954. His replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa, whose reign was perceived as illegitimate, sparked active opposition to the French protectorate both from nationalists and those who saw the sultan as a religious leader. By 1955, Ben Arafa was pressured to abdicate; consequently, he fled to Tangier where he formally abdicated. The most notable violence occurred in Oujda where Moroccans attacked French and other European residents in the streets. France allowed Mohammed V to return in 1955, and the negotiations that led to Moroccan independence began the following year. In March 1956 the French protectorate was ended and Morocco regained its independence from France as the “Kingdom of Morocco.”
A month later, Spain ceded most of its protectorate in Northern Morocco to the new state but kept its two coastal enclaves (Ceuta and Melilla) on the Mediterranean coast. In the months that followed independence, Mohammed V proceeded to build a modern government structure under a constitutional monarchy in which the sultan would exercise an active political role. He acted cautiously, with no intention of permitting more radical elements in the nationalist movement to overthrow the established order. He was also intent on preventing the Istiqlal from consolidating its control and establishing a one-party state. In August 1957, Mohammed V assumed the title of king.
Flag of Morocco
Morocco gained independence from France and Spain in 1956 and became the Kingdom of Morocco, a constitutional monarchy led by King Mohammed V.
Image of the Moroccan flag, which is red with a green star in the center.
33.1.4: The Libyan Arab Republic
A military coup in 1969 overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform led by Muammar Gaddafi, who was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution, remaining in power until the Libyan Civil War of 2011.
Learning Objective
Explain Libya’s transition to authoritarian rule under Gaddafi
Key Points
From 1911-1943, Italy colonized and ruled over the territory of modern-day Libya, first as known as Italian North Africa and then as Italian Libya.
Toward the end of WWII, the allied forces took Libya from Italy and occupied it until 1951, when it became an independent kingdom ruled by King Idris I.
On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d’état against King Idris, giving rise to a period of social reform under the authoritarian rule of Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s rule was highly controversial, both praised for his anti-imperialism and criticized for his repressive treatment of citizens; his regime was known for executing dissidents publicly, often rebroadcast on state television channels.
Gaddafi ruled until 2011, when he was deposed during the Libyan Civil War.
Key Terms
2011 Libyan Civil War
An armed conflict in 2011 in the North African country of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government.
Muammar Gaddafi
A Libyan revolutionary, politician, and political theorist. He governed Libya as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the “Brotherly Leader” of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011. A controversial and highly divisive world figure, he was decorated with various awards and lauded for both his anti-imperialist stance and his support for Pan-Africanism and Pan-Arabism. Conversely, he was internationally condemned as a dictator and autocrat whose authoritarian administration violated the human rights of Libyan citizens and supported irredentist movements, tribal warfare, and terrorism in many other nations.
Nasserism
A socialist Arab nationalist political ideology based on the thinking of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s second president and one of the two principal leaders of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Spanning the domestic and international spheres, it combines elements of Arab socialism, republicanism, nationalism, anti-imperialism, developing-world solidarity, and international non-alignment.
Bedouin
A recent term in the Arabic language that is used commonly to refer to the people (Arabs and non-Arabs) who live or have descended from tribes who lived stationary or nomadic lifestyles outside cities and towns.
Italian Libya
The Italo-Turkish War was fought between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and the Kingdom of Italy from September 29, 1911, to October 18, 1912. As a result of this conflict, Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet province and turned it into a colony. From 1912 to 1927, the territory of Libya was known as Italian North Africa. From 1927 to 1934, the territory was split into two colonies, Italian Cyrenaica and Italian Tripolitania, run by Italian governors. Some 150,000 Italians settled in Libya, constituting roughly 20% of the total population.
In 1934, Italy adopted the name “Libya” (used by the Ancient Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan). Omar Mukhtar was the resistance leader against the Italian colonization and became a national hero despite his capture and execution on September 16, 1931. His face is currently printed on the Libyan ten dinar note in recognition of his patriotism. Idris al-Mahdi as-Senussi (later King Idris I), Emir of Cyrenaica, led the Libyan resistance to Italian occupation between the two world wars. Ilan Pappé estimates that between 1928 and 1932, the Italian military “killed half the Bedouin population (directly or through disease and starvation in camps).” Italian historian Emilio Gentile estimates 50,000 deaths resulting from the suppression of resistance.
In June 1940, Italy entered World War II. Libya became the setting for the hard-fought North African Campaign that ultimately ended in defeat for Italy and its German ally in 1943.
From 1943 to 1951, Libya was under Allied occupation. The British military administered the two former Italian Libyan provinces of Tripolitana and Cyrenaïca, while the French administered the province of Fezzan. In 1944, Idris returned from exile in Cairo but declined to resume permanent residence in Cyrenaica until the removal of some aspects of foreign control in 1947. Under the terms of the 1947 peace treaty with the Allies, Italy relinquished all claims to Libya.
Kingdom of Libya
On November 21, 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Libya should become independent before January 1, 1952. Idris represented Libya in the subsequent UN negotiations. On December 24, 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya’s only monarch.
The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world’s poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government’s finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians, and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.
Libyan Revolution: Gaddafi
On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by 27-year-old army officer Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d’état against King Idris, launching the Libyan Revolution. Gaddafi was referred to as the “Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution” in government statements and the official Libyan press.
On the birthday of Muhammad in 1973, Gaddafi delivered a “Five-Point Address.” He announced the suspension of all existing laws and the implementation of Sharia. He said that the country would be purged of the “politically sick.” A “people’s militia” would “protect the revolution.” There would be an administrative revolution and a cultural revolution. Gaddafi set up an extensive surveillance system: 10 to 20 percent of Libyans worked in surveillance for the Revolutionary committees, which monitored place in government, factories, and the education sector. Gaddafi executed dissidents publicly and the executions were often rebroadcast on state television channels. He employed his network of diplomats and recruits to assassinate dozens of critical refugees around the world.
In 1977, Libya officially became the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” Gaddafi officially passed power to the General People’s Committees and henceforth claimed to be no more than a symbolic figurehead, but domestic and international critics claimed the reforms gave him virtually unlimited power. Dissidents against the new system were not tolerated, with punitive actions including capital punishment authorized by Gaddafi himself. The new “jamahiriya” governance structure he established was officially referred to as a form of direct democracy, though the government refused to publish election results. Gaddafi was ruler of Libya until the 2011 Libyan Civil War, when he was deposed with the backing of NATO. Since then, Libya has experienced instability.
Libyan Revolution of 1969
Muammar Gaddafi at an Arab summit in Libya in 1969, shortly after the September Revolution that toppled King Idris I. Gaddafi sits in military uniform in the middle, surrounded by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (left) and Syrian President Nureddin al-Atassi (right).
A photo of Muammar Gaddafi with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to his left and Syrian President Nureddin al-Atassi to his right, shortly after the coup that brought him to power.
33.2: The Democratic Republic of the Congo
33.2.1: Independence from Belgium
In May 1960, a growing nationalist movement, the Mouvement National Congolais led by Patrice Lumumba, won the parliamentary elections. On June 30, 1960, the Congo gained independence from Belgium.
Learning Objective
Contrast Congo’s transition to independence with those of other African states
Key Points
Colonial rule in the Congo began in the late 19th century under King Leopold II, who annexed the territory as his personal possession, naming it the “Congo Free State” and violently exploiting the native population for the extraction and production of rubber and other natural resources.
By the turn of the century, however, the violence of Free State officials against indigenous Congolese and the ruthless system of economic extraction led to intense diplomatic pressure on Belgium to take official control of the country, which it did in 1908, creating the Belgian Congo.
An African nationalist movement developed in the Belgian Congo during the 1950s, primarily among the educated class.
One of the major forces in the nationalist movement was the Mouvement National Congolais or MNC Party led by Patrice Lumumba, who pressured Belgium to relinquish the Congo as colonial territory.
The proclamation of the independent Republic of the Congo, and the end of colonial rule, occurred as planned on June 30, 1960 when Lumumba gave an unplanned and controversial speech attacking colonialism.
Key Terms
évolués
A French term used during the colonial era to refer to a native African or Asian who had “evolved” by becoming Europeanised through education or assimilation and accepted European values and patterns of behavior.
Mouvement National Congolais (MNC)
A political party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, founded in 1958 as a nationalist, pro-independence, united front organization dedicated to achieving independence “within a reasonable” time and bringing together members from various political backgrounds to achieve independence.
King Leopold II
The second King of the Belgians, known for the founding and exploitation of the Congo Free State as a private venture.
Belgian Rule
Colonial rule in the Congo began in the late 19th century. King Leopold II of Belgium, frustrated by Belgium’s lack of international power and prestige, attempted to persuade his government to support colonial expansion around the then-largely unexplored Congo Basin. The Belgian government’s ambivalence eventually led Leopold to create the colony on his own account. With support from a number of Western countries who viewed Leopold as a useful buffer between rival colonial powers, Leopold achieved international recognition for a personal colony, the Congo Free State, in 1885.
By the turn of the century, however, the violence of Free State officials against indigenous Congolese and the ruthless system of economic extraction led to intense diplomatic pressure on Belgium to take official control of the country, which it did in 1908, creating the Belgian Congo.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the Congo experienced an unprecedented level of urbanization and the colonial administration began development programs aimed at making the territory into a “model colony.” One of the results of these measures was the development of a new middle class of Europeanised African “évolués” in the cities. By the 1950s the Congo had a wage labor force twice as large as that of any other African colony. The Congo’s rich natural resources, including uranium—much of the uranium used by the U.S. nuclear program during World War II was Congolese—led to substantial interest in the region from both the Soviet Union and the United States as the Cold War developed.
Force Publique
Force Publique soldiers in the Belgian Congo in 1918. At its peak, the Force Publique had around 19,000 African soldiers, led by 420 white officers.
A photo of Force Publique soldiers in the Belgian Congo in 1918, walking through a river with supplies.
Nationalist Politics
An African nationalist movement developed in the Belgian Congo during the 1950s, primarily among the évolués. The movement consisted of a number of parties and groups which were broadly divided on ethnic and geographical lines and opposed to one another. The largest, the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), was a united front organisation dedicated to achieving independence “within a reasonable” time. It was created around a charter which was signed by, among others, Patrice Lumumba, Cyrille Adoula and Joseph Iléo, but was often accused of being too moderate. Lumumba became a leading figure within the MNC, and by the end of 1959, the party claimed 58,000 members.
Although it was the largest of the African nationalist parties, the MNC had many different factions that took differing stances on many issues. It was increasingly polarized between moderate évolués and the more radical mass membership. A radical faction headed by Iléo and Albert Kalonji split away in July 1959, but failed to induce mass defections by other MNC members.
Major riots broke out in Léopoldville, the Congolese capital, on January 4, 1959, after a political demonstration turned violent. The colonial army, the Force Publique, used force against the rioters—at least 49 people were killed, and total casualties may have been as high as 500. The nationalist parties’ influence expanded outside the major cities for the first time, and nationalist demonstrations and riots became a regular occurrence over the next year, bringing large numbers of black people from outside the évolué class into the independence movement. Many blacks began to test the boundaries of the colonial system by refusing to pay taxes or abide by minor colonial regulations.
Independence from Belgium
In the fallout from the Léopoldville riots, the report of a Belgian parliamentary working group on the future of the Congo was published in which a strong demand for “internal autonomy” was noted. August de Schryver, the Minister of the Colonies, launched a high-profile Round Table Conference in Brussels in January 1960 with the leaders of all the major Congolese parties in attendance. Lumumba, who had been arrested following riots in Stanleyville, was released in the run-up to the conference and headed the MNC delegation. The Belgian government had hoped for at least 30 years before independence, but Congolese pressure at the conference led to a target date of June 30, 1960. Issues including federalism, ethnicity, and the future role of Belgium in Congolese affairs were left unresolved after the delegates failed to reach agreement.
Belgians began campaigning against Lumumba, whom they wanted to marginalize; they accused him of being a communist and hoping to fragment the nationalist movement, supported rival, ethnic-based parties like CONAKAT. Many Belgians hoped that an independent Congo would form part of a federation, like the French Community or British Commonwealth of Nations, and that close economic and political association with Belgium would continue. As independence approached, the Belgian government organised Congolese elections in May 1960. These resulted in a broad MNC majority.
The proclamation of the independent Republic of the Congo and the end of colonial rule occurred as planned on June 30, 1960. In a ceremony at the Palais de la Nation in Léopoldville, King Baudouin gave a speech in which he presented the end of colonial rule in the Congo as the culmination of the Belgian “civilising mission” begun by Leopold II. After the King’s address, Lumumba gave an unscheduled speech in which he angrily attacked colonialism and described independence as the crowning success of the nationalist movement. Although Lumumba’s address was acclaimed by figures such as Malcolm X, it nearly provoked a diplomatic incident with Belgium; even some Congolese politicians perceived it as unnecessarily provocative. Nevertheless, independence was celebrated across the Congo.
Independence from Belgium
Patrice Lumumba, leader of the MNC and first Prime Minister, pictured in Brussels at the Round Table Conference of 1960.
A photo of Patrice Lumumba, leader of the MNC-L and first Prime Minister, pictured in Brussels at the Round Table Conference of 1960, with several other Congolese men around him.
33.2.2: Lumumba and the Congo Crisis
The Congo Crisis was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1960 and 1965, initially caused by a mutiny by the white leadership in the Congolese army and resulting in the execution of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba.
Learning Objective
Describe the political atmosphere surrounding Lumumba’s time in office
Key Points
Shortly after Congolese independence in 1960, a mutiny broke out in the army led by the white military leadership, marking the beginning of the Congo Crisis.
Lumumba appealed to the United States and the United Nations for assistance in suppressing the Belgian-supported Katangan secessionists.
Both parties refused, so Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union for support.
This led to growing differences with President Joseph Kasa-Vubu and chief-of-staff Joseph-Désiré Mobutu as well as foreign opposition from the U.S. and Belgium.
Lumumba was subsequently imprisoned by state authorities under Mobutu and executed by a firing squad under the command of Katangan authorities.
The United Nations, which he had asked to come to the Congo, did not intervene to save him.
Key Terms
Émile Janssens
A Belgian military officer and colonial official, best known for his command of the Force Publique at the start of the Congo Crisis.
Patrice Lumumba
Congolese independence leader and the first democratically elected leader of the Congo as prime minister. As founder and leader of the mainstream Mouvement National Congolais (MNC) party, he played an important role in campaigning for independence from Belgium.
Force Publique
A gendarmerie and military force in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1885 (when the territory was known as the Congo Free State), through the period of direct Belgian colonial rule and for a short time after independence.
The Congo Crisis
The Congo Crisis was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1960 and 1965. It began almost immediately after the Congo became independent from Belgium and ended unofficially with the entire country under the rule of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Constituting a series of civil wars, the Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions. Around 100,000 people were killed during the crisis.
A nationalist movement in the Belgian Congo demanding the end of colonial rule led to the country’s independence on June 30, 1960. Minimal preparations had been made and many issues, such as the questions of federalism and ethnicity, remained unresolved. In the first week of July, a mutiny broke out in the army and violence erupted between black and white civilians. Belgium sent troops to protect fleeing whites and two areas of the country, Katanga and South Kasai, seceded with Belgian support. Amid continuing unrest and violence, the United Nations deployed peacekeepers, but the UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld refused to use these troops to help the central government in Léopoldville fight the secessionists. Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the charismatic leader of the largest nationalist faction, reacted by calling for assistance from the Soviet Union, which promptly sent military advisors and other support.
The involvement of the Soviets split the Congolese government and led to an impasse between Lumumba and President Joseph Kasa-Vubu. Mobutu, in command of the army, broke this deadlock with a coup d’état, expelled the Soviet advisors, and established a new government effectively under his control. Lumumba was placed in captivity and subsequently executed in 1961. A rival government, founded by Antoine Gizenga and Lumumba supporters in the eastern city of Stanleyville, gained Soviet support but was crushed in 1962. Meanwhile, the UN took a more aggressive stance towards the secessionists after Hammarskjöld was killed in a plane crash in late 1961. Supported by UN troops, Léopoldville defeated the secessionist movements in Katanga and South Kasai by early 1963.
With Katanga and South Kasai back under the government’s control, a reconciliatory compromise constitution was adopted and the exiled Katangese leader, Moise Tshombe, was recalled to head an interim administration while fresh elections were organized. Before these could be held, however, Maoist-inspired militants calling themselves the “Simbas” rose up in the east of the country. The Simbas took control of a significant amount of territory and proclaimed a communist “People’s Republic of the Congo” in Stanleyville. Government forces gradually retook territory and in November 1964, Belgium and the United States intervened in Stanleyville to recover hostages from Simba captivity. The Simbas were defeated and collapsed soon after. Following the elections in March 1965, a new political stalemate developed between Tshombe and Kasa-Vubu, forcing the government into near-paralysis. Mobutu mounted a second coup d’état in November 1965, now taking personal control. Under Mobutu’s rule, the Congo (renamed Zaire in 1971) was transformed into a dictatorship which would endure until his deposition in 1997.
The Death of Lumumba
Pro-Lumumba demonstrators in Maribor, Yugoslavia in February 1961.
Photo of a crowd of people in Slovenia protesting the death of Lumumba.
Force Publique Mutiny
Despite the proclamation of independence, neither the Belgian nor the Congolese government intended the colonial social order to end immediately. The Belgian government hoped that whites might keep their position indefinitely. The Republic of the Congo was still reliant on colonial institutions like the Force Publique to function from day to day, and white technical experts installed by the Belgians were retained in the broad absence of suitably qualified black Congolese replacements (partly the result of colonial restrictions regarding higher education). Many Congolese assumed that independence would produce tangible and immediate social change, so the retention of whites in positions of importance was widely resented.
Lieutenant-General Émile Janssens, the Belgian commander of the Force Publique, refused to see Congolese independence as a change in the nature of command. The day after the independence festivities, he gathered the black non-commissioned officers of his Léopoldville garrison and told them that things under his command would stay the same, summarizing the point by writing “Before Independence = After Independence” on a blackboard. This message was hugely unpopular among the rank and file—many of the men had expected rapid promotions and increases in pay to accompany independence. On July 5, several units mutinied against their white officers at Camp Hardy near Thysville. The insurrection spread to Léopoldville the next day and later to garrisons across the country.
Rather than deploying Belgian troops against the mutineers as Janssens wished, Lumumba dismissed him and renamed the Force Publique the Armée Nationale Congolaise (ANC). All black soldiers were promoted by at least one rank. Victor Lundula was promoted directly from sergeant-major to major-general and head of the army, replacing Janssens. At the same time, Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, an ex-sergeant-major and close personal aide of Lumumba, became Lundula’s deputy as army chief of staff. The government attempted to stop the revolt—Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu intervened personally at Léopoldville and Thysville and persuaded the mutineers to lay down their arms—but in most of the country the mutiny intensified. White officers and civilians were attacked, white-owned properties were looted, and white women were raped. The Belgian government became deeply concerned by the situation, particularly when white civilians began entering neighboring countries as refugees.
Lumumba’s stance appeared to many Belgians to justify their prior concerns about his radicalism. On July 9, Belgium deployed paratroopers, without the Congolese state’s permission, in Kabalo and elsewhere to protect fleeing white civilians. The Belgian intervention divided Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu; while Kasa-Vubu accepted the Belgian operation, Lumumba denounced it and called for “all Congolese to defend our republic against those who menace it.” At Lumumba’s request, white civilians from the port city of Matadi were evacuated by the Belgian Navy on July 11. Belgian ships then bombarded the city; at least 19 civilians were killed. This action prompted renewed attacks on whites across the country, while Belgian forces entered other towns and cities, including Léopoldville, and clashed with Congolese troops.
33.2.3: Mobutu and Zaire
During the Congo Crisis, military leader Joseph-Desiré Mobutu ousted the nationalist government of Patrice Lumumba and eventually took authoritarian control of the Congo, renaming it Zaire in 1971, and attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence.
Learning Objective
Discuss how Mobutu was able to seize power in the Congo
Key Points
Mobutu Sese Seko was the military dictator and President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997, which he renamed the Republic of Zaire in 1971.
Patrice Lumumba previously appointed Joseph Mobutu chief of staff of the new Congo army and by taking advantage of the leadership crisis between Kasavubu and Lumumba, Mobutu garnered enough support within the army to create mutiny, eventually allowing him to stage a bloodless coup and take control of the Congo’s government.
A one-party system was established, and Mobutu declared himself head of state.
Although relative peace and stability were achieved, Mobutu’s government was guilty of severe human rights violations, political repression, a cult of personality, and corruption.
Mobutu had the support of the United States because of his staunch opposition to Communism; they believed his administration would serve as an effective counter to communist movements in Africa.
Embarking on a campaign of pro-Africa cultural awareness, or authenticité, Mobutu began renaming the cities of the Congo starting on June 1, 1966, as well as mandating that Zairians were to abandon their Christian names for more “authentic” ones and adopt traditional attire such as the abacost.
Key Terms
Joseph-Désiré Mobutu
The military dictator and President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which was renamed Zaire in 1971) from 1965 to 1997, who formed an authoritarian regime, amassed vast personal wealth, and attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence while enjoying considerable support from the United States due to its anti-communist stance.
Authenticité
An official state ideology of the Mobutu regime that originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, aimed at ridding the country of the lingering vestiges of colonialism and the continuing influence of Western culture and create a more centralized and singular national identity.
Rise to Power
Following Congo’s independence on June 30, 1960, a coalition government was formed, led by Prime Minister Lumumba and President Joseph Kasa-Vubu. The new nation quickly lurched into the Congo Crisis as the army mutinied against the remaining Belgian officers. Lumumba appointed Joseph-Désiré Mobutu as Chief of Staff of the Armée Nationale Congolaise, the Congolese National Army, under army chief Victor Lundula.
Encouraged by a Belgian government intent on maintaining its access to rich Congolese mines, secessionist violence erupted in the south. Concerned that the United Nations force sent to help restore order was not helping to crush the secessionists, Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union for assistance, receiving massive military aid and about a thousand Soviet technical advisers in six weeks. Kasa-Vubu was encouraged by the U.S. and Belgium to stage a coup and thus dismissed Lumumba. An outraged Lumumba declared Kasa-Vubu deposed. Both Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu ordered Mobutu to arrest the other. As Army Chief of Staff, Mobutu came under great pressure from multiple sources. The embassies of Western nations, which helped pay the soldiers’ salaries, as well as Kasa-Vubu and Mobutu’s subordinates, all favored getting rid of the Soviet presence.
Mobutu accused Lumumba of pro-communist sympathies, thereby hoping to gain the support of the United States, but Lumumba fled to Stanleyville where he set up his own government. The USSR again supplied him with weapons and he was able to defend his position. In November 1960, he was captured and sent to Katanga. Mobutu still considered him a threat and on January 17, 1961, ordered him arrested and publicly beaten. Lumumba then disappeared from the public view. It was later discovered that he was murdered the same day by the secessionist forces of Moise Tshombe after Mobutu’s government turned him over to them at the urging of Belgium. On January 23, 1961, Kasa-Vubu promoted Mobutu to major-general.
Mobutu’s Coup
Prime Minister Moise Tshombe’s Congolese National Convention won a large majority in the March 1965 elections, but Kasa-Vubu appointed an anti-Tshombe leader, Évariste Kimba, as prime minister-designate. However, Parliament twice refused to confirm him. With the government in near-paralysis, Mobutu seized power in a bloodless coup on November 25, a month after his 35th birthday.
Under the auspices of a regime d’exception (the equivalent of a state of emergency), Mobutu assumed sweeping—almost absolute—powers for five years. In his first speech upon taking power, Mobutu told a large crowd at Léopoldville’s main stadium that since politicians had brought the country to ruin in five years, “for five years, there will be no more political party activity in the country.” Parliament was reduced to a rubber-stamp before being abolished altogether, though it was later revived. The number of provinces was reduced and their autonomy curtailed, resulting in a highly centralized state.
A constitutional referendum after Mobutu’s coup of 1965 resulted in the country’s official name being changed to the “Democratic Republic of the Congo.” In 1971 Mobutu changed the name again, this time to “Republic of Zaire.”
Zaire and the Authenticité Movement
Facing many challenges early in his rule, Mobutu was able to turn most opposition into submission through patronage; those he could not co-opt, he dealt with forcefully. In 1966 four cabinet members were arrested on charges of complicity in an attempted coup, tried by a military tribunal, and publicly executed in an open-air spectacle witnessed by over 50,000 people. Uprisings by former Katangan gendarmeries were crushed, as was an aborted revolt led by white mercenaries in 1967. By 1970, nearly all potential threats to his authority had been smashed, and for the most part, law and order was brought to most of the country. That year marked the pinnacle of Mobutu’s legitimacy and power.
The new president had the support of the United States because of his staunch opposition to Communism; the U.S. believed his administration would be an effective counter to communist movements in Africa. A one-party system was established and Mobutu declared himself head of state. He periodically held elections in which he was the only candidate. Although relative peace and stability were achieved, Mobutu’s government was guilty of severe human rights violations, political repression, a cult of personality, and corruption.
Corruption became so prevalent the term “le mal Zairois” or “Zairean Sickness,” meaning gross corruption, theft, and mismanagement, was coined, reportedly by Mobutu himself. International aid, most often in the form of loans, enriched Mobutu while he allowed national infrastructure such as roads to deteriorate to as little as one-quarter of what had existed in 1960. Zaire became a “kleptocracy” as Mobutu and his associates embezzled government funds.
Authenticité, sometimes Zairianisation in English, was an official state ideology of the Mobutu regime that originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The authenticity campaign was an effort to rid the country of the lingering vestiges of colonialism and the continuing influence of Western culture and create a more centralized and singular national identity. The policy, as implemented, included numerous changes to the state and to private life, including the renaming of the Congo (to Zaire) and its cities (Leopoldville became Kinshasa, Elisabethville became Lubumbashi, and Stanleyville became Kisangani), as well as an eventual mandate that Zairians were to abandon their Christian names for more “authentic” ones. In addition, Western-style attire was banned and replaced with the Mao-style tunic labeled the “abacost” and its female equivalent. In 1972, Mobutu renamed himself Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (“The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake”), Mobutu Sese Seko for short. Mobutu ruled until 1997, when rebel forces led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila expelled him from the country. Already suffering from advanced prostate cancer, he died three months later in Morocco.
Prince Bernhard and Mobutu Sese Seko
Mobutu Sese Seko with the Dutch Prince Bernhard in 1973. It was also around this time that he assumed his classic image—abacost, thick-framed glasses, walking stick and leopard-skin toque.
Mobutu Sese Seko with the Dutch Prince Bernhard in 1973.
33.2.4: Cold War Politics in Zaire
For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States because of its anti-communist stance, receiving substantial financial aid throughout the Cold War.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the role the United States played in propogating Mobutu’s regime
Key Points
During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union started placing immense pressure on post-colonial developing nations to align with one of the superpower factions.
The Congo Crisis was a proxy conflict in the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions.
The CIA backed military chief of staff Mobutu to oust Prime Minister Lumumba, eventually leading to Mobutu forming an authoritarian regime in the Congo, which he renamed Zaire in 1971.
The United States was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire (after Belgium and France), and Mobutu befriended several US presidents, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.
Because of Mobutu’s poor human rights record, the Carter administration put some distance between itself and Zaire; even so, Zaire received nearly half the foreign aid Carter allocated to sub-Saharan Africa.
Mobutu’s relationship with the U.S. radically changed shortly afterward with the end of the Cold War, and the U.S. began pressuring Mobutu to democratize his regime.
Mobutu’s relationship with the Soviet Union was generally negative, although he did allow some relations to maintain a non-aligned image.
Key Terms
proxy conflict
A conflict between two states or non-state actors where neither entity directly engages the other. While this can encompass a breadth of armed confrontation, its core definition hinges on two separate powers utilizing external strife to somehow attack the interests or territorial holdings of the other.
non-aligned
A group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, especially during the Cold War.
Decolonization in the Cold War
The combined effects of two great European wars weakened the political and economic domination of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East by European powers. This led to a series of waves of African and Asian decolonization following the Second World War; a world that had been dominated for over a century by Western imperialist colonial powers was transformed into a world of emerging African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations. The Cold War started placing immense pressure on developing nations to align with one of the superpower factions. Both promised substantial financial, military, and diplomatic aid in exchange for an alliance in which issues like corruption and human rights abuses were overlooked or ignored. When an allied government was threatened, the superpowers were often prepared to intervene.
The Congo Crisis can be seen in this context as a proxy conflict in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and United States supporting opposing factions, Patrice Lumumba and Mobutu, respectively. The CIA backed Mobutu’s initial coup against Lumumba and the Soviet Union provided Lumumba weapons and support while in exile. When Lumumba was killed and Mobutu took total control of the Congo’s government, he enjoyed considerable support from the United States due to his anti-communist stance.
Relations with the United States
For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States. The U.S. was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire (after Belgium and France), and Mobutu befriended several U.S. presidents, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Relations did cool significantly in 1974–1975 over Mobutu’s increasingly radical rhetoric (which included his scathing denunciations of American foreign policy) and plummeted to an all-time low in the summer of 1975, when Mobutu accused the Central Intelligence Agency of plotting his overthrow, arrested eleven senior Zairian generals and several civilians, and condemned a former head of the Central Bank (Albert N’dele). However, many people viewed these charges with skepticism; in fact, one of Mobutu’s staunchest critics, Nzongola-Ntalaja, speculated that Mobutu invented the plot as an excuse to purge the military of talented officers who might otherwise pose a threat to his rule. In spite of these hindrances, the chilly relationship quickly thawed when both countries found each other supporting the same side during the Angolan Civil War.
Because of Mobutu’s poor human rights record, the Carter administration put some distance between itself and the Kinshasa government; even so, Zaire received nearly half the foreign aid Carter allocated to sub-Saharan Africa. During the first Shaba invasion, the United States played a relatively inconsequential role; its belated intervention consisted of little more than the delivery of non-lethal supplies. But during the second Shaba invasion, the U.S. provided transportation and logistical support to the French and Belgian paratroopers that were deployed to aid Mobutu against the rebels. Carter echoed Mobutu’s (unsubstantiated) charges of Soviet and Cuban aid to the rebels, until it was apparent that no hard evidence existed to verify his claims. In 1980, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to terminate military aid to Zaire, but the Senate reinstated the funds in response to pressure from Carter and American business interests in Zaire.
Mobutu enjoyed a very warm relationship with the Reagan Administration through financial donations. During Reagan’s presidency, Mobutu visited the White House three times, and criticism of Zaire’s human rights record by the U.S. was effectively muted. During a state visit by Mobutu in 1983, Reagan praised the Zairian strongman as “a voice of good sense and goodwill.”
Mobutu also had a cordial relationship with Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush; he was the first African head of state to visit Bush at the White House. Even so, Mobutu’s relationship with the U.S. radically changed shortly afterward with the end of the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, there was no longer any reason to support Mobutu as a bulwark against communism. Accordingly, the U.S. and other Western powers began pressuring Mobutu to democratize the regime. Regarding the change in U.S. attitude to his regime, Mobutu bitterly remarked: “I am the latest victim of the cold war, no longer needed by the US. The lesson is that my support for American policy counts for nothing.” In 1993, Mobutu was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department after he sought to visit Washington, DC.
Mobutu and Nixon
Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973. Mobutu enjoyed warm relations with the United States during the Cold War, receiving substantial financial aid despite criticism of his human rights abuses.
Photo of Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973.
Relations with the Soviet Union
Mobutu’s relationship with the Soviet Union was frosty and tense. Mobutu, a staunch anticommunist, was not anxious to recognize the Soviets; he remembered well their support, albeit mostly vocal, of Lumumba and the Simba rebels before he took power. However, to project a non-aligned image, he did renew ties in 1967; the first Soviet ambassador arrived and presented his credentials in 1968. Mobutu did, however, join the U.S. in condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia that same year. Mobutu viewed the Soviet presence as advantageous for two reasons: it allowed him to maintain an image of non-alignment, and it provided a convenient scapegoat for problems at home. For example, in 1970, he expelled four Soviet diplomats for carrying out “subversive activities,” and in 1971, 20 Soviet officials were declared persona non grata for allegedly instigating student demonstrations at Lovanium University.
Relations cooled further in 1975, when the two countries found themselves opposing different sides in the Angolan Civil War. This had a dramatic effect on Zairian foreign policy for the next decade; bereft of his claim to African leadership (Mobutu was one of the few leaders who denied the Marxist government of Angola recognition), Mobutu turned increasingly to the U.S. and its allies, adopting pro-American stances on such issues as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Israel’s position in international organizations.
Mobutu condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and in 1980, his was the first African nation to join the United States in boycotting the Summer Olympics in Moscow. Throughout the 1980s, he remained consistently anti-Soviet, and found himself opposing pro-Soviet countries such as Libya and Angola; in the mid-1980s, he described Zaire as being surrounded by a “red belt” of radical states allied to the Soviet Union and Libya.
The collapse of the Soviet Union had disastrous repercussions for Mobutu. His anti-Soviet stance was the main catalyst for Western aid; without it, there was no longer any reason to support him. Western countries began calling for him to introduce democracy and improve human rights.
33.3: Zimbabwe
33.3.1: The Unilateral Declaration of Independence
In 1965, the conservative white minority government in Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom, but did not achieve internationally recognized sovereignty until 1980 as Zimbabwe.
Learning Objective
Describe the events that followed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence
Key Points
The British South Africa Company of Cecil Rhodes first demarcated the present territory during the 1890s; it became the self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1923.
In 1965, the conservative white minority government unilaterally declared independence as Rhodesia.
After the cabinet released the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), the British government petitioned the United Nations for sanctions against Rhodesia and in December 1966, the UN complied, imposing the first mandatory trade embargo on an autonomous state.
The United Kingdom deemed the Rhodesian declaration an act of rebellion, but did not re-establish control by force.
The state endured international isolation and a 15-year guerrilla war with black nationalist forces; this culminated in a peace agreement that established universal enfranchisement and de jure sovereignty in April 1980 as Zimbabwe.
Key Terms
Wind of Change
A historically significant address made by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to the Parliament of South Africa on February 3, 1960, in Cape Town. He spent a month in Africa visiting a number of what were then British colonies. The speech signaled clearly that the Conservative-led British Government intended to grant independence to many of these territories, which happened subsequently in the 1960s.
Rhodesia
An unrecognised state in southern Africa from 1965 to 1979, equivalent in territorial terms to modern Zimbabwe.
Background
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was a statement adopted by the Cabinet of Rhodesia on 11 November 1965, announcing that Rhodesia, a British territory in southern Africa that had governed itself since 1923, now regarded itself as an independent sovereign state. The culmination of a protracted dispute between the British and Rhodesian governments regarding the terms under which the latter could become fully independent, it was the first unilateral break from the United Kingdom by one of its colonies since the United States Declaration of Independence nearly two centuries before. Britain, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations all deemed Rhodesia’s UDI illegal, and economic sanctions, the first in the UN’s history, were imposed on the breakaway colony. Amid near-complete international isolation, Rhodesia continued as an unrecognized state with the assistance of South Africa and Portugal.
The Rhodesian government, comprised mostly of members of the country’s white minority of about 5%, was indignant when amid decolonization and the Wind of Change, less developed African colonies to the north without comparable experience of self-rule quickly advanced to independence during the early 1960s while Rhodesia was refused sovereignty under the newly ascendant principle of “no independence before majority rule.” Most white Rhodesians felt that they were due independence following four decades’ self-government and that Britain was betraying them by withholding it. This combined with the colonial government’s acute reluctance to hand over power to black nationalists—the manifestation of racial tensions, Cold War anti-communism, and the fear that a dystopian Congo-style situation might result—to create the impression that if Britain did not grant independence, Rhodesia might be justified in taking it unilaterally.
Unilateral Declaration of Independence
A photograph of the proclamation document announcing the Rhodesian government’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”) from the United Kingdom, created during early November 1965 and signed on 11 November 1965.
A photograph of the proclamation document announcing the Rhodesian government’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”) from the United Kingdom, created during early November 1965 and signed on 11 November 1965.
The Road to Recognition
A stalemate developed between the British and Rhodesian Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson and Ian Smith respectively, between 1964 and 1965. Dispute largely surrounded the British condition that the terms for independence had to be acceptable “to the people of the country as a whole.” Smith contended that this was met, while Britain and black nationalist leaders in Rhodesia held that it was not. After Wilson proposed in late October 1965 that Britain might safeguard future black representation in the Rhodesian parliament by withdrawing some of the colonial government’s devolved powers, then presented terms for an investigatory Royal Commission that the Rhodesians found unacceptable, Smith and his Cabinet declared independence. Calling this treasonous, the British colonial Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs formally dismissed Smith and his government, but they ignored him and appointed an “Officer Administering the Government” to take his place.
While no country recognized the UDI, the Rhodesian High Court deemed the post-UDI government legal and de jure in 1968. The Smith administration initially professed continued loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, but abandoned this in 1970 when it declared a republic in an unsuccessful attempt to win foreign recognition. The Rhodesian Bush War, a guerrilla conflict between the government and two rival communist-backed black nationalist groups, began in earnest two years later, and after several attempts to end the war Smith agreed the Internal Settlement with non-militant nationalists in 1978. Under these terms, the country was reconstituted under black rule as Zimbabwe Rhodesia in June 1979, but this new order was rejected by the guerrillas and the international community. The Bush War continued until Zimbabwe Rhodesia revoked the UDI as part of the Lancaster House Agreement in December 1979. Following a brief period of direct British rule, the country was granted internationally recognized independence under the name Zimbabwe in 1980.
33.3.2: The Bush War
The Bush War was a civil war that took place from July 1964 to December 1979 in Rhodesia, in which three forces were pitted against one another: the mostly white Rhodesian government and two black nationalist parties.
Learning Objective
Describe the Bush War
Key Points
In 1965, the conservative white minority government led by Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom as Rhodesia, which led to sanctions from the UN.
The United Kingdom deemed the Rhodesian declaration an act of rebellion, but did not re-establish control by force.
A guerrilla war subsequently ensued when Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), supported actively by communist powers and neighboring African nations, initiated guerrilla operations against Rhodesia’s predominantly white government.
The war intensified, eventually forcing Smith to open negotiations with the militant nationalists, resulting in Internal Settlement the implementation in June 1979 of universal suffrage and end of white minority rule in Rhodesia.
The resulting government was still unrecognized by the international community and the war continued until the British government invited Muzorewa, Mugabe, and Nkomo to participate in a constitutional conference at Lancaster House, resulting in the Lancaster House Agreement, which granted full independence to what was then named the Republic of Zimbabwe.
Key Terms
Lancaster House Agreement
Negotiations in 1980 that brought internationally recognized independence to Rhodesia (as the Republic of Zimbabwe) following Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965.
Ian Smith
A politician, farmer, and fighter pilot who served as Prime Minister of Rhodesia from 1964 to 1979. The country’s first premier not born abroad, he led the predominantly white government that unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1965, following prolonged dispute over the terms. He remained Prime Minister for almost all of the 14 years of international isolation that followed, and oversaw Rhodesia’s security forces during most of the Bush War, which pitted the unrecognized administration against communist-backed black nationalist guerrilla groups.
Internal Settlement
An agreement signed on March 3, 1978, between Prime Minister of Rhodesia Ian Smith and the moderate African nationalist leaders comprising Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, and Senator Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement led to the creation of an interim government in which Africans were included for the first time in Rhodesia.
Overview
The Rhodesian Bush War—also known as the Zimbabwe War of Liberation—was a civil war from July 1964 to December 1979 in the unrecognized country of Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe). The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government, under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU); and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU).
In the first phase of the conflict (until the end of 1972), Rhodesia’s political and military position appeared strong. Nationalist guerrillas had been unable to make serious military inroads against Rhodesia. In the early 1970s, the two main nationalist groups faced serious internal divisions. The black nationalists continued to operate from secluded bases in neighboring Zambia and from the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, making periodic raids into Rhodesia. By 1973 guerrilla activity was increasing in the aftermath of the Altena Farm raid, particularly in the northeast part of the country where portions of the African population were evacuated from border areas. But it would take the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique to create new military and political pressures on the Rhodesian Government to accept the principle of immediate majority rule.
The war and its subsequent Internal Settlement, signed in 1978 by Smith and Muzorewa, led to the implementation in June 1979 of universal suffrage and end of white minority rule in Rhodesia, renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia under a black majority government. However, this new order failed to win international recognition and the war continued.
Negotiations between the government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the British government, and Mugabe and Nkomo’s united “Patriotic Front” took place at Lancaster House, London in December 1979, and the Lancaster House Agreement was signed. The country returned temporarily to British control and new elections were held under British and Commonwealth supervision in March 1980. ZANU won the election and Mugabe became the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980, when the country achieved internationally recognised independence.
Lancaster House Agreement
Bishop Abel Muzorewa signs the Lancaster House Agreement in 1980 seated next to British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington.
Photo of Bishop Abel Muzorewa signing the Lancaster House Agreement seated next to British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington.
Background
The origins of the war in Rhodesia can be traced to the colonization of the region by white settlers in the late 19th century and the dissent of black African nationalist leaders who opposed white minority rule. Rhodesia was settled by Britons and South Africans beginning in the 1890s and while it was never accorded full dominion status, white Rhodesians effectively governed the country after 1923. In his famous “Wind of Change” speech addressed to the parliament of South Africa in 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan stated Britain’s intention to grant independence to British colonies in Africa under black majority rule.
Many white Rhodesians were concerned that decolonization and majority rule would bring chaos, as in the former Belgian Congo in 1960. Britain’s unwillingness to compromise on the policy of “No independence before majority rule” led to Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence on November 11, 1965. Though Rhodesia had the unofficial support of neighboring South Africa and Portugal, which governed Mozambique, it never gained formal recognition from any country.
Many white Rhodesians viewed the war as one of survival with atrocities in the former Belgian Congo, the Mau Mau Uprising campaign in Kenya, and elsewhere in Africa fresh in their minds. Many whites and a sizable minority of black Rhodesians viewed their lifestyle as under attack, which both groups had considered safer and with a higher standard of living than in many other African countries. Although the vote in Rhodesia was technically open to all regardless of race, property ownership requirements effectively denied the franchise to most of Rhodesia’s blacks. The 1969 constitution provided for “Non-Europeans” (principally blacks) to elect representatives for eight of the seats in the 66-seat parliament. Eight seats were reserved for tribal chiefs.
Amidst this backdrop, black nationalists advocated armed struggle to bring about independence in Rhodesia under black majority rule. Resistance also stemmed from the wide economic inequality between blacks and whites. In Rhodesia, whites owned most of the fertile land while blacks were crowded on barren land following forced evictions or clearances by the colonial authorities.
Two rival nationalist organisations soon emerged: the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), following a split in the former in August 1963 caused by disagreements over tactics as well as tribalism and personality clashes.
The Bush War
Two soldiers of the Rhodesian African Rifles aboard a patrol boat on Lake Kariba, December 1976. Black Rhodesians made up most of the government’s Security Forces, but some units were all-white.
Photo of black soldiers aboard a military boat during the Bush War.
33.3.3: Mugabe and the Republic of Zimbabwe
Robert Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and has ruled the nation as its president since 1980, establishing a dictatorship that has caused widespread human rights violations and economic depression.
Learning Objective
Explain Mugabe’s rise to power and the regime he established in Zimbabwe
Key Points
Robert Mugabe is the current President of Zimbabwe and has ruled the nation since 1980, first as Prime Minister and then as President in 1987.
Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) during the conflict against the conservative white-minority government of Rhodesia.
At the time of his 1980 election victory, Mugabe was widely acclaimed as a revolutionary hero who was embracing racial reconciliation.
According to human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the government of Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mugabe has committed and continues to commit systematic and widespread human rights violations, and his regime is recognized by many as a dictatorship.
Although the economy of Zimbabwe initially improved when Mugabe became Prime Minister in 1980, it has since steadily declined and many critics blame Mugabe’s economic mismanagement.
Key Terms
Rhodesian Bush War
A civil war from July 1964 to December 1979 in the unrecognized country of Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe-Rhodesia). The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union; and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union.
Zimbabwe African National Union
A militant organization that fought against the white minority government in Rhodesia, which won the 1980 elections under the leadership of Robert Mugabe.
Robert Mugabe
Robert Gabriel Mugabe is the current President of Zimbabwe, serving since December 22, 1987. As one of the leaders of the rebel groups in opposition to white minority rule, he was elected Prime Minister in 1980, serving in that office as head of the government until 1987, when he became the country’s first executive head of state. He has led the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) since 1975. As of August 2016, he is the world’s oldest and one of the longest serving heads of state. His 36-year rule has been characterized by gross human rights violations, resulting in placement on the world list of dictators.
Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) during the conflict against the conservative white-minority government of Rhodesia. Mugabe was a political prisoner in Rhodesia for more than 10 years between 1964 and 1974. Upon release Mugabe, along with Edgar Tekere, immediately left Rhodesia with the assistance of Rekayi Tangwena in 1975 to launch the fight during the Rhodesian Bush War from bases in Mozambique. At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans. He won the general elections of 1980 after calling for reconciliation between the former belligerents, including white Zimbabweans and rival political parties, and thereby became Prime Minister upon Zimbabwe’s independence in April 1980.
Soon after independence, Mugabe set about creating a ZANU–PF-run one-party state, establishing a North Korean-trained security force, the Fifth Brigade, in August 1981 to deal with internal dissidents. Mugabe attacked former allies ZAPU in which the Fifth Brigade crushed an armed rebellion by fighters loyal to his rival Joshua Nkomo, leader of the minority Ndebele tribe, in the province of Matabeleland. Between 1982 and 1985 at least 20,000 people died in ethnic cleansing and were buried in mass graves. Mugabe consolidated his power in December 1987, when he was declared executive president by parliament, combining the roles of head of state, head of government, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces with powers to dissolve parliament and declare martial law.
In 2008, Mugabe suffered a narrow defeat in the first round of a presidential election but subsequently won the run-off election in a landslide after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew; Mugabe then entered a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai as well as Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party. In 2013, the Election Commission said Mugabe won his seventh term as President, defeating Tsvangirai with 61 percent of the vote in a disputed election in which there were numerous accounts of electoral fraud.
Robert Mugabe
Prime Minister Mugabe in 1982. At the time of his 1980 election victory, Mugabe was widely acclaimed as a revolutionary hero who was embracing racial reconciliation.
Photo of Robert Mugabe in 1982 with a suit and tie and think rimmed glasses.
Criticism
Since 1998, Mugabe’s policies have elicited domestic and international denunciation. Mugabe’s critics accuse him of conducting a “reign of terror” and being an “extremely poor role model” for the continent, saying his “transgressions are unpardonable.” In solidarity with the April 2007 general strike called by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), British Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said of Mugabe’s regime: “Zimbabwe’s people are suffering from Mugabe’s appalling economic mismanagement, corruption, and brutal repression. They are standing up for their rights, and we must stand with them.” Lela Kogbara, Chair of ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) similarly has said: “As with every oppressive regime women and workers are left bearing the brunt. Please join us as we stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle for peace, justice and freedom.”
According to human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly, and the protection of the law. There have been alleged assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders.
Robert Guest, the Africa editor for The Economist for seven years, argues that Mugabe is to blame for Zimbabwe’s economic freefall:
“In 1980, the average annual income in Zimbabwe was US$950, and a Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than an American one. By 2003, the average income was less than US$400, and the Zimbabwean economy was in freefall. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for nearly three decades and has led it, in that time, from impressive success to the most dramatic peacetime collapse of any country since Weimar Germany.”
The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption by the government and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land confiscations of 2000. The Zimbabwean government and its supporters attest that Western policies to avenge the expulsion of their kin sabotaged the economy.
By 2000, the living standards in Zimbabwe had declined from 1980. Life expectancy was reduced, average wages were lower, and unemployment had trebled. As of 2009, three to four million Zimbabweans—the greater part of the nation’s skilled workforce—had left the country. Mugabe claimed that Zimbabwe’s economic problems were a result of sabotage by the country’s white minority and Western nations. He called on supporters “to strike fear in the hearts of the white man, our real enemy.” He accused his black opponents of being dupes of the whites. Amid growing internal opposition to his government, he remained determined to stay in power. He revived the regular use of revolutionary rhetoric and sought to reassert his credentials as an important revolutionary leader.
33.4: South Africa
33.4.1: Imperialism in South Africa
Much of South Africa’s history, particularly of the colonial and post-colonial eras, is characterized by clashes of culture, violent territorial disputes between European settlers and indigenous people, dispossession and repression, and other racial and political tensions.
Learning Objective
Analyze the social consequences of imperialism in South Africa
Key Points
In 1652, a century and a half after the discovery of the Cape sea route, Jan van Riebeeck established a refreshment station at the Cape of Good Hope at what would become Cape Town, on behalf of the Dutch East India Company.
The Dutch transported slaves from Indonesia, Madagascar, and India as labor for the colonists in Cape Town.
The British annexed the Cape Colony in 1806 and continued the frontier wars.
Conflicts arose among the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, and Boer groups who competed to expand their territories.
The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom, ending in a Zulu defeat.
After winning the First Boer War, the Boers were ultimately defeated in the Second Boer War by 1902.
Within the country, anti-British policies among white South Africans focused on independence.
Key Terms
Afrikaans
A West Germanic language spoken in South Africa, Namibia, and to a lesser extent, Botswana and Zimbabwe. It evolved from the Dutch vernacular of South Holland (Hollandic dialect) spoken by the mainly Dutch settlers of what is now South Africa, where it gradually began to develop distinguishing characteristics in the course of the 18th century.
Dutch East India Company
A chartered company primarily in the spice trade founded in 1602. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. The largest and most valuable corporation in history, it possessed quasi-governmental powers including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts, negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.
Khoikhoi
A group of people native to southwestern Africa. Unlike the neighboring hunter-gatherer San people, they traditionally practiced nomadic pastoral agriculture.
Boers
The Dutch and Afrikaans word for “farmer.” As used in South Africa, it was used to denote the descendants of the Dutch-speaking settlers of the eastern Cape frontier in Southern Africa during the 18th century.
Dutch Settlement in South Africa
Portuguese mariner Bartolomeu Dias was the first European to explore the coastline of South Africa in 1488 while attempting to discover a trade route to the Far East via the southernmost cape of South Africa, which he named Cabo das Tormentas, meaning Cape of Storms.
In 1647, a Dutch vessel, the Haarlem, was wrecked in the present-day Table Bay. After being rescued, the marooned crew recommended that a permanent station be established in the bay. The Dutch East India Company (in the Dutch of the day: Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC), one of the major European trading houses sailing the spice route to the East, had no intention of colonizing the area, wanting only to establish a secure base camp where passing ships could shelter and here hungry sailors could stock up on fresh supplies of meat, fruit, and vegetables.
While the new settlement traded out of necessity with the neighboring Khoikhoi, one could hardly describe the relationship as friendly, and the authorities made deliberate attempts to restrict contact. Partly as a consequence, VOC employees found themselves faced with a labor shortage. To remedy this, they released a small number of Dutch from their contracts and permitted them to establish farms, with which they would supply the great VOC settlement from their harvests. This arrangement proved highly successful, producing abundant supplies of fruit, vegetables, wheat, and wine; they later raised livestock. The small initial group of free burghers, as these farmers were known, steadily increased and began to expand their farms further north and east into the territory of the Khoikhoi.
In addition to establishing the free burgher system, van Riebeeck and the VOC made indentured servants out of the Khoikhoi and the San and began to import large numbers of slaves, primarily from Madagascar and Indonesia. These slaves often married Dutch settlers, and their descendants became known as the Cape Coloureds and the Cape Malays. A significant number of the offspring from the white and slave unions were absorbed into the local proto-Afrikaans speaking white population. The racially mixed genealogical origins of many so-called “white” South Africans have been traced to interracial unions at the Cape between the European-occupying population and imported Asian and African slaves, the indigenous Khoi and San, and their offspring.
With this additional labor, the areas occupied by the VOC expanded further to the north and east, with inevitable clashes with the Khoikhoi. The newcomers drove the beleaguered Khoikhoi from their traditional lands and destroyed them with superior weapons when they fought back, which they did in a number of major wars and with guerrilla resistance movements that continued into the 19th century. Europeans also brought diseases that had devastating effects against people whose immune system was not adapted to them. Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery.
As the burghers, too, continued to expand into the rugged hinterlands of the north and east, many began a semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, in some ways not far removed from that of the Khoikhoi they displaced. In addition to its herds, a family might have a wagon, a tent, a Bible, and a few guns. As they became more settled, they would build a mud-walled cottage, frequently located by choice days of travel from the nearest European. These were the first of the Trekboere (Wandering Farmers, later shortened to Boers), completely independent of official controls, extraordinarily self-sufficient, and isolated. Their harsh lifestyle produced individualists who were well-acquainted with the land. Like many pioneers with Christian backgrounds, the burghers attempted to live their lives based on teachings from the Bible.
Dutch Settlement in South Africa
Painting of an account of the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, by Charles Bell.
Painting of several Dutch explorers carrying the Dutch flag approaching native Africans. A large mountain looms in the background.
English Annexation
During the Napoleonic Wars, the Cape Colony was annexed by the British and officially became their colony in 1815. Britain encouraged settlers to the Cape, and in particular, sponsored the 1820 settlers to farm in the disputed area between the colony and the Xhosa in what is now the Eastern Cape. The changing image of the Cape from Dutch to British excluded the Dutch farmers in the area, the Boers who in the 1820s started their Great Trek to the northern areas of modern South Africa. This period also marked the rise in power of the Zulu under their king Shaka Zulu. Subsequently several conflicts arose between the British, Boers, and Zulus.
The discoveries of diamonds and gold in the 19th century had a profound effect on the fortunes of the region, propelling it onto the world stage and introducing a shift away from an exclusively agrarian-based economy towards industrialization and the development of urban infrastructure.
The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Following Lord Carnarvon’s successful introduction of federation in Canada, it was thought that similar political effort coupled with military campaigns might succeed with the African kingdoms, tribal areas, and Boer republics in South Africa. In 1874, Sir Henry Bartle Frere was sent to South Africa as High Commissioner for the British Empire to bring such plans into being. Among the obstacles were the presence of the independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand and its army. The Zulu nation spectacularly defeated the British at the Battle of Isandlwana. Eventually, though, the war was lost, resulting in the end of the Zulu nation’s independence.
The Boer Republics successfully resisted British encroachments during the First Boer War (1880–1881) using guerrilla warfare tactics that were well-suited to local conditions. The British returned with greater numbers, more experience, and new strategy in the Second Boer War (1899–1902) but suffered heavy casualties through attrition. By 1902, 26,000 Boers (mainly women and children) had died of disease, hunger, and neglect in concentration camps. On May 31, 1902, a superficial peace came with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging. Under its terms, the Boer republics acknowledged British sovereignty, while the British committed themselves to reconstruction of the areas under their control.
Within the country, anti-British policies among white South Africans focused on independence. During the Dutch and British colonial years, racial segregation was mostly informal, though some legislation was enacted to control the settlement and movement of native people, including the Native Location Act of 1879 and the system of pass laws. Power was held by the ethnic European colonists.
Boer Wars
Boer women and children in a concentration camp. The discoveries of diamonds and gold led to new conflicts culminating in open warfare between the Boer settlers and imperial Britain, who fought essentially for control over the nascent South African mining industry.
Photo of a few dozen Boer women and children in a concentration camp.
33.4.2: The Union of South Africa
Following the defeat of the Boers in the Second Boer War (1899–1902), the Union of South Africa was created as a dominion of the British Empire, which unified into one entity the four previously separate British colonies: Cape Colony, Natal Colony, Transvaal Colony, and Orange River Colony.
Learning Objective
Describe the structure of the Union of South Africa
Key Points
During the years immediately following the Anglo-Boer wars, Britain set about unifying the four colonies, including the former Boer republics, into one self-governed country named the Union of South Africa.
This vision came into being on May 31, 1910, with the unification of four previously separate British colonies: Cape Colony, Natal Colony, Transvaal Colony, and Orange River Colony.
Among other harsh segregationist laws, including denial of voting rights to black people, the Union parliament enacted the 1913 Natives’ Land Act, which earmarked only eight percent of South Africa’s available land for black occupancy.
Dissatisfaction with British influence in the Union’s affairs reached a climax in September 1914, when impoverished Boers, anti-British Boers, and bitter-enders launched a rebellion that was quickly squashed.
In 1931 the union was fully sovereign from the United Kingdom with the passage of the Statute of Westminster, which abolished the last powers of the British Government on the country.
Key Terms
South Africa Act 1909
An Act of the British Parliament which created the Union of South Africa from the British colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Orange River Colony, and Transvaal.
Afrikaner
A Southern African ethnic group descended from predominantly Dutch settlers who first arrived in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Roots of the Union
During the immediate post-war years, the British focused their attention on rebuilding the country, in particular the mining industry. By 1907 the mines of the Witwatersrand produced almost one-third of the world’s annual gold production. But the peace brought by the treaty remained fragile and challenged on all sides. The Afrikaners found themselves in the difficult position of poor farmers in a country where big mining ventures and foreign capital rendered them irrelevant. Britain’s unsuccessful attempts to anglicize them and impose English as the official language in schools and the workplace particularly incensed them. Partly as a backlash, the Boers came to see Afrikaans as the volkstaal (“people’s language”) and a symbol of Afrikaner nationhood. Several nationalist organisations sprang up.
Blacks remained marginalized in society. The British High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner introduced “segregation,” later known as apartheid. The authorities imposed harsh taxes and reduced wages while the British caretaker administrator encouraged the immigration of thousands of Chinese to undercut any resistance. Resentment exploded in the Bambatha Rebellion of 1906, in which 4,000 Zulus lost their lives after rebelling due to onerous tax legislation.
Union of South Africa
The British moved ahead with their plans for union. After several years of negotiations, the South Africa Act 1909 brought the colonies and republics – Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State – together as the Union of South Africa. Under the provisions of the act, the Union remained British territory, but with home-rule for Afrikaners. The British High Commission territories of Basutoland (now Lesotho), Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Swaziland, and Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe) continued under direct rule from Britain.
English and Dutch became the official languages. Afrikaans did not gain recognition as an official language until 1925. Despite a major campaign by Blacks and Coloureds, the voter franchise remained as in the pre-Union republics and colonies, and only whites could gain election to Parliament.
Among other harsh segregationist laws, including denial of voting rights to blacks, the Union parliament enacted the 1913 Natives’ Land Act, which earmarked only eight percent of South Africa’s available land for black occupancy. White people, who constituted 20 percent of the population, held 90 percent of the land. The Land Act would form a cornerstone of legalized racial discrimination for the next nine decades.
General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union with General Jan Smuts as his deputy. Their South African National Party, later known as the South African Party or SAP, followed a generally pro-British, white-unity line. The more radical Boers split away under the leadership of General Barry Hertzog, forming the National Party (NP) in 1914. The NP championed Afrikaner interests, advocating separate development for the two white groups and independence from Britain.
The First Union Cabinet
General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union and followed a generally pro-British, white-unity line.
Photo of the first Cabinet of the Union of South Africa, 11 white men.
Dissatisfaction with British influence in the Union’s affairs reached a climax in September 1914, when impoverished Boers, anti-British Boers, and bitter-enders launched a rebellion. The rebellion was quashed and at least one officer was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad.
In 1924 the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in a coalition government with the Labour Party. Afrikaans, previously regarded as a low-level Dutch patois, replaced Dutch as an official language of the Union. English and Dutch became the official languages in 1925.
The Union of South Africa came to an end after a referendum on October 5, 1960, in which a majority of white South Africans voted in favor of unilateral withdrawal from the British Commonwealth and the establishment of a Republic of South Africa.
33.4.3: Apartheid
The National Party in South Africa imposed apartheid in 1948, which institutionalized racial segregation through a series of legislation that established strict racial classification, forced relocation of nonwhites to “tribal homelands,” and segregated public facilities and institutions.
Learning Objective
Explain what aspects of South African policy comprise the movement referred to as “apartheid”
Key Points
Racist legislation during the apartheid era was a continuation and extension of discriminatory and segregationist laws that began in 1856 under Dutch rule in the Cape and continued throughout the country under British colonialism.
Beginning in 1948, successive National Party administrations formalized and extended the existing system of racial discrimination and denial of human rights into the legal system of apartheid, which lasted until 1991.
While whites enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa, comparable to that of Western nations, the black majority remained disadvantaged by almost every standard, including income, education, housing, and life expectancy.
The first grand apartheid law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalized racial classification and introduced an identity card specifying racial group for everyone older than age 18.
The second pillar of grand apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950, which put an end to diverse areas and determined where one lived according to race; each race was allotted its own area, which was used in later years as a basis of forced removal to “tribal homelands” known as bantustans.
The National Part passed a string of legislation that became known as petty apartheid aimed as segregating South Africa’s social institutions, the first of which was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949, prohibiting marriage between whites and people of other races.
After a long and sometimes violent struggle by the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid activists both inside and outside the country, discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished in 1990.
Key Terms
bantustans
Also known as “homeland,” a territory set aside for black inhabitants of South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) as part of the policy of apartheid.
National Party
A political party in South Africa founded in 1915 that first became the governing party of the country in 1924. The policies of the party included apartheid, the establishment of a republic, and the promotion of Afrikaner culture.
Nelson Mandela
A South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician, and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the country’s first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalized racism and fostering racial reconciliation.
grand apartheid
Apartheid laws that dictated housing and employment opportunities by race.
petty apartheid
Apartheid laws that segregated public facilities and social events.
Overview
Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa between 1948 and 1991. Broadly speaking, apartheid was delineated into petty apartheid, which entailed the segregation of public facilities and social events, and grand apartheid, which dictated housing and employment opportunities by race. Prior to the 1940s, some vestiges of apartheid had already emerged in the form of minority rule by white South Africans and the socially enforced separation of black South Africans from other races, which later extended to pass laws and land apportionment. Racist legislation during the apartheid era was a continuation and extension of discriminatory and segregationist laws forming a continuum that commenced in 1856 under Dutch rule in the Cape and continued throughout the country under British colonialism. Apartheid as a policy was embraced by the South African government shortly after the ascension of the National Party (NP) during the country’s 1948 general elections.
Apartheid Legislation
The first piece of apartheid legislation was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in 1949, which was followed closely by the Immorality Act of 1950, making it illegal for South African citizens to marry or pursue sexual relationships across racial lines. The Population Registration Act, 1950, classified all South Africans into one of four racial groups based on appearance, known ancestry, socioeconomic status, and cultural lifestyle. NP leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: White, Black, Coloured and Indian. The Coloured group included people regarded as of mixed descent, including of Bantu, Khoisan, European, and Malay ancestry. Such groups were split into 13 nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups.
Places of residence were determined by racial classification under the Group Areas Act of 1950. From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million nonwhite South Africans were removed from their homes and forced into segregated neighborhoods in one of the largest mass removals in modern history. Most of these targeted removals were intended to restrict the black population to ten designated “tribal homelands,” also known as bantustans, four of which become nominally independent states. These removals included people relocated due to slum clearance programs, labor tenants on white-owned farms, the inhabitants of the so-called “black spots” (black-owned land surrounded by white farms), the families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and “surplus people” from urban areas, including thousands of people from the Western Cape. The government announced that relocated persons would lose their South African citizenship as they were absorbed into the bantustans.
Bantustans in South Africa
A key act of legislation during Apartheid was the Homeland Citizens Act of 1970. It authorized the forced removals of thousands of African people from urban centers in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) to what became described colloquially as “Bantustans” or the “original homes.”
Map of South Africa showing the locations of bantustans.
The NP also passed a string of legislation that became known as petty apartheid. Acts passed under petty apartheid were meant to separate nonwhites from daily life. Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in areas designated as “white South Africa” unless they had a permit. Transport and civil facilities were segregated. Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones. Trains, hospitals, and ambulances were segregated. Because there were fewer white patients and white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded and understaffed black hospitals.
Petty Apartheid
Sign reserving a Natal beach “for the sole use of members of the white race group,” in English, Afrikaans, and Zulu. Acts passed under petty apartheid were meant to separate nonwhites from daily life.
Photo of a sign on a Durban beach that reserves it “for the sole use of members of the white race group”, in English, Afrikaans, and Zulu.
Precursors
A codified system of racial stratification began to take form in South Africa under the Dutch Empire in the late 18th century, although informal segregation was present much earlier due to social cleavages between Dutch colonists and a creolized, ethnically diverse slave population. With the rapid growth and industrialization of the British Cape Colony in the 19th century, racial policies and laws became increasingly rigid. Cape legislation that discriminated specifically against black Africans began appearing shortly before 1900. The policies of the Boer republics were also racially exclusive; for instance, the constitution of the Transvaal barred nonwhite participation in church and state.
The Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892 instituted limits based on financial means and education to the black franchise, and the Natal Legislative Assembly Bill of 1894 deprived Indians of the right to vote. The Glen Grey Act of 1894, instigated by the government of Prime Minister Cecil John Rhodes, limited the amount of land Africans could hold. In 1905, the General Pass Regulations Act denied blacks the vote, limited them to fixed areas, and inaugurated the infamous Pass System. The Asiatic Registration Act (1906) required all Indians to register and carry passes. In 1910 the Union of South Africa was created as a self-governing dominion, which continued the legislative program. The South Africa Act (1910) enfranchised whites, giving them complete political control over all other racial groups while removing the right of blacks to sit in parliament. The Native Land Act (1913) prevented blacks, except those in the Cape, from buying land outside “reserves.” The Natives in Urban Areas Bill (1918) was designed to force blacks into “locations.” The Urban Areas Act (1923) introduced residential segregation and provided cheap labor for industry led by white people. The Colour Bar Act (1926) prevented black mine workers from practicing skilled trades. The Native Administration Act (1927) made the British Crown the supreme head over all African affairs.
Opposition and Abolishment
Apartheid sparked significant international and domestic opposition, resulting in some of the most influential global social movements of the twentieth century. It was the target of frequent condemnation in the United Nations and brought about an extensive arms and trade embargo on South Africa. During the 1970s and 1980s, internal resistance to apartheid became increasingly militant, prompting brutal crackdowns by the National Party administration and protracted sectarian violence that left thousands dead or in detention. Some reforms of the apartheid system were undertaken, including allowing for Indian and Coloured political representation in parliament, but these measures failed to appease most activist groups.
Organized resistance to Afrikaner nationalism was not confined exclusively to activists of the oppressed, dark-skinned population. A movement known as the Torch Commando was formed in the 1950s, led by white war veterans who had fought fascism in Europe and North Africa during World War II only to find fascism on the rise in South Africa when they returned home. With 250,000 paid-up members at the height of its existence, it was the largest white protest movement in the country’s history. By 1952, the brief flame of mass-based white radicalism was extinguished when the Torch Commando disbanded due to government legislation under the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950. Some members of the Torch Commando subsequently became leading figures in the armed wing of the banned African National Congress.
Between 1987 and 1993, the National Party entered into bilateral negotiations with the African National Congress, the leading anti-apartheid political movement, to end segregation and introduce majority rule. In 1990, prominent ANC leaders such as Nelson Mandela were released from detention. Apartheid legislation was abolished in mid-1991, pending multiracial elections set for April 1994.
33.5: Egypt
33.5.1: Egypt’s First Revolution
The Egyptian revolution of 1919 was a countrywide revolution against the British occupation of Egypt and Sudan carried out in the wake of the British-ordered exile of revolutionary leader Saad Zaghlul and other members of the Wafd Party in 1919.
Learning Objective
Describe the events of Egypt’s First Revolution
Key Points
Although the Ottoman Empire retained nominal sovereignty over Egypt, the political connection between the two countries was largely severed by the seizure of power by Muhammad Ali in 1805 and re-enforced by the British occupation of Egypt in 1882.
On December 14, 1914, the Khedivate of Egypt was elevated to a separate sultanate and declared a British protectorate, thus terminating definitively the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty over Egypt.
Over the course of the war, dissatisfaction with the British occupation spread among all social classes, and by war’s end the Egyptian people demanded their independence.
After World War I, Saad Zaghlul and the Wafd Party led the Egyptian nationalist movement to a majority at the local Legislative Assembly.
When the British exiled Zaghlul and his associates to Malta on March 8, 1919, Egyptians and Sudanese from all walks of life rose up against the British, leading the British government to conclude that the protectorate status of Egypt was not satisfactory and should be abandoned.
The revolution led to Britain’s recognition of Egyptian independence in 1922 and the implementation of a new constitution in 1923.
Key Terms
Khedivate of Egypt
An autonomous tributary state of the Ottoman Empire, established and ruled by the Muhammad Ali Dynasty following the defeat and expulsion of Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces, which brought an end to the short-lived French occupation of Lower Egypt.
Saad Zaghlul
An Egyptian revolutionary and statesman who led Egypt’s nationalist Wafd Party. In 1919 he led an official Egyptian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference demanding that the United Kingdom formally recognize the independence and unity of Egypt and Sudan, and was exiled by the British government in response. He served as Egypt’s first Prime Minister from January 26, 1924, to November 24, 1924, after independence from Britain.
Background: British Protectorate
Although the Ottoman Empire retained nominal sovereignty over Egypt, the political connection between the two countries was largely severed by the seizure of power by Muhammad Ali in 1805 and re-enforced by the British occupation of Egypt in 1882. From 1883 to 1914, though the Khedive of Egypt and Sudan remained the official ruler of the country, ultimate power was exercised by the British Consul-General.
When the Caucasus Campaign of World War I broke out between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, Britain declared martial law in Egypt and announced that it would shoulder the entire burden of the war. On December 14, 1914, the Khedivate of Egypt was elevated to a separate sultanate and declared a British protectorate, thus terminating definitively the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty over Egypt. The terms of the protectorate led Egyptian nationalists to believe it was a temporary arrangement that would be changed after the war through bilateral agreement with Britain.
Prior to the war, nationalist agitation was limited to the educated elite. Over the course of the war, however, dissatisfaction with the British occupation spread among all social classes. This was the result of Egypt’s increasing involvement in the war, despite Britain’s promise to shoulder the entire burden of the war. The British poured masses of foreign troops into Egypt, conscripted over one and a half million Egyptians into the Labour Corps, and requisitioned buildings, crops, and animals for the use of the army. In addition, because of allied promises during the war (such as President Wilson’s Fourteen Points), Egyptian political classes prepared for self-government. By war’s end the Egyptian people demanded their independence.
Events of the 1919 Revolution
Shortly after the First World War armistice of November 11 concluded in Europe, a delegation of Egyptian nationalist activists led by Saad Zaghlul made a request to High Commissioner Reginald Wingate to end the British Protectorate in Egypt and Sudan and gain Egyptian representation at the next peace conference in Paris.
Meanwhile, a mass movement for the full independence of Egypt and Sudan was being organized at a grassroots level using the tactics of civil disobedience. By then, Zaghlul and the Wafd Party enjoyed massive support among the Egyptian people. Wafdist emissaries went into towns and villages to collect signatures authorizing the movement’s leaders to petition for the complete independence of the country.
Seeing the popular support that the Wafd leaders enjoyed and fearing social unrest, the British proceeded to arrest Zaghlul and two other movement leaders on March 8, 1919 and exiled them to Malta. In the course of widespread disturbances between March 15 and 31, at least 800 Egyptians were killed, numerous villages were burnt down, large-landed properties plundered, and railways destroyed.
For several weeks, demonstrations and strikes across Egypt by students, elite, civil servants, merchants, peasants, workers, and religious leaders became such a daily occurrence that normal life was brought to a halt. This mass movement was characterized by the participation of both men and women and by spanning the religious divide between Muslim and Christian Egyptians. The uprising in the Egyptian countryside was more violent, involving attacks on British military installations, civilian facilities, and personnel. By July 25, 1919, 800 Egyptians were dead and 1,600 others were wounded.
The British government sent a commission of inquiry, known as the “Milner Mission,” to Egypt in December 1919 to determine the causes of the disorder and make a recommendation about the political future of the country. Lord Milner’s report, published in February 1921, recommended that the protectorate status of Egypt was unsatisfactory and should be abandoned. The revolts forced London to issue a unilateral declaration of Egyptian independence on February 22, 1922.
Egyptian Revolution of 1919
Egyptian women demonstrating during the revolution of 1919.
Image of Egyptian women wearing black dresses, black head covers, and white veils over their faces, carrying an Egyptian glad, demonstrating against British occupation during the revolution of 1919.
Aftermath
Although the British government offered to recognize Egypt as an independent sovereign state, this was only upon certain conditions. The following matters were reserved to the discretion of the British government: the security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt, the defense of Egypt against foreign aggression, and the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the Sudan.
The Wafd Party drafted a new constitution in 1923 based on a parliamentary representative system. Egyptian independence at this stage was nominal as British forces continued to be physically present on Egyptian soil. Moreover, Britain’s recognition of Egyptian independence directly excluded Sudan, which continued to be administered as an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. Saad Zaghlul became the first popularly elected Prime Minister of Egypt in 1924.
33.5.2: British Involvement in Egypt Post-Independence
The Kingdom of Egypt was established in 1922 following the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence, but the Kingdom was only nominally independent since the British continued to have varying degrees of political control and military presence until 1952.
Learning Objective
Explain the ties between Britain and Egypt after the establishment of an independent Egyptian state
Key Points
The formal British protectorate over Egypt was ended by the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence (UDI) on February 28, 1922.
Shortly afterwards, Sultan Fuad I declared himself King of Egypt, but the British occupation continued in accordance with several reserve clauses in the declaration of independence.
The situation was renegotiated in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, which granted Britain the right to station troops in Egypt for the defense of the Suez Canal and its link with the Indian Empire and to control the training of the Egyptian Army.
After the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, the British agreed to withdraw their troops and did so by June 1956.
Britain went to war against Egypt over the Suez Canal in late 1956, but with insufficient international support was forced to back down.
Key Terms
Suez Canal
An artificial sea-level waterway in Egypt connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea through the Isthmus of Suez. It offers watercraft a shorter journey between the North Atlantic and northern Indian Oceans via the Mediterranean and Red seas by avoiding the South Atlantic and southern Indian Oceans, reducing the journey by approximately 4,300 miles.
Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936
A treaty signed between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Egypt. Under the terms of the treaty, the United Kingdom was required to withdraw all its troops from Egypt except those necessary to protect the Suez Canal and its surroundings, numbering 10,000 troops plus auxiliary personnel. Additionally, the United Kingdom would supply and train Egypt’s army and assist in its defense in case of war.
The Kingdom of Egypt was the independent Egyptian state established under the Muhammad Ali Dynasty in 1922 following the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence by the United Kingdom. Until the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, the Kingdom was only nominally independent, since the British retained control of foreign relations, communications, the military, and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Between 1936-52, the British continued to maintain military presence and political advisors at a reduced level. The kingdom was plagued by corruption, and its citizens saw it as a puppet of the British.
The legal status of Egypt was highly convoluted due to its de facto breakaway from the Ottoman Empire in 1805, its occupation by Britain in 1882, and its transformation into a sultanate and British protectorate in 1914. In line with the change in status from sultanate to kingdom, the Sultan of Egypt, Fuad I, saw his title changed to king.
The kingdom’s sovereignty was subject to severe limitations imposed by the British, who retained enormous control over Egyptian affairs and whose military continued to occupy the country. Throughout the kingdom’s existence, Sudan was formally united with Egypt. However, actual Egyptian authority in Sudan was largely nominal due to Britain’s role as the dominant power in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
During the reign of King Fuad, the monarchy struggled with the Wafd Party, a broadly based nationalist political organization strongly opposed to British domination, and with the British themselves, who were determined to maintain control over the Suez Canal. The importance of the canal as a strategic intersection was made apparent during the First World War when Britain and France closed the canal to non-Allied shipping. The attempt by German and Ottoman forces to storm the canal in February 1915 led the British to commit 100,000 troops to the defense of Egypt for the rest of the war. Other political forces emerging in this period included the Communist Party (1925) and the Muslim Brotherhood (1928), which eventually became a potent political and religious force.
King Fuad died in 1936 and Farouk inherited the throne at age 16. Alarmed by Italy’s recent invasion of Abyssinia, he signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, requiring Britain to withdraw all troops from Egypt except those necessary to protect the Suez Canal and its surroundings, numbering 10,000 troops plus auxiliary personnel. Additionally, the United Kingdom would supply and train Egypt’s army and assist in its defense in case of war. The 1936 treaty did not resolve the question of Sudan, which under the terms of the existing Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899 was meant to be jointly governed by Egypt and Britain with real power remaining in British hands. With rising tension in Europe, the treaty expressively favored maintaining the status quo. The treaty was not welcomed by Egyptian nationalists like the Arab Socialist Party, who wanted full independence. It ignited a wave of demonstrations against the British and the Wafd Party, which supported the treaty.
On September 23, 1945, after the end of World War II, the Egyptian government demanded the modification of the treaty to terminate the British military presence and to allow the annexation of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Following the Wafd Party’s victory in the boycotted 1950 election of Egypt, the new Wafd government unilaterally abrogated the treaty in October 1951. Three years later with new government leadership under Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, the UK agreed to withdraw its troops in the Anglo–Egyptian Agreement of 1954; the British withdrawal was completed in June 1956. This is the date when Egypt gained full independence, although Nasser had already established an independent foreign policy that caused tension with several Western powers.
British Infantry near El Alamein, 17 July 1942
During World War II, British troops used Egypt as a base for Allied operations throughout the region. The British maintained a significant presence in Egypt, even after the latter’s formal independence in 1922.
Image of armed British soldiers lined up against a wall of sandbags in the Alamein, Egypt.
33.5.3: The Egyptian Revolution of 1952
From July 22-26, 1952, a group of disaffected army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk, whom the military blamed for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel.
Learning Objective
Analyze the reasons for the Revolution of 1952
Key Points
The Egyptian monarchy was seen as both corrupt and pro-British, and the military blamed King Farouk for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel.
The Egyptian revolution of 1952 was led by the Free Officers Movement, a group of army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Along with overthrowing King Faruq, the movement had more ambitious political aims, such as abolishing the constitutional monarchy and ending the British occupation of the country.
In November 1954, President Naguib, who became the first Egyptian president during the revolution, was ousted and replaced by Nasser.
Just four years after the revolution, the Suez Crisis of 1956 became a political victory for Egypt, as it left the Suez Canal in uncontested Egyptian control for the first time since 1875, eliminating the vestiges of British occupation.
Wholesale agrarian reform and huge industrialization programs were initiated in the first fifteen years of the revolution, leading to an unprecedented period of infrastructure building and urbanization.
Key Terms
Suez Crisis
An invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel, followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power. After the fighting started, political pressure from the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations led to a withdrawal by the three invaders. The episode humiliated Great Britain and France and strengthened Nasser.
Free Officers Movement
A group of nationalist officers in the armed forces of Egypt and Sudan that instigated the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Originally established in 1945 as a cell within the Muslim Brotherhood under Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, it operated as a clandestine movement of junior officers during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Muhammad Naguib joined in 1949, after the war, and became their official leader during the turmoil leading up the revolution because of the hero status he had earned during the war and his influence in the army.
Arab nationalism
A nationalist ideology celebrating the glories of Arab civilization and the language and literature of the Arabs, calling for rejuvenation and political union in the Arab world. Its central premise is that the peoples of the Arab world, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, constitute one nation bound together by common linguistic, cultural, religious, and historical heritage. One of its primary goals is the end of Western influence in the Arab world, seen as a “nemesis” of Arab strength, and the removal of Arab governments considered dependent upon Western power.
Overview
The Egyptian revolution of 1952, also known as the 23 July Revolution, began on July 23, 1952, by the Free Officers Movement, a group of army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. The revolution’s initial goal was to overthrow King Faruq. The movement also had more ambitious political aims and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and aristocracy of Egypt and Sudan, establish a republic, end the British occupation of the country, and secure the independence of Sudan. The revolutionary government adopted a staunchly nationalist, anti-imperialist agenda, expressed chiefly through Arab nationalism and international non-alignment.
The revolution was faced with immediate threats from Western imperial powers, particularly the United Kingdom, which had occupied Egypt since 1882, and France. Both were wary of rising nationalist sentiment in territories under their control throughout the Middle East and Africa. The ongoing state of war with Israel also posed a serious challenge, as the Free Officers increased Egypt’s already strong support of the Palestinians. These issues conflated four years after the revolution when Egypt was invaded by Britain, France, and Israel in the Suez Crisis of 1956. Despite enormous military losses, the war was seen as a political victory for Egypt, especially as it left the Suez Canal in uncontested Egyptian control for the first time since 1875, erasing what was considered a mark of national humiliation. This strengthened the appeal of the revolution in other Arab and African countries.
Wholesale agrarian reform and huge industrialization programs were initiated in the first 15 years of the revolution, leading to an unprecedented period of infrastructure building and urbanization. By the 1960s, Arab socialism became a dominant theme, transforming Egypt into a centrally planned economy. Fear of a Western-sponsored counter-revolution, domestic religious extremism, potential communist infiltration, and the ongoing conflict with Israel were all cited as reasons for severe and longstanding restrictions on political opposition and the prohibition of a multi-party system. These restrictions would remain in place until the presidency of Anwar Sadat from 1970 on, during which many of the policies of the revolution were scaled back or reversed.
The early successes of the revolution encouraged numerous other nationalist movements in other Arab and African countries, such as Algeria and Kenya, where there were anti-colonial rebellions against European empires. It also inspired the toppling of existing pro-Western monarchies and governments in the region and continent.
The Egyptian Revolution of 1952
Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser (right) and President Muhammad Naguib (right) in an open-top automobile during celebrations marking the second anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952.
Photo of Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser (right) and President Muhammad Naguib (right) in an open-top automobile during celebrations marking the second anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952.
Causes
The Egyptian monarchy was seen as both corrupt and pro-British, with its lavish lifestyle that seemed provocative to the free officers who lived in poverty. Its policies completed the image of the Egyptian government as a puppet in the hands of the British government. The end of the monarchy would signal an end of British intervention. The military also blamed King Farouk for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel and lack of progress in fighting poverty, disease, and illiteracy in Egypt. In the warning that General Naguib conveyed to King Farouk on July 26 upon the king’s abdication, he provided a summary of the reasons for the revolution:
In view of what the country has suffered in the recent past, the complete vacuity prevailing in all corners as a result of your bad behavior, your toying with the constitution, and your disdain for the wants of the people, no one rests assured of life, livelihood, and honor. Egypt’s reputation among the peoples of the world has been debased as a result of your excesses in these areas to the extent that traitors and bribe-takers find protection beneath your shadow in addition to security, excessive wealth, and many extravagances at the expense of the hungry and impoverished people. You manifested this during and after the Palestine War in the corrupt arms scandals and your open interference in the courts to try to falsify the facts of the case, thus shaking faith in justice. Therefore, the army, representing the power of the people, has empowered me to demand that Your Majesty abdicate the throne to His Highness Crown Prince Ahmed Fuad, provided that this is accomplished at the fixed time of 12 o’clock noon today (Saturday, 26 July 1952, the 4th of Zul Qa’ada, 1371), and that you depart the country before 6 o’clock in the evening of the same day. The army places upon Your Majesty the burden of everything that may result from your failure to abdicate according to the wishes of the people.
After the Revolution
In the following two years, the Free Officers consolidated power, and following a brief experiment with civilian rule, abrogated the 1953 constitution and declared Egypt a republic on June 18, 1953, with Muhammad Naguib as Egypt’s first president.
Within six months all civilian political parties were banned and replaced by the “Liberation Rally” government party, the elites seeing a need for a “transitional authoritarianism” in light of Egypt’s poverty, illiteracy, and lack of a large middle class. In October and November 1954 the large Islamist Muslim Brotherhood organization was suppressed and President Naguib was ousted and arrested. He was replaced by Nasser, who remained president until his death in 1970.
President Nasser announced a new constitution on January 16 at a popular rally, setting up a system of government in which the president had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers. A law was passed on March 3 granting women the right to vote for the first time in Egyptian history. Nasser was elected as the second president of the Republic on June 23. In 1957, Nasser announced the formation of the National Union (Al-Ittihad Al-Qawmi), paving the way to July elections for the National Assembly, the first parliament since 1952.
33.5.4: The United Arab Republic
In 1958, Egypt joined with the Republic of Syria to form a state called the United Arab Republic.
Learning Objective
Assess the reasoning for the formation of the United Arab Republic
Key Points
Several Arab nations envisioned a united Arab nation called the pan-Arab state, and in the late 1950s, just a few years after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egypt and Syria began talks to unite into a single sovereign nation.
One of the major motivations for the merger was to protect both nations from a communist takeover.
Nasser’s terms for unification were seen as unfair to the Syrians, but they felt they had no choice and decided in 1958 to merge with Egypt to become the United Arab Republic.
Instead of federation of two Arab peoples, as many Syrians had imagined, the UAR turned into a state completely dominated by Egyptians.
Nasser quickly reduced Syrian political representation in the government, cracked down on communists, and consolidated his power over the Republic.
Soon, Syrian business and army circles became disaffected with Nasser, which resulted in the Syrian coup of September 28, 1961, and the end of the UAR.
Key Terms
Pan-Arabism
An ideology espousing the unification of the countries of North Africa and West Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea, referred to as the Arab world. It is closely connected to Arab nationalism, which asserts that the Arabs constitute a single nation. Its popularity was at its height during the 1950s and 1960s. Advocates of pan-Arabism have often espoused socialist principles and strongly opposed Western political involvement in the Arab world. It also sought to empower Arab states from outside forces by forming alliances and to a lesser extent, economic cooperation.
Syrian Crisis of 1957
A period of severe diplomatic confrontations during the Cold War that involved Syria and the Soviet Union on one hand and the United States and its allies, including Turkey and the Baghdad Pact, on the other. The tensions began on August 18 when the Syrian government presided by Shukri al-Quwatli made a series of provocative institutional changes, such as the appointment of Col. Afif al-Bizri as chief-of-staff of the Syrian Army, alleged by Western governments to be a Soviet sympathizer.
Afif al-Bizri
A Syrian career military officer who served as the chief of staff of the Syrian Army between 1957–1959. He was known for his communist sympathies and for spearheading the union movement between Syria and Egypt in 1958.
The United Arab Republic (UAR) was a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The union began in 1958 and existed until 1961, when Syria seceded from the union after its 1961 coup d’état. Egypt was known officially as the “United Arab Republic” until 1971. The president was Gamal Abdel Nasser. It was a member of the United Arab States, a loose confederation with North Yemen which in 1961 dissolved along with the Republic.
Establishment of the UAR
Established on February 1, 1958, as a first step towards a larger pan-Arab state, the UAR was created when a group of political and military leaders in Syria proposed a merger of the two states to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Pan-Arabism was very strong in Syria, and Nasser was a popular hero-figure throughout the Arab world following the Suez War of 1956. There was thus considerable popular support in Syria for union with Nasser’s Egypt. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party was the leading advocate of such a union.
In mid-1957 western powers began to worry that Syria was close to a communist takeover; it had a highly organized communist party and the newly appointed army’s chief of staff, Afif al-Bizri, was a communist sympathizer. This caused the Syrian Crisis of 1957 after which Syrians intensified their efforts to unite with Egypt. Nasser told a Syrian delegation, including President Shukri al-Quwatli and Prime Minister Khaled al-Azem, that they needed to rid their government of communists, but the delegation countered and warned him that only total union with Egypt would end the “communist threat.” According to Abdel Latif Boghdadi, Nasser initially resisted a total union with Syria, favoring instead a federal union. However, Nasser was “more afraid of a Communist takeover” and agreed on a total merger.
Nasser’s final terms for the union were decisive and non-negotiable: “a plebiscite, the dissolution of parties, and the withdrawal of the army from politics.” While the plebiscite seemed reasonable to most Syrian elites, the latter two conditions were extremely worrisome. They believed it would destroy political life in Syria. Despite these concerns, the Syrian officials knew it was too late to turn back. They believed that Nasser’s terms were unfair, but given the intense pressure that their government was under, they believed they had no other choice.
Egyptian and Syrian leaders signed the protocols, although Azem did so reluctantly. Nasser became the republic’s president and soon carried out a crackdown against the Syrian Communists and opponents of the union, which included dismissing Bizri and Azem from their posts.
Nasser with Syrian Delegation
Nasser shaking hands with al-Bizri. Afif al-Bizri, the Syrian army’s chief of staff, spearheaded the union with Egypt.
Photo of Nasser shaking hands with al-Bizri surrounded by a Syrian delegation.
Nasser Consolidates Power
Advocates of the union believed Nasser would use the Ba’ath Party to rule Syria. Unfortunately for the Ba’athists, it was never Nasser’s intention to share an equal measure of power. Instead, heestablished a new provisional constitution proclaiming a 600-member National Assembly with 400 members from Egypt and 200 from Syria, as well as the disbanding of all political parties including the Ba’ath. Nasser gave each of the provinces two vice presidents, assigning Boghdadi and Abdel Hakim Amer to Egypt and Sabri al-Assali and Akram El-Hourani—a leader of the Ba’ath—to Syria. The new constitution of 1958 was adopted.
Though Nasser allowed former Ba’ath Party members to hold prominent political positions, they never reached positions as high ias did the Egyptian officials. During the winter and the spring of 1959–60, Nasser slowly squeezed prominent Syrians out of positions of influence.
In Syria, opposition to union with Egypt mounted. Syrian Army officers resented being subordinate to Egyptian officers, and Syrian Bedouin tribes received money from Saudi Arabia to prevent them from becoming loyal to Nasser. Also, Egyptian-style land reform was resented for damaging Syrian agriculture, the communists began to gain influence, and the intellectuals of the Ba’ath Party who supported the union rejected the one-party system.
Instead of federation of two Arab peoples, as many Syrians had imagined, the UAR turned into a state completely dominated by Egyptians. Syrian political life was also diminished as Nasser demanded for all political parties in Syria to be dismantled. In the process, the strongly centralized Egyptian state imposed Nasser’s socialistic political and economical system on weaker Syria, creating backlash from the Syrian business and army circles. This resulted in the Syrian coup of September 28, 1961, and the subsequent end of the UAR.
33.5.5: Sadat and Cold War Influences
The presidency of Anwar Sadat saw many changes in Egyptian politics and policy: breaking with Soviet Union to make Egypt an ally of the United States, initiating the peace process with Israel, reinstituting the multi-party system, and abandoning socialism by launching the Infitah economic policy.
Learning Objective
Discuss the ways in which the Cold War affected Sadat’s time in power
Key Points
In 1970 President Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, another officer in the “Free Officers” movement that instigated the 1952 Revolution.
Sadat switched Egypt’s Cold War allegiance from the Soviet Union to the United States, expelling Soviet advisors in 1972.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched the October War, a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights, in an attempt to regain part of the Sinai territory that Israel had captured six years earlier.
The conflict sparked an international crisis between the U.S. and the USSR, both of whom intervened, and while the war ended with a military stalemate, it presented Sadat with a political victory that later allowed him to regain the Sinai in return for peace with Israel.
Sadat made a historic visit to Israel in 1977, which led to the 1979 peace treaty in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.
Sadat launched the Infitah economic reform policy, creating a “open door” for foreign investment while clamping down on religious and secular opposition.
On October 6, 1981, Sadat and six diplomats were assassinated while observing a military parade commemorating the eighth anniversary of the October 1973 War.
Key Terms
Anwar Sadat
The third President of Egypt, serving from October 15, 1970 until his assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981. He was a senior member of the Free Officers who overthrew King Farouk in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and a close confidant of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, under whom he served as Vice President twice and whom he succeeded as President in 1970.
infitah
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s economic policy of “opening the door” to private investment in Egypt in the years following the 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) with Israel. It was accompanied by a break with longtime ally and aid-giver the USSR — replaced by the United States — and by a peace process with Israel symbolized by Sadat’s dramatic flight to Jerusalem in 1977.
détente
The term is often used in reference to the general easing of the geopolitical tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States which began in 1969 as a foreign policy of U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; a “thawing out” or “un-freezing” at a period roughly in the middle of the Cold War.
Overview
The Sadat era in Egypt refers to the presidency of Anwar Sadat, the 11-year period of Egyptian history spanning from the death of president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970 through Sadat’s assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981. Sadat’s presidency saw many changes in Egypt’s direction, reversing some of the economic and political principles of Nasserism by breaking with Soviet Union to make Egypt an ally of the United States, initiating the peace process with Israel, reinstituting the multi-party system, and abandoning socialism by launching the Infitah economic policy.
The October War of 1973 a began when the coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively. After Israel lost the defensive war, Egypt and Israel came together for negotiations with Israel, culminating in the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in which Israel traded the Sinai to Egypt for peace. This led to Egypt’s estrangement from most other Arab countries and Sadat’s assassination several years later.
Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat
Muhammad Anwar el-Sadat was the third President of Egypt, serving from October 15, 1970, until his assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981.
Photo of Anwar Sadat, third President of Egypt
Early Years
After Nasser’s death, another of the original revolutionary “free officers,” Vice President Anwar el-Sadat, was elected President of Egypt. Nasser’s supporters in government settled on Sadat as a transitional figure who they believed could be manipulated easily. However, Sadat had a long term in office and many changes in mind for Egypt, and by astute political moves was able to institute a “corrective revolution,” (announced on May 15, 1971) which purged the government, political, and security establishments of the most ardent Nasserists. Sadat encouraged the emergence of an Islamist movement which had been suppressed by Nasser. Believing Islamists to be socially conservative, he gave them “considerable cultural and ideological autonomy” in exchange for political support.
Following the disastrous Six-Day War of 1967, Egypt waged a War of Attrition in the Suez Canal zone. In 1971, Sadat endorsed in a letter the peace proposals of UN negotiator Gunnar Jarring, which seemed to lead to a full peace with Israel on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal to its prewar borders. This peace initiative failed as neither Israel nor the U.S. accepted the terms as discussed.
To provide Israel with more incentive to negotiate with Egypt and return the Sinai, and because the Soviets had refused Sadat’s requests for more military support, Sadat expelled the Soviet military advisers from Egypt and proceeded to bolster his army for a renewed confrontation with Israel.
1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)
In 1971, Sadat concluded a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, but a year later ordered Soviet advisers to leave. Soviets were engaged in détente with the United States and discouraged Egypt from attacking Israel. Despite this discouragement, rumors of imminent Soviet intervention on the Egyptians’ behalf during the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought about a massive American mobilization that threatened to wreck détente. Sadat favored another war with Israel in hopes of regaining the Sinai peninsula and reviving a country demoralized from the 1967 war. He hoped that at least a limited victory over the Israelis would alter the status quo. In the months before the war, Sadat engaged in a diplomatic offensive and by the fall of 1973 had support for a war of more than a hundred states, including most of the countries of the Arab League, Non-Aligned Movement, and Organization of African Unity. Syria agreed to join Egypt in attacking Israel.
Egypt’s armed forces achieved initial success in the crossing and advanced 15 km, reaching the depth of the range of safe coverage of its own air force. Having defeated the Israeli forces to this extent, Egyptian forces, rather than advancing under air cover, decided to immediately penetrate further into the Sinai desert. In spite of huge losses they kept advancing, creating the chance to open a gap between army forces. That gap was exploited by a tank division led by Ariel Sharon, and he managed to penetrate onto Egyptian soil, reaching Suez city. In the meantime, the United States initiated a strategic airlift to provide replacement weapons and supplies to Israel and appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid. OPEC oil ministers led by Saudi Arabia retaliated with an oil embargo against the U.S. A UN resolution supported by the United States and the Soviet Union called for an end to hostilities and for peace talks to begin. On March 5, 1974 Israel withdrew the last of its troops from the west side of the Suez Canal, and 12 days later Arab oil ministers announced the end of the embargo against the United States. For Sadat and many Egyptians the war was seen as a victory, as the initial Egyptian successes restored Egyptian pride and led to peace talks with the Israelis that eventually allowed Egypt to regain the entire Sinai peninsula in exchange for a peace agreement.
Relations with United States
In foreign relations Sadat instigated momentous change, shifting Egypt from a policy of confrontation with Israel to one of peaceful accommodation through negotiations. Following the Sinai Disengagement Agreements of 1974 and 1975, Sadat created a fresh opening for progress by his dramatic visit to Jerusalem in November 1977. This led to an invitation from President Jimmy Carter of the United States to President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin to enter trilateral negotiations at Camp David.
The outcome was the historic Camp David accords, signed by Egypt and Israel and witnessed by the U.S. on September 17, 1978. The accords led to the March 26, 1979, signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, by which Egypt regained control of the Sinai in May 1982. Throughout this period, U.S.–Egyptian relations steadily improved, and Egypt became one of America’s largest recipients of foreign aid. Sadat’s willingness to break ranks by making peace with Israel earned him the enmity of most other Arab states, however. In 1977, Egypt fought a short border war with Libya.
Reforms Under Sadat
Sadat used his immense popularity with the Egyptian people to try to push through vast economic reforms that ended the socialistic controls of Nasserism. Sadat introduced greater political freedom and a new economic policy, the most important aspect of which was the Infitah or “open door.” This relaxed government controls over the economy and encouraged private investment. While the reforms created a wealthy and successful upper class and a small middle class, they had little effect upon the average Egyptian who began to grow dissatisfied with Sadat’s rule. In 1977, Infitah policies led to massive spontaneous riots (‘Bread Riots’) involving hundreds of thousands of Egyptians when the state announced that it was retiring subsidies on basic foodstuffs.
Liberalization also included the reinstitution of due process and the legal banning of torture. Sadat dismantled much of the existing political machine and brought to trial a number of former government officials accused of criminal excesses during the Nasser era. Sadat tried to expand participation in the political process in the mid-1970s but later abandoned this effort. In the last years of his life, Egypt was wracked by violence arising from discontent with Sadat’s rule and sectarian tensions and experienced a renewed measure of repression including extra judicial arrests.
At the end of the war, millions of people were homeless, the European economy had collapsed, and much of the continent’s industrial infrastructure had been destroyed.
Learning Objective
Describe the condition of the European continent after World War II
Key Points
The aftermath of World War II was the beginning of an era defined by the decline of the old great powers and the rise of two superpowers: the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of America (U.S.), who soon entered the Cold War.
The Allies established occupation administrations in Germany, divided into western and eastern occupation zones controlled by the Western Allies and the USSR accordingly.
A denazification program in Germany led to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals and the removal of ex-Nazis from power, along with a “industrial disarmament” of the German economy, initially leading to economic stagnation.
After a few years, the U.S. and the other Allied power rescinded on this attitude toward Germany and instead focused on economic support.
Recovery began with the mid-1948 currency reform in Western Germany, and was sped up by the liberalization of European economic policy both directly and indirectly caused by the Marshall Plan (1948–1951) .
Key Terms
Marshall Plan
An American initiative to aid Western Europe in which the United States gave more than $12 billion in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II.
German economic miracle
Also known as The Miracle on the Rhine, the rapid reconstruction and development of the economies of West Germany and Austria after World War II.
Overview
The aftermath of World War II was the beginning of an era defined by the decline of the old great powers and the rise of two superpowers: the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of America (U.S.), creating a bipolar world. Allied during World War II, the U.S. and USSR became competitors on the world stage and engaged in the Cold War, so-called because it never boiled over into open war between the two powers but was focused on espionage, political subversion, and proxy wars. Western Europe and Japan were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan whereas Eastern Europe fell in the Soviet sphere of influence and rejected the plan. Europe was divided into a U.S.-led Western Bloc and a Soviet-led Eastern Bloc.
As a consequence of the war, the Allies created the United Nations, a new global organization for international cooperation and diplomacy. Members of the United Nations agreed to outlaw wars of aggression to avoid a third world war. The devastated great powers of Western Europe formed the European Coal and Steel Community, which later evolved into the European Common Market and ultimately into the current European Union. This effort primarily began as an attempt to avoid another war between Germany and France by economic cooperation and integration and as a common market for important natural resources.
Occupation and Territory Reallocation
The Allies established occupation administrations in Austria and Germany. The former became a neutral state, non-aligned with any political bloc. The latter was divided into western and eastern occupation zones controlled by the Western Allies and the USSR accordingly. A denazification program in Germany led to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals and the removal of ex-Nazis from power, although this policy moved towards amnesty and reintegration of ex-Nazis into West German society.
Germany lost a quarter of its prewar (1937) territory. Among the eastern territories, Silesia, Neumark, and most of Pomerania were taken over by Poland; East Prussia was divided between Poland and the USSR and 9 million Germans expelled from these provinces; and 3 million Germans from the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia to Germany. By the 1950s, every fifth West German was a refugee from the east. The Soviet Union also took over the Polish provinces east of the Curzon line, from which 2 million Poles were expelled; northeast Romania, parts of eastern Finland, and the three Baltic states were also incorporated into the USSR.
Economic Aftermath
By the end of the war, the European economy had collapsed and 70% of the industrial infrastructure was destroyed. The property damage in the Soviet Union consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages, and 31,850 industrial establishments. The strength of the economic recovery following the war varied throughout the world, though in general it was quite robust. In Europe, West Germany declined economically during the first years of the Allied occupation but later experienced a remarkable recovery, and had by the end of the 1950s doubled production from its prewar levels. Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition, but by the 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth. France rebounded quickly and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernization under the Monnet Plan. The UK, by contrast, was in a state of economic ruin after the war and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.
Stalingrad Aftermath
Ruins in Stalingrad, typical of the destruction in many Soviet cities.
Photo of the ruined city of Stalingrad after WWII. Many buildings are collapsed entirely, while some have a few walls remaining.
The U.S. emerged much richer than any other nation and dominated the world economy; it had a baby boom and by 1950 its gross domestic product per person was much higher than that of any of the other powers . The UK and US pursued a policy of industrial disarmament in Western Germany in the years 1945–1948. International trade interdependencies thus led to European economic stagnation and delayed the continent’s recovery for several years.
U.S. policy in post-war Germany from April 1945 until July 1947 was to give the Germans no help in rebuilding their nation, save for the minimum required to mitigate starvation. The Allies’ immediate post-war “industrial disarmament” plan for Germany was to destroy Germany’s capability to wage war by complete or partial deindustrialization. The first industrial plan for Germany, signed in 1946, required the destruction of 1,500 manufacturing plants to lower heavy industry output to roughly 50% of its 1938 level. Dismantling of West German industry ended in 1951. By 1950, equipment had been removed from 706 manufacturing plants and steel production capacity had been reduced by 6.7 million tons.
After lobbying by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Generals Lucius D. Clay and George Marshall, the Truman administration accepted that economic recovery in Europe could not go forward without the reconstruction of the German industrial base on which it had previously been dependent. In July 1947, President Truman rescinded on “national security grounds” the directive that ordered the U.S. occupation forces to “take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany.” A new directive recognized that “[a]n orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a stable and productive Germany.”
Recovery began with the mid-1948 currency reform in Western Germany and was sped up by the liberalization of European economic policy that the Marshall Plan (1948–1951) both directly and indirectly caused. The post-1948 West German recovery has been called the German economic miracle.
32.1.2: The Long Telegram
In February 1946, George F. Kennan’s “Long Telegram” from Moscow helped articulate the U.S. government’s increasingly hard line against the Soviets and became the basis for the U.S. “containment” strategy toward the Soviet Union for the duration of the Cold War.
Learning Objective
Recall the significance of the Long Telegram
Key Points
In February 1946, the U.S. State Department asked George F. Kennan, then at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, why the Russians opposed the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Kennan responded with a wide-ranging analysis of Russian policy now called the “Long Telegram.”
In the “Long Telegram,” Kennan emphasized that the Soviet Union did not see the possibility for long-term peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world and that the best strategy was to “contain” communist expansion around the globe.
A year later, Kennan published an article under the anonymous pseudonym “X” summarizing and clarifying his analysis in the “Long Telegram.”
The attitudes and strategies promoted in these two documents, namely the strategy of “containment,” formed the basis of America’s approach to the USSR for the most of the Cold War.
Key Terms
“Long Telegram”
A 1946 cable telegram by U.S. diplomat George F. Kennan during the post-WWII administration of U.S. President Harry Truman that articulated the policy of containment toward the USSR.
containment
A military strategy to stop the expansion of an enemy. It is best known as the Cold War policy of the United States and its allies to prevent the spread of communism.
Overview
The first phase of the Cold War began in the first two years after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The USSR consolidated its control over the states of the Eastern Bloc, while the United States began a strategy of global containment to challenge Soviet power, extending military and financial aid to the countries of Western Europe. An important moment in the development of America’s initial Cold War strategy was the delivery of the “Long Telegram” sent from Moscow by American diplomat George Kennan in 1946.
Kennan’s “Long Telegram” and the subsequent 1947 article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” argued that the Soviet regime was inherently expansionist and that its influence had to be “contained” in areas of vital strategic importance to the United States. These texts provided justification for the Truman administration’s new anti-Soviet policy. Kennan played a major role in the development of definitive Cold War programs and institutions, notably the Marshall Plan.
The “Long Telegram”
In Moscow, Kennan felt his opinions were being ignored by Harry S. Truman and policymakers in Washington. Kennan tried repeatedly to persuade policymakers to abandon plans for cooperation with the Soviet government in favor of a sphere of influence policy in Europe to reduce the Soviets’ power there. Kennan believed that a federation needed to be established in western Europe to counter Soviet influence in the region and compete against the Soviet stronghold in eastern Europe.
Kennan served as deputy head of the mission in Moscow until April 1946. Near the end of that term, the Treasury Department requested that the State Department explain recent Soviet behavior, such as its disinclination to endorse the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Kennan responded on February 22, 1946, by sending a 5,500-word telegram (sometimes cited as more than 8,000 words) from Moscow to Secretary of State James Byrnes outlining a new strategy for diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.
Kennan described dealing with Soviet Communism as “undoubtedly the greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably the greatest it will ever have to face.” In the first two sections, he posited concepts that became the foundation of American Cold War policy:
The USSR perceived itself at perpetual war with capitalism.
The USSR viewed left-wing, but non-communist, groups in other countries as an even worse enemy than the capitalist ones.
The USSR would use controllable Marxists in the capitalist world as allies.
Soviet aggression was fundamentally not aligned with the views of the Russian people or with economic reality, but rooted in historic Russian nationalism and neurosis.
The Soviet government’s structure inhibited objective or accurate pictures of internal and external reality.
According to Kennan, the Soviet Union did not see the possibility for long-term peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world; its ever-present aim was to advance the socialist cause. Capitalism was a menace to the ideals of socialism, and capitalists could not be trusted or allowed to influence the Soviet people. Outright conflict was never ca desirable avenue for the propagation of the Soviet cause, but their eyes and ears were always open for the opportunity to take advantage of “diseased tissue” anywhere in the world.
In Section Five, Kennan exposited Soviet weaknesses and proposed U.S. strategy, stating that despite the great challenge, “my conviction that problem is within our power to solve—and that without recourse to any general military conflict.” He argued that the Soviet Union would be sensitive to force, that the Soviets were weak compared to the united Western world, that the Soviets were vulnerable to internal instability, and that Soviet propaganda was primarily negative and destructive.
The solution was to strengthen Western institutions in order to render them invulnerable to the Soviet challenge while awaiting the mellowing of the Soviet regime.
The X Article
Unlike the “Long Telegram,” Kennan’s well-timed article in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs attributed the pseudonym “X,” entitled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” did not begin by emphasizing “traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity”; instead, it asserted that Stalin’s policy was shaped by a combination of Marxist and Leninist ideology, which advocated revolution to defeat the capitalist forces in the outside world and Stalin’s determination to use the notion of “capitalist encirclement” to legitimize his regimentation of Soviet society so that he could consolidate his political power. Kennan argued that Stalin would not (and moreover could not) moderate the supposed Soviet determination to overthrow Western governments. Thus,
the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies … Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvers of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.
The publication of the “X Article” soon began one of the more intense debates of the Cold War. Walter Lippmann, a leading American commentator on international affairs, strongly criticized the “X Article.” He argued that Kennan’s strategy of containment was “a strategic monstrosity” that could “be implemented only by recruiting, subsidizing and supporting a heterogeneous array of satellites, clients, dependents, and puppets.” Lippmann argued that diplomacy should be the basis of relations with the Soviets; he suggested that the U.S. withdraw its forces from Europe and reunify and demilitarize Germany. Meanwhile, it was revealed informally that “X” was indeed Kennan. This information seemed to give the “X Article” the status of an official document expressing the Truman administration’s new policy toward the USSR. In the years that followed, this implication was proved correct by the actions taken by the U.S. government toward foreign affairs, including entering the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
George F. Kennan
George F. Kennan in 1947, the year the “X Article” was published.
Photo of George Kennan.
32.1.3: The Iron Curtain
On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill gave a speech declaring that an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe, pointing to efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West.
Learning Objective
Explain the term Iron Curtain
Key Points
The antagonism between the Soviet Union and the West that came to be described as the “iron curtain” had various origins, including events going back to the Russian Revolution of 1917, disagreements during and immediately after WWII, and various annexations of Eastern European nations by the Soviet Union.
The Iron Curtain specifically refers to the imaginary line dividing Europe between Soviet influence and Western influence, and symbolizes efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and non-Soviet-controlled areas.
On either side of the Iron Curtain, states developed their own international military alliances, namely the Warsaw Pact and NATO.
Physically, the Iron Curtain took the form of border defenses between the countries of Europe in the middle of the continent, most notably the Berlin Wall.
Key Terms
Warsaw Pact
A collective defense treaty among the Soviet Union and seven other Soviet satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
NATO
An intergovernmental military alliance signed on April 4, 1949 and including the five Treaty of Brussels states (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom) plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.
“iron curtain”
A term indicating the imaginary boundary dividing Europe into two separate areas from the end of World War II in 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Overview
The Iron Curtain formed the imaginary boundary dividing Europe into two separate areas from the end of World War II in 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991. The term symbolized efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and non-Soviet-controlled areas. On the east side of the Iron Curtain were the countries connected to or influenced by the Soviet Union. On either side of the Iron Curtain, states developed their own international economic and military alliances:
Member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact, with the Soviet Union as the leading state
Member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with the United States as the preeminent power
Physically, the Iron Curtain took the form of border defenses between the countries of Europe in the middle of the continent. The most notable border was marked by the Berlin Wall and its “Checkpoint Charlie,” which served as a symbol of the Curtain as a whole.
Background
The antagonism between the Soviet Union and the West that came to be described as the “iron curtain” had various origins.
The Allied Powers and the Central Powers backed the White movement against the Bolsheviks during the 1918–1920 Russian Civil War, a fact not forgotten by the Soviets.
A series of events during and after World War II exacerbated tensions, including the Soviet-German pact during the first two years of the war leading to subsequent invasions, the perceived delay of an amphibious invasion of German-occupied Europe, the western Allies’ support of the Atlantic Charter, disagreement in wartime conferences over the fate of Eastern Europe, the Soviets’ creation of an Eastern Bloc of Soviet satellite states, western Allies scrapping the Morgenthau Plan to support the rebuilding of German industry, and the Marshall Plan.
In the course of World War II, Stalin determined to acquire a buffer area against Germany, with pro-Soviet states on its border in an Eastern bloc. Stalin’s aims led to strained relations at the Yalta Conference (February 1945) and the subsequent Potsdam Conference (August 1945). People in the West expressed opposition to Soviet domination over the buffer states, leading to growing fear that the Soviets were building an empire that might threaten them and their interests.
Nonetheless, at the Potsdam Conference, the Allies assigned parts of Poland, Finland, Romania, Germany, and the Balkans to Soviet control or influence. In return, Stalin promised the Western Allies he would allow those territories the right to national self-determination. Despite Soviet cooperation during the war, these concessions left many in the West uneasy. In particular, Churchill feared that the United States might return to its prewar isolationism, leaving the exhausted European states unable to resist Soviet demands.
Iron Curtain Speech
Winston Churchill’s “Sinews of Peace” address of March 5, 1946, at Westminster College, used the term “iron curtain” in the context of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe:
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an “Iron Curtain” has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
Churchill mentioned in his speech that regions under the Soviet Union’s control were expanding their leverage and power without any restriction. He asserted that to put a brake on this phenomenon, the commanding force of and strong unity between the UK and the U.S. was necessary.
Much of the Western public still regarded the Soviet Union as a close ally in the context of the recent defeat of Nazi Germany and of Japan. Although not well received at the time, the phrase iron curtain gained popularity as a shorthand reference to the division of Europe as the Cold War strengthened. The Iron Curtain served to keep people in and information out, and people throughout the West eventually came to accept the metaphor.
Stalin took note of Churchill’s speech and responded in Pravda (the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) soon afterward. He accused Churchill of warmongering, and defended Soviet “friendship” with eastern European states as a necessary safeguard against another invasion. He further accused Churchill of hoping to install right-wing governments in eastern Europe to agitate those states against the Soviet Union. Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin’s chief propagandist, used the term against the West in an August 1946 speech:
Hard as bourgeois politicians and writers may strive to conceal the truth of the achievements of the Soviet order and Soviet culture, hard as they may strive to erect an iron curtain to keep the truth about the Soviet Union from penetrating abroad, hard as they may strive to belittle the genuine growth and scope of Soviet culture, all their efforts are foredoomed to failure.
Iron Curtain
The Iron Curtain depicted as a black line. Warsaw Pact countries on one side of the Iron Curtain appear shaded red; NATO members on the other shaded blue; militarily neutral countries shaded gray. The black dot represents Berlin. Yugoslavia, although communist-ruled, remained largely independent of the two major blocs and is shaded green. Communist Albania broke off contacts with the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, aligning itself with the People’s Republic of China after the Sino-Soviet split; it appears stripe-hatched with grey.
The Iron Curtain depicted as a black line. Warsaw Pact countries on one side of the Iron Curtain appear shaded red; NATO members on the other shaded blue; militarily neutral countries shaded gray. The black dot represents Berlin. Yugoslavia, although communist-ruled, remained largely independent of the two major blocs and is shaded green. Communist Albania broke off contacts with the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, aligning itself with the People’s Republic of China after the Sino-Soviet split; it appears stripe-hatched with grey.
32.2: Life in the USSR
32.2.1: Marxism-Leninism
Marxism-Leninism, proclaimed the official ideology of the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin, was based on Karl Marx’s economic theory but included important differences specific to Stalin’s totalitarian government.
Learning Objective
Contrast Marxism-Leninism with pure Marxism
Key Points
Marxism-Leninism is a political philosophy founded on ideas of Marxism and Leninism, often used specifically to refer to the state ideologies of communist nations such as the USSR. In contrast, classical Marxism did not specify how the socialist mode of production would function in government.
Generally Marxist-Leninists support the ideas of a vanguard party, one-party state, state-dominance over the economy, internationalism, opposition to bourgeois democracy, and opposition to capitalism.
Marxism-Leninism first became a distinct philosophical movement in the Soviet Union during the 1920s, when Joseph Stalin and his supporters gained control of the Russian Communist Party.
His version of Marxism-Leninism, sometimes called Stalinism (not an explicit ideology at the time but rather a historically descriptive term), rejected the notions, common among Marxists at the time, of world revolution as a prerequisite for building socialism in Russia in favor of the concept of Socialism in One Country.
Stalin’s regime was a totalitarian state under his dictatorship, in which Stalin exercised extensive personal control over the Communist Party and unleashed an unprecedented level of violence to eliminate any potential threat to his regime.
Key Terms
class consciousness
A term used in political theory, especially Marxism, to refer to the belief a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests; used to point toward a distinctions between a “class in itself,” defined as a category of people with a common relation to the means of production, and a “class for itself,” defined as a stratum organized in active pursuit of its own interests.
Socialism in One Country
A theory put forth by Joseph Stalin in 1924 which held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1921 except Russia’s, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. This turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held Marxist position that socialism must be established globally (world communism).
bourgeoisie
In Marxist philosophy, the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital, to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.
Overview
Marxism-Leninism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of Marxism and Leninism that seeks to establish socialist states and develop them further. Marxist–Leninists espouse an array of views depending on their understanding of Marxism and Leninism, but generally support the idea of a vanguard party, one-party state, state-dominance over the economy, internationalism, opposition to bourgeois democracy, and opposition to capitalism. It remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc.
Marxism-Leninism first became a distinct philosophical movement in the Soviet Union during the 1920s, when Joseph Stalin and his supporters gained control of the Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks). It rejected the notions, common among Marxists at the time, of world revolution as a prerequisite for building socialism in Russia (in favor of the concept of Socialism in One Country), and of a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism (signified by the introduction of the First Five-Year Plan). The internationalism of Marxism–Leninism was expressed in supporting revolutions in foreign countries.
The goal of Marxism-Leninism is the development of a state into a socialist republic through the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard, the part of the working class who come to class consciousness as a result of the dialectic of class struggle. The socialist state, representing a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (as opposed to that of the bourgeoisie) is governed by the party of the revolutionary vanguard through the process of democratic centralism, which Vladimir Lenin described as “diversity in discussion, unity in action.” It seeks the development of socialism into the full realization of communism, a classless social system with common ownership of the means of production and full equality of all members of society.
Leninism
In Marxist philosophy, Leninism is the body of political theory developed by Lenin for the democratic organization of a revolutionary vanguard party and the achievement of a dictatorship of the proletariat as political prelude to the establishment of the socialist mode of production. Since Karl Marx barely, if ever, wrote about how the socialist mode of production would function, these tasks were left for Lenin to solve. His main contribution to Marxist thought is the concept of the vanguard party of the working class, conceived as a close-knit central organization led by intellectuals rather than by the working class itself. The party was open only to a few of the workers since the workers in Russia still had not developed class consciousness and needed to be educated to reach such a state. Lenin believed that the vanguard party could initiate policies in the name of the working class even if the working class did not support them, since the party would know what was best for the workers since its functionaries had attained consciousness.
Leninism was by definition authoritarianism. Lenin, through his interpretation of Marx’s theory of the state (which views the state as an oppressive organ of the ruling class), had no qualms of forcing change upon the country. The repressive powers of the state were to be used to transform the country and strip of the former ruling class of their wealth. In contrast to Karl Marx, who believed that the socialist revolution would be composed of and led by the working class alone, Lenin argued that a socialist revolution did not necessarily need to be led by or composed of the working class alone, instead contending that a revolution needed to be led by the oppressed classes of society, which in Russia was the peasant class.
Vladimir Lenin
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1924, was one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century.
A photo of Vladimir Lenin speaking from atop a wooden platform.
Stalinism
Within five years of Vladimir Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin completed his rise to power in the Soviet Union. According to G. Lisichkin (1989), Stalin compiled Marxism-Leninism as a separate ideology in his book Concerning Questions of Leninism. During the period of Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union, Marxism–Leninism was proclaimed the official ideology of the state. There is no definite agreement among historians about whether or Stalin actually followed the principles established by Marx and Lenin.
A key point of conflict between Marxism-Leninism and other tendencies is that whereas Marxism-Leninism defines Stalin’s USSR as a workers’ state, other types of communists and Marxists deny this, and Trotskyists specifically consider it a deformed or degenerated workers’ state. Trotskyists in particular believe that Stalinism contradicted authentic Marxism and Leninism, and they initially used the term “Bolshevik-Leninism” to describe their own ideology of anti-Stalinist communism.
Stalinism, while not an ideology per se, refers to Stalin’s thoughts and policies. Stalin’s introduction of the concept “Socialism in One Country” in 1924 was a major turning point in Soviet ideological discourse, which claimed that the Soviet Union did not need a socialist world revolution to construct a socialist society. The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1921 except Russia’s, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. That turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held Marxist position that socialism must be established globally (world communism), and it was in opposition to Leon Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Four years later, Stalin initiated his “Second Revolution” with the introduction of state socialism and central planning. In the early-1930s, he initiated collectivization of Soviet agriculture, by deprivatizing agriculture, not putting it under the responsibility of the state but instead creating peasant cooperatives. With the initiation of his “Second Revolution”, Stalin launched the “Cult of Lenin” and a cult of personality centered upon himself.
Stalin’s regime was a totalitarian state under his dictatorship. He exercised extensive personal control over the Communist Party and unleashed an unprecedented level of violence to eliminate any potential threat to his regime. While Stalin exercised major control over political initiatives, their implementation was in the control of localities, often with local leaders interpreting the policies in a way that served themselves best. This abuse of power by local leaders exacerbated the violent purges and terror campaigns carried out by Stalin against members of the Party deemed to be traitors. Stalin unleashed the Great Terror campaign against alleged “socially dangerous” and “counterrevolutionary” persons that resulted in the Great Purge of 1936–38, during which 1.5 million people were arrested from 1937–38 and 681,692 of those executed. The Stalinist era saw the introduction of a system of forced labor for convicts and political dissidents, the Gulag system created in the early 1930s.
Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin
With the help of Nikolai Bukharin, Stalin developed the concept of “Socialism in One Country,” which contrasted with Marx’s concept of “world communism.”
A photo of Joseph Stalin next to Nikolai Bukharin.
32.2.2: The Soviet Socialist Republics
The satellites states that arose in the Eastern Bloc not only reproduced the command economies of the Soviet Union, but also adopted the brutal methods employed by Joseph Stalin and Soviet secret police to suppress real and potential opposition.
Learning Objective
Define a Soviet Socialist Republic
Key Points
The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was a federation of Soviet Republics that were outwardly independent nations, but existed essentially as satellite states under the control of Russian power.
During the opening stages of World War II, the Soviet Union laid the foundation for the Eastern Bloc by invading and then annexing several countries as Soviet Socialist Republics, adding to the existing Soviet Union of Russia, Transcaucasia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia.
The defining characteristic of communism implemented in the Eastern Bloc was the unique symbiosis of the state with society and the economy, resulting in politics and economics losing their distinctive features as autonomous and distinguishable spheres.
The Soviet-style “replica regimes” that arose in the Bloc not only reproduced Soviet command economies, but also adopted the brutal methods employed by Joseph Stalin and Soviet secret police to suppress real and potential opposition.
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was a nationwide revolt against the government of the Hungarian People’s Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until November 10, 1956.
Key Terms
satellite state
A country that is formally independent in the world, but under heavy political, economic, and military influence or control from another country.
Soviet Socialist Republic
Ethnically based administrative units in communist states of Eastern Europe that were subordinated directly to the Government of the Soviet Union.
Eastern Bloc
The group of communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, generally the Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact.
Soviet
Derived from a Russian word signifying council, assembly, advice, harmony, concord, political organizations and governmental bodies associated with the Russian Revolutions and the history of the Soviet Union.
Formation of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc
The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was a union of multiple subnational Soviet republics; its government and economy were highly centralized.
The Soviet Union had its roots in the October Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks, headed by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisional government that replaced the Tsar. They established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (renamed Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1936), beginning a civil war between the revolutionary “Reds” and the counter-revolutionary “Whites.” The Red Army entered several territories of the former Russian Empire and helped local Communists take power through soviets, which nominally acted on behalf of workers and peasants. In 1922, the Communists were victorious, forming the Soviet Union with the unification of the Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian republics. Following Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came to power in the mid-1920s. Stalin suppressed all political opposition to his rule, committed the state ideology to Marxism-Leninism (which he created), and initiated a centrally planned command economy. As a result, the country underwent a period of rapid industrialization and collectivization which laid the foundation for its victory in World War II and post-war dominance of Eastern Europe.
During the opening stages of World War II, the Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc (the group of communist states of Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War) by invading and then annexing several countries as Soviet Socialist Republics by agreement with Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. These included eastern Poland (incorporated into two different SSRs), Latvia (which became the Latvian SSR), Estonia (which became the Estonian SSR), Lithuania (which became the Lithuanian SSR), part of eastern Finland (which became the Karelo-Finnish SSR) and eastern Romania (which became the Moldavian SSR).
Soviet Republics
Eastern Bloc area border changes between 1938 and 1948
A map depicting the Socialist Republics of the Soviet Union.
Satellite States
According to Article 76 of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, a Union Republic was a sovereign Soviet socialist state that had united with other Soviet Republics in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Article 81 of the Constitution stated that “the sovereign rights of Union Republics shall be safeguarded by the USSR.” In 1944, amendments to the All-Union Constitution allowed for separate branches of the Red Army for each Soviet Republic. They also allowed for Republic-level commissariats for foreign affairs and defense, allowing them to be recognized as de jure independent states in international law. This allowed for two Soviet Republics, Ukraine, and Byelorussia, as well as the USSR as a whole to join the United Nations General Assembly as founding members in 1945.
Therefore, constitutionally the Soviet Union was a federation. In accordance with provisions present in the Constitution (versions adopted in 1924, 1936, and 1977), each republic retained the right to secede from the USSR. Throughout the Cold War, this right was widely considered meaningless, and the Soviet Republics were often referred to as “satellite states.” The term satellite state designates a country that is formally independent in the world, but under heavy political, economic, and military influence or control from another country. The term is used mainly to refer to Central and Eastern European countries of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.
For the duration of the Cold War, the countries of Eastern Europe became Soviet satellite states — they were “independent” nations, one-party Communist States whose General Secretary had to be approved by the Kremlin, and so their governments usually kept their policy in line with the wishes of the Soviet Union. However, nationalistic forces and pressures within the satellite states played a part in causing deviation from strict Soviet rule.
Conditions in the Eastern Bloc
Throughout the Eastern Bloc, both in the Soviet Socialist Republic and the rest of the Bloc, Russia was given prominence and referred to as the naibolee vydajuščajasja nacija (the most prominent nation) and the rukovodjaščij narod (the leading people). The Soviets encouraged the worship of everything Russian and the reproduction of their own Communist structural hierarchies in each of the Bloc states.
The defining characteristic of communism in the Eastern Bloc was the unique symbiosis of the state with society and the economy, resulting in politics and economics losing their distinctions and autonomy. While more than 15 million Eastern Bloc residents migrated westward from 1945 to 1949, emigration was effectively halted in the early 1950s, with the Soviet approach to controlling national movement emulated by most of the Eastern Bloc. The Soviets mandated expropriation of private property.
The Soviet-style “replica regimes” that arose in the Bloc not only reproduced Soviet command economies, but also adopted the brutal methods employed by Joseph Stalin and Soviet secret police to suppress real and potential opposition. Stalinist regimes in the Eastern Bloc saw even marginal groups of opposition intellectuals as a potential threat because of the bases underlying Stalinist power therein. The suppression of dissent and opposition was a central prerequisite for the security of Stalinist power within the Eastern Bloc, though the degree of opposition and dissident suppression varied by country and time throughout the Eastern Bloc. Furthermore, the Eastern Bloc experienced economic mismanagement by central planners resulting in extensive rather than intensive development, and lagged far behind their western European counterparts in per capita gross domestic product. In addition, media in the Eastern Bloc served as an organ of the state, completely reliant on and subservient to the communist party. The state owned radio and television organizations while print media was usually owned by political organizations, mostly the ruling communist party.
Hungarian Uprising of 1956
The Hungarian Revolution or Uprising of 1956 he Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was a nationwide revolt against the government of the Hungarian People’s Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until November 10, 1956. Though leaderless when it first began, it was the first major threat to Soviet control since the USSR’s forces drove Nazi Germany from its territory at the end of World War II and broke into Central and Eastern Europe.
The revolt began as a student demonstration, which attracted thousands who marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building, calling out on the streets using a van with loudspeakers via Radio Free Europe. A student delegation, entering the radio building to try to broadcast the students’ demands, was detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (ÁVH) from within the building. One student died and was wrapped in a flag and held above the crowd. This was the start of the revolution. As the news spread, disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital.
The revolt spread quickly across Hungary and the government collapsed. Thousands organised into militias, battling the ÁVH and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were often executed or imprisoned and former political prisoners were released and armed. Radical impromptu workers’ councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People’s Party and demanded political changes. A new government formally disbanded the ÁVH, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact, and pledged to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, fighting had almost ceased and a sense of normality began to return.
After announcing willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution. On November 4, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest and other regions of the country. The Hungarian resistance continued until November 10. Over 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Soviet troops were killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees. Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition. These Soviet actions, while strengthening control over the Eastern Bloc, alienated many Western Marxists, leading to splits and/or considerable losses of membership for Communist Parties in the West.
Public discussion about this revolution was suppressed in Hungary for more than 30 years.
Hungarian Revolution
Flag of Hungary, with the communist coat of arms cut out. The flag with a hole became the symbol of the revolution.
A photo of a Soviet Union flag with the communist coat of arms cut out hanging over a street. Military vehicles can be seen in the background.
32.2.3: Culture of the Soviet Union
During Stalin’s rule, Soviet culture was characterized by the rise and domination of the government-imposed style of socialist realism, with all other trends severely repressed. At the same time, a degree of social liberalization included more equality for women.
Learning Objective
Give examples of culture in the Soviet Union
Key Points
The culture of the Soviet Union passed through several stages during the USSR’s 69-year existence, from relative freedom to repressive control and censorship.
During the Stalin era, art and culture was put under strict control and public displays of Soviet life were limited to optimistic, positive, and realistic depictions of the Soviet man and woman, a style called socialist realism.
Despite the strict censorship of the arts and the repression of political dissidence during this period, the Soviet people benefited from some social liberalization, including more equal education and social roles for women, free and improved health care, and other social benefits.
Starting in the early 1930s, the Soviet government began an all-out war on organized religion in the country, and atheism was vigorously promoted by the government.
Key Terms
Socialist realism
A style of realistic art that was developed in the Soviet Union and became a dominant style in other socialist countries.
Great Purge
A campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1938 that involved a large-scale purge of the Communist Party and government officials, repression of peasants and the Red Army leadership, widespread police surveillance, suspicion of “saboteurs”, imprisonment, and arbitrary executions.
Russian Orthodox Church
One of the Eastern Orthodox churches, in full communion with other Eastern Orthodox patriarchates.
Overview
The culture of the Soviet Union passed through several stages during the USSR’s 69-year existence. People of various nationalities from all 15 union republics contributed, with a narrow majority of Russians. The Soviet state supported cultural institutions but also carried out strict censorship.
During the first 11 years following the Russian Revolution (1918–1929), there was relative freedom for artists, as Lenin wanted art to be accessible to the Russian people. On the other hand, hundreds of intellectuals, writers, and artists were exiled or executed and their work banned.
The government encouraged a variety of trends. In art and literature, numerous schools, some traditional and others radically experimental, proliferated.
Later, during Stalin’s rule, Soviet culture was characterized by the rise and domination of the government-imposed style of socialist realism, with all other trends severely repressed with rare exceptions like Mikhail Bulgakov’s works. Many writers were imprisoned and killed.
Lenin Years
The main feature of communist attitudes towards the arts and artists from 1918-1929 was relative freedom and significant experimentation with several different methods to find a distinctive Soviet style of art.
This was a time of relative freedom and experimentation for the social and cultural life of the Soviet Union. The government tolerated a variety of trends in these areas, provided they were not overtly hostile to the regime. In art and literature, numerous schools, some traditional and others radically experimental, proliferated. Communist writers Maxim Gorky and Vladimir Mayakovsky were active during this time, but other authors, many of whose works were later repressed, published work without socialist political content. Film, as a means of influencing a largely illiterate society, received encouragement from the state; much of cinematographer Sergei Eisenstein’s best work dates from this period.
Under Commissar Anatoliy Lunacharskiy, education entered a phase of experimentation based on progressive theories of learning. At the same time, the state expanded the primary and secondary school system and introduced night schools for working adults. The quality of higher education was affected by admissions policies that preferred entrants from the proletarian class over those of bourgeois backgrounds, regardless of the applicants’ qualifications.
The state eased the active persecution of religion dating to war communism but continued to agitate on behalf of atheism. The party supported the Living Church reform movement within the Russian Orthodox Church in hopes that it would undermine faith in the church, but the movement died out in the late 1920s.
In family life, attitudes generally became more permissive. The state legalized abortion and made divorce progressively easier to obtain, while public cafeterias proliferated at the expense of private family kitchens.
Culture During the Stalin Era
Socialist realism is characterized by the glorified depiction of communist values, such as the emancipation of the proletariat, with realistic imagery. The purpose of socialist realism was to limit popular culture to a specific, highly regulated faction of creative expression that promoted Soviet ideals. The party was of the utmost importance and was always to be favorably featured. Revolutionary romanticism elevated the common worker, whether factory or agricultural, by presenting his life, work, and recreation as admirable to show how much the standard of living had improved thanks to the revolution. Art was used as educational information.
Many writers were imprisoned and killed or died of starvation, including Daniil Kharms, Osip Mandelstam, Isaac Babel, and Boris Pilnyak. Andrei Platonov worked as a caretaker and wasn’t allowed to publish. The work of Anna Akhmatova was also condemned by the regime, although she notably refused the opportunity to escape to the West. After a short Ukrainian literature renaissance, more than 250 Soviet Ukrainian writers died during the Great Purge. Texts of imprisoned authors were confiscated, though some were published later. Books were removed from libraries and destroyed.
Musical expression was also repressed during the Stalin era, and at times the music of many Soviet composers was banned. Dmitri Shostakovich experienced a long and complex relationship with Stalin during which his music was denounced and prohibited twice, in 1936 and 1948 (see Zhdanov decree). Sergei Prokofiev and Aram Khachaturian had similar cases. Although Igor Stravinsky did not live in the Union, his music was officially considered formalist and anti-Soviet.
The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman
The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman by Vera Mukhina (1937), an example of socialist realism during the Stalin Era.
A photo of a Soviet era statue characteristic of socialist realism, depicting a male worker holding a hammer aloft in his hand and a woman worker with a sickle aloft in her hand.
Society During the Stalin Era
During this period (1927-1953), the Soviet people benefited from social liberalization. Women were eligible for the same education as men and at least legally speaking, obtained the same rights as men in the workplace. Although in practice these goals were not reached, the efforts to achieve them and the statement of theoretical equality led to a general improvement in the socioeconomic status of women. Stalinist development also contributed to advances in health care, which marked a massive improvement over the Imperial era. Stalin’s policies granted the Soviet people access to free health care and education. Widespread immunization programs created the first generation free from fear of typhus and cholera. The occurrences of these diseases dropped to record-low numbers and infant mortality rates were substantially reduced, increasing the life expectancy for both men and women by more than 20 years by the mid-to-late 1950s. Many of the more extreme social and political ideas that were fashionable in the 1920s, such as anarchism, internationalism, and the belief that the nuclear family was a bourgeois concept, were abandoned. Schools began to teach a more nationalistic course with emphasis on Russian history and leaders, though Marxist underpinnings remained. Stalin also began to create a Lenin cult. During the 1930s, Soviet society assumed the basic form it would maintain until its collapse in 1991.
Urban women under Stalin were the first generation able to give birth in a hospital with access to prenatal care. Education also improved with economic development. The generation born during Stalin’s rule was the first in which most members were literate. Some engineers were sent abroad to learn industrial technology, and hundreds of foreign engineers were brought to Russia on contract. Transport links were also improved as many new railways were built–with forced labor, costing thousands of lives. Workers who exceeded their quotas, Stakhanovites, received many incentives, although many were in fact “arranged” to succeed by receiving extreme help, and their achievements then used for propaganda.
Starting in the early 1930s, the Soviet government began an all-out war on organized religion. Many churches and monasteries were closed and scores of clergymen were imprisoned or executed. The state propaganda machine vigorously promoted atheism and denounced religion as an artifact of capitalist society. In 1937, Pope Pius XI decried the attacks on religion in the Soviet Union. By 1940, only a small number of churches remained. The early anti-religious campaigns under Lenin were mostly directed at the Russian Orthodox Church, as it was a symbol of the czarist government. In the 1930s, however, all faiths were targeted: minority Christian denominations, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism.
32.2.4: Famine and Oppression
Under Stalin, forced collectivization of farms was implemented all over the country, causing widespread famine and millions of deaths, primarily of Ukrainian peasants.
Learning Objective
Explain the reasons for the recurring food shortages of the Soviet Union and how the government used hunger as a tool
Key Points
With Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan, the state sought increased political control of agriculture to feed the rapidly growing urban population and obtain a source of foreign currency through increased cereal exports.
This brought about widespread collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, and by 1936, about 90% of Soviet agriculture had been collectivized.
Kulaks, a term referring to prosperous peasants and anyone who opposed collectivizations, were forcibly resettled to Kazakhstan, Siberia, and the Russian Far North, as well as sent to Gulags. In 1930 around 20,000 “kulaks” were killed by the Soviet government.
Widespread famine ensued from collectivization and affected Ukraine, southern Russia, and other parts of the USSR, with the death toll estimated at between 5 and 10 million.
The Holodomor, considered a genocide by many historians, was a man-made famine in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians.
Key Terms
first Five-Year Plan
A list of economic goal, created by General Secretary Joseph Stalin and based on his policy of Socialism in One Country, including the creation of collective farming systems that stretched over thousands of acres of land and had hundreds of peasants working on them.
kulaks
A category of affluent landlords in the later Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and the early Soviet Union, especially any peasant who resisted collectivization. According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 20th century, these peasants were class enemies of the poorer peasants.
Holodomor
A man-made famine in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians.
Collectivization
The Soviet Union enforced the collectivization of its agricultural sector between 1928 and 1940 during the ascendancy of Joseph Stalin. It began during and was part of the first Five-Year Plan. The policy aimed to consolidate individual landholdings and labor into collective farms. The Soviet leadership expected that the replacement of individual peasant farms by collectives would immediately increase the food supply for the urban population, the supply of raw materials for processing industry, and agricultural exports. Planners regarded collectivization as the solution to the crisis of agricultural distribution (mainly in grain deliveries) that began in 1927. This problem became more acute as the Soviet Union pressed ahead with its ambitious industrialization program.
In the early 1930s, more than 91% of agricultural land became “collectivized” as rural households entered collective farms with their land, livestock, and other assets. The sweeping policy came at tremendous human and social costs.
Despite the expectations, collectivization led to a catastrophic drop in farm productivity, which did not return to the levels achieved under the NEP until 1940. In the first years of collectivization, it was estimated that industrial production would rise by 200% and agricultural production by 50%, but these expectations were not realized. Stalin blamed this unanticipated failure on kulaks who resisted collectivization. However, so-called kulaks made up only 4% of the peasant population; Stalin targeted the slightly better-off peasants who took the brunt of violence from the OGPU and the Komsomol, who comprised about 60% of the population. Those officially defined as “kulaks,” “kulak helpers,” and, later, “ex-kulaks” were shot, placed in Gulag labor camps, or deported to remote areas of the country, depending on the charge. Archival data indicates that 20,201 people were executed during 1930, the year of Dekulakization.
The upheaval associated with collectivization was particularly severe in Ukraine and the heavily Ukrainian Volga region. Peasants slaughtered their livestock en masse rather than give them up. In 1930 alone, 25% of the nation’s cattle, sheep, and goats and one-third of all pigs were killed. It was not until the 1980s that the Soviet livestock numbers returned to their 1928 level. Government bureaucrats who had been given a rudimentary education on farming techniques were dispatched to the countryside to “teach” peasants the new ways of socialist agriculture, relying largely on Marxist theoretical ideas that had little basis in reality. The farmers who knew agriculture well and were familiar with the local climates, soil types, and other factors had been sent to the gulags or shot as enemies of the state. Even after the state inevitably succeeded in imposing collectivization, the peasants sabotaged as much as possible by cultivating far smaller portions of their land and working much less. The scale of the Ukrainian famine has led many Ukrainian scholars to argue that there was a deliberate policy of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Other scholars argue that the massive death totals were an inevitable result of a very poorly planned operation against all peasants, who gave little support to Lenin or Stalin.
Collectivization in the Soviet Union
“Strengthen working discipline in collective farms” – Soviet propaganda poster issued in Uzbekistan, 1933
Image of a Soviet propaganda poster for the farm collectivization, depicting three farmers grabbing three others walking away from the farmland trying to hide items under their clothes.
Famine
Widespread famine ensued from collectivization and affected Ukraine, southern Russia, and other parts of the USSR. The death toll from famine in the Soviet Union is estimated between 5 and 10 million people. Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural causes. According to Alan Bullock, “the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931 … it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants.” Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine, while continuing to export grain; he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response. Other historians hold it was largely the insufficient harvests of 1931 and 1932 caused by a variety of natural disasters that resulted in famine, ended with the successful harvest of 1933. Soviet and other historians have argued that the rapid collectivization of agriculture was necessary to achieve an equally rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union and ultimately win World War II. Alec Nove claims that the Soviet Union industrialized in spite of rather than because of its collectivized agriculture.
The Soviet famine of 1932–33 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, leading to millions of deaths in those areas and severe food shortage throughout the USSR. These areas included Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia. Gareth Jones was the first western journalist to report the inhumane devastation. The subset of the famine within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Kuban, is called Holodomor. All affected areas were heavily populated by Ukrainians.
Holodomor
The Holodomor (Ukrainian for “extermination by hunger”), also known as the Terror-Famine and Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, was a man-made famine in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians, with millions more in demographic estimates. It was part of the wider disaster, the Soviet famine of 1932–33, which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country.
During the Holodomor millions of inhabitants of Ukraine, primarily ethnic Ukrainians, died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of the country. Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by the independent Ukraine and 24 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet Union.
Some scholars believe that the famine was planned by Joseph Stalin to eliminate the Ukrainian independence movement. Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasizes its man-made aspects, arguing that actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement confer intent, defining the famine as genocide; the loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust. If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide.
Golodomor
Starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv, Ukraine, 1933
Photo of a street in the Ukraine with several people lying dead or dying and several others walking by.
32.3: Containment
32.3.1: The Truman Doctrine
The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy created to contain Soviet geopolitical spread during the Cold War, first announced to Congress by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947.
Learning Objective
Paraphrase the Truman Doctrine
Key Points
In February 1947, the British government announced that it could no longer afford to finance the Greek monarchical military regime in its civil war against communist-led insurgents.
The American government’s response to this announcement was the adoption of containment, a policy designed to stop the spread of communism from the Soviet Union, in this case to Greece.
In March 1947, Truman delivered a speech to Congress that called for the allocation of $400 million to intervene in the war and unveiled the Truman Doctrine, which framed the conflict as a contest between free peoples and totalitarian regimes.
Historians often use Truman’s speech to date the start of the Cold War.
The Truman Doctrine underpinned American Cold War policy in Europe and internationally and influenced many foreign policy decisions in the decades to come.
Key Terms
Greek Civil War
A war fought in Greece from 1946 to 1949 between the Greek government army (backed by the United Kingdom and the United States), and the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE, the military branch of the Greek Communist Party (KKE), backed by Yugoslavia and Albania as well as by Bulgaria.
Truman Doctrine
An American foreign policy created to counter Soviet geopolitical spread during the Cold War, announced by Harry S. Truman to Congress in 1947.
containment
A military strategy to stop the expansion of an enemy, best known as the Cold War policy of the United States and its allies to prevent the spread of communism.
Overview
The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy created to counter Soviet geopolitical spread during the Cold War. It was first announced to Congress by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947, and further developed on July 12, 1948, when he pledged to contain Soviet threats to Greece and Turkey. American military force was usually not involved, but Congress appropriated free gifts of financial aid to support the economies and the military of Greece and Turkey. More generally, the Truman Doctrine implied American support for other nations threatened by Soviet communism. The Truman Doctrine became the foundation of American foreign policy, and led in 1949 to the formation of NATO, a military alliance that is still in effect. Historians often use Truman’s speech to date the start of the Cold War.
Truman told Congress that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Truman reasoned that because the totalitarian regimes coerced free peoples, they represented a threat to international peace and the national security of the United States. Truman made the plea amid the crisis of the Greek Civil War (1946–49). He argued that if Greece and Turkey did not receive the aid that they urgently needed, they would inevitably fall to communism with grave consequences throughout the region. Because Turkey and Greece were historic rivals, it was necessary to help both equally even though the threat to Greece was more immediate. Historian Eric Foner argues the Truman Doctrine “set a precedent for American assistance to anticommunist regimes throughout the world, no matter how undemocratic, and for the creation of a set of global military alliances directed against the Soviet Union.”
For years, Britain had supported Greece, but was now near bankruptcy and was forced to radically reduce its involvement. In February 1947, Britain formally requested for the United States to take over its role in supporting the Greeks and their government. The policy won the support of Republicans who controlled Congress and involved sending $400 million in American money but no military forces to the region. The effect was to end the communist threat, and in 1952, both Greece and Turkey joined NATO, a military alliance, to guarantee their protection.
The Truman Doctrine was informally extended to become the basis of American Cold War policy throughout Europe and around the world. It shifted American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from détente (a relaxation of tension) to a policy of containment of Soviet expansion as advocated by diplomat George Kennan. It was distinguished from rollback by implicitly tolerating the previous Soviet takeovers in Eastern Europe.
Background: Greek Crisis
The Greek Civil War was fought in Greece from 1946 to 1949 between the Greek government army (backed by the United Kingdom and the United States), and the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE, the military branch of the Greek Communist Party (KKE), backed by Yugoslavia and Albania as well as by Bulgaria. The fighting resulted in the defeat of the Communist insurgents by the government forces.
In the second stage of the civil war in December 1944, the British helped prevent the seizure of Athens by the Greek Communist Party (KKE). In the third phase (1946–49), guerrilla forces controlled by the KKE fought against the internationally recognized Greek government which was formed after 1946 elections boycotted by the KKE. At this point, the British realized that the Greek leftists were being directly funded by Josip Broz Tito in neighboring Yugoslavia; the Greek communists received little help directly from the Soviet Union, while Yugoslavia provided support and sanctuary. By late 1946, Britain informed the United States that due to its own weakening economy, it could no longer continue to provide military and economic support to Greece.
In 1946–47, the United States and the Soviet Union moved from wartime allies to Cold War adversaries. Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe, its delayed withdrawal from Iran, and the breakdown of Allied cooperation in Germany provided a backdrop of escalating tensions for the Truman Doctrine. To Harry S. Truman, the growing unrest in Greece began to look like a pincer movement against the oil-rich areas of the Middle East and the warm-water ports of the Mediterranean.
In February 1946, George Kennan, an American diplomat in Moscow, sent his famed “Long Telegram,” which predicted the Soviets would only respond to force and that the best way to handle them was through a long-term strategy of containment by stopping their geographical expansion. After the British warned that they could no longer help Greece and Prime Minister Konstantinos Tsaldaris’s visit to Washington in December 1946 to ask for American assistance, the U.S. State Department formulated a plan. Aid would be given to both Greece and Turkey to help cool the long-standing rivalry between them.
American policymakers recognized the instability of the region, fearing that if Greece was lost to communism, Turkey would not last long. If Turkey yielded to Soviet demands, the position of Greece would be endangered. Fear of this regional domino effect threat guided the American decision. Greece and Turkey were strategic allies for geographical reasons as well, as the fall of Greece would put the Soviets on a dangerous flank for the Turks and strengthen the Soviet Union’s ability to cut off allied supply lines in the event of war.
Long-Term Policy and Metaphor
The Truman Doctrine underpinned American Cold War policy in Europe and around the world. In the words of historian James T. Patterson, “The Truman Doctrine was a highly publicized commitment of a sort the administration had not previously undertaken. Its sweeping rhetoric, promising that the United States should aid all ‘free people’ being subjugated, set the stage for innumerable later ventures that led to globalistic commitments. It was in these ways a major step.”
The doctrine endured, historian Dennis Merill argues, because it addressed a broader cultural insecurity about modern life in a globalized world. It dealt with Washington’s concern over communism’s domino effect, it enabled a media-sensitive presentation of the doctrine that won bipartisan support, and it mobilized American economic power to modernize and stabilize unstable regions without direct military intervention. It brought nation-building activities and modernization programs to the forefront of foreign policy.
The Truman Doctrine became a metaphor for emergency aid to keep a nation from communist influence. Truman used disease imagery not only to communicate a sense of impending disaster in the spread of communism but also to create a “rhetorical vision” of containing it by extending a protective shield around non-communist countries throughout the world. It echoed the “quarantine the aggressor” policy Truman’s predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, sought to impose to contain German and Japanese expansion in 1937. The medical metaphor extended beyond the immediate aims of the Truman Doctrine in that the imagery combined with fire and flood imagery evocative of disaster provided the United States with an easy transition to direct military confrontation in later years with communist forces in Korea and Vietnam. By ideological differences in life or death terms, Truman was able to garner support for this communism-containing policy.
Truman Doctrine
On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman appeared before a joint session of Congress and laid out his vision on containment which came to be known as the Truman Doctrine.
A photo of President Truman in front of several microphones giving a speech.
32.3.2: The Marshall Plan and Molotov Plan
In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan. This was a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union, who refused and created their own Molotov plan for the Eastern Bloc.
Learning Objective
Distinguish between the Marshall Plan and the Molotov Plan
Key Points
In early 1947, Britain, France, and the United States unsuccessfully attempted to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union for a plan envisioning an economically self-sufficient Germany.
In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan, a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union.
The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history; industrial production increased by 35%, some of which has been attributed to the Marshall Plan aid.
The Soviet Union refused the aid because Stalin believed that economic integration with the West would allow Eastern Bloc countries to escape Soviet control.
In response, the Soviet Union created the Molotov Plan, later expanded into the COMECON, a system of bilateral trade agreements and an economic alliance between socialist countries in the Eastern Bloc.
Key Terms
Molotov Plan
The system created by the Soviet Union in 1947 to provide aid to rebuild the countries in Eastern Europe that were politically and economically aligned to the Soviet Union.
National Security Act of 1947
A bill that brought about a major restructuring of the United States government’s military and intelligence agencies following World War; it established the National Security Council, a central place of coordination for national security policy in the executive branch, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S.’s first peacetime intelligence agency
Marshall Plan
An American initiative to aid Western Europe in which the United States gave more than $12 billion in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II.
Overview
In early 1947, Britain, France, and the United States unsuccessfully attempted to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union for an economically self-sufficient Germany, including a detailed accounting of the industrial plants, goods, and infrastructure already removed by the Soviets. In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan, a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union.
The plan’s aim was to rebuild the democratic and economic systems of Europe and counter perceived threats to Europe’s balance of power, such as communist parties seizing control through revolutions or elections. The plan also stated that European prosperity was contingent upon German economic recovery. One month later, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, creating a unified Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Council (NSC). These would become the main bureaucracies for U.S. policy in the Cold War.
Stalin believed that economic integration with the West would allow Eastern Bloc countries to escape Soviet control, and that the U.S. was trying to buy a pro-U.S. realignment of Europe. Stalin therefore prevented Eastern Bloc nations from receiving Marshall Plan aid. The Soviet Union’s alternative to the Marshall plan, purported to involve Soviet subsidies and trade with central and eastern Europe, became known as the Molotov Plan (later institutionalized in January 1949 as the COMECON). Stalin was also fearful of a reconstituted Germany; his vision of a post-war Germany did not include the ability to rearm or pose any kind of threat to the Soviet Union.
In early 1948, following reports of strengthening “reactionary elements”, Soviet operatives executed a coup d’état in Czechoslovakia, the only Eastern Bloc state that the Soviets had permitted to retain democratic structures. The public brutality of the coup shocked Western powers and set in a motion a brief scare that swept away the last vestiges of opposition to the Marshall Plan in the United States Congress.
The twin policies of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan led to billions in economic and military aid for Western Europe, Greece, and Turkey. With U.S. assistance, the Greek military won its civil war. Under the leadership of Alcide De Gasperi the Italian Christian Democrats defeated the powerful Communist-Socialist alliance in the elections of 1948. At the same time, there was increased intelligence and espionage activity, Eastern Bloc defections, and diplomatic expulsions.
Marshall Plan
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave over $12 billion (approximately $120 billion in value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning April 8, 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism. The Marshall Plan required a lessening of interstate barriers, saw a decrease in regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, labor union membership, and the adoption of modern business procedures.
The Marshall Plan aid was divided among the participant states on a per capita basis. A larger amount was given to the major industrial powers, as the prevailing opinion was that their resuscitation was essential for general European revival. Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed towards the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral. The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some 18 European countries received Plan benefits. Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits and blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries such as East Germany and Poland.
The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history. Industrial production increased by 35%. Agricultural production substantially surpassed pre-war levels. The poverty and starvation of the immediate postwar years disappeared, and Western Europe embarked upon an unprecedented two decades of growth during which standards of living increased dramatically. There is some debate among historians over how much this should be credited to the Marshall Plan. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe, as evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway. Most believe that the Marshall Plan sped this recovery but did not initiate it. Many argue that the structural adjustments that it forced were of great importance.
The political effects of the Marshall Plan may have been just as important as the economic ones. Marshall Plan aid allowed the nations of Western Europe to relax austerity measures and rationing, reducing discontent and bringing political stability. The communist influence on Western Europe was greatly reduced, and throughout the region communist parties faded in popularity in the years after the Marshall Plan.
Marshall Plan
One of a number of posters created to promote the Marshall Plan in Europe. Note the pivotal position of the American flag.
An image of a Cold War era poster in support of the Marshall Plan. It depicts a weather vane, each blade of which is a European nation’s flag, with the American flag being the tail that orients the direction of the vane.
Molotov Plan
The Molotov Plan was the system created by the Soviet Union in 1947 to provide aid to rebuild the countries in Eastern Europe that were politically and economically aligned with the Soviet Union. It can be seen as the USSR’s version of the Marshall Plan, which for political reasons the Eastern European countries would not be able to join without leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov rejected the Marshall Plan (1947), proposing the Molotov Plan – the Soviet-sponsored economic grouping which was eventually expanded to become the COMECON. The Molotov plan was symbolic of the Soviet Union’s refusal to accept aid from the Marshall Plan or allow any of their satellite states to do so because of their belief that the Plan was an attempt to weaken Soviet interest in their satellite states through the conditions imposed and by making beneficiary countries economically dependent on the United States.
The plan was a system of bilateral trade agreements that established COMECON to create an economic alliance of socialist countries. This aid allowed countries in Europe to stop relying on American aid, and therefore allowed Molotov Plan states to reorganize their trade to the USSR instead. The plan was in some ways contradictory, however, because at the same time the Soviets were giving aid to Eastern bloc countries, they were demanding that countries who were members of the Axis powers pay reparations to the USSR.
32.3.3: The Berlin Blockade
In June 1948, Stalin instituted the Berlin Blockade, one of the first major crises of the Cold War, preventing food, materials, and supplies from arriving in West Berlin. The United States and several other countries responded with the massive “Berlin airlift,” supplying West Berlin with food and other provisions.
Learning Objective
Review the reasons for the Berlin Blockade
Key Points
As part of the economic rebuilding of Germany, in early 1948 representatives of a number of Western European governments and the United States announced an agreement for a merger of western German areas into a federal governmental system.
In addition, in accordance with the Marshall Plan, they began to reindustrialize and rebuild the German economy, including the introduction of a new Deutsche Mark currency to replace the old Reichsmark currency the Soviets had debased.
Shortly thereafter, Stalin instituted the Berlin Blockade (June 24, 1948 – May 12, 1949), one of the first major crises of the Cold War, preventing food, materials and supplies from arriving in West Berlin.
The United States, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several other countries began the massive “Berlin airlift”, supplying West Berlin with food and other provisions.
By the end of August, after two months the Airlift was succeeding; daily operations flew more than 1,500 flights a day and delivered more than 4,500 tons of cargo, enough to keep West Berlin supplied.
In May 1949, Stalin backed down and lifted the blockade.
Key Terms
Berlin airlift
In response to the Berlin Blockade, the Western Allies organized this project to carry supplies to the people of West Berlin by air.
Potsdam Agreement
The 1945 agreement between three of the Allies of World War II, United Kingdom, United States, and USSR, for the military occupation and reconstruction of Germany. It included Germany’s demilitarization, reparations, and the prosecution of war criminals.
Overview
The Berlin Blockade (June 24, 1948 – May 12, 1949) was one of the first major international crises of the Cold War. During the multinational occupation of post–World War II Germany, the Soviet Union blocked the Western Allies’ railway, road, and canal access to the sectors of Berlin under Western control. The Soviets offered to drop the blockade if the Western Allies withdrew the newly introduced Deutsche mark from West Berlin.
In response, the Western Allies organized the Berlin airlift to carry supplies to the people of West Berlin, a difficult feat given the city’s population. Aircrews from the United States Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the South African Air Force flew over 200,000 flights in one year, providing the West Berliners up to 8,893 tons of necessities each day, such as fuel and food. The Soviets did not disrupt the airlift for fear this might lead to open conflict.
By the spring of 1949, the airlift was clearly succeeding, and by April it was delivering more cargo than was previously transported into the city by rail. On May 12, 1949, the USSR lifted the blockade of West Berlin. The Berlin Blockade highlighted the competing ideological and economic visions for postwar Europe.
Background
From July 17 to August 2, 1945, the victorious Allied Powers reached the Potsdam Agreement on the fate of postwar Europe, calling for the division of defeated Germany into four temporary occupation zones (thus reaffirming principles laid out earlier by the Yalta Conference). These zones were located roughly around the then-current locations of the Allied armies. Also divided into occupation zones, Berlin was located 100 miles inside Soviet-controlled eastern Germany. The United States, United Kingdom, and France controlled western portions of the city, while Soviet troops controlled the eastern sector.
In a June 1945 meeting, Stalin informed German communist leaders that he expected to slowly undermine the British position within their occupation zone, that the United States would withdraw within a year or two, and that nothing would then stand in the way of a united Germany under communist control within the Soviet orbit. Stalin and other leaders told visiting Bulgarian and Yugoslavian delegations in early 1946 that Germany must be both Soviet and communist.
Creation of an economically stable western Germany required reform of the unstable Reichsmark German currency introduced after the 1920s German inflation. The Soviets had debased the Reichsmark by excessive printing, resulting in Germans using cigarettes as a de facto currency or for bartering. The Soviets opposed western plans for a reform. They interpreted this new currency as an unjustified, unilateral decision.
On June 18, the United States, Britain, and France announced that on June 21 the Deutsche Mark would be introduced, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin. The Allies had already transported 2.5 million Deutsche Marks into the city and it quickly became the standard currency in all four sectors. Against the wishes of the Soviets, the new currency, along with the Marshall Plan that backed it, appeared to have the potential to revitalize Germany. Stalin looked to force the Western nations to abandon Berlin.
The Blockade
The day after the June 18, 1948 announcement of the new Deutsche Mark, Soviet guards halted all passenger trains and traffic on the autobahn to Berlin, delayed Western and German freight shipments, and required that all water transport secure special Soviet permission. On June 21, the day the Deutsche Mark was introduced, the Soviet military halted a United States military supply train to Berlin and sent it back to western Germany. On June 22, the Soviets announced that they would introduce a new currency in their zone.
On June 24, the Soviets severed land and water connections between the non-Soviet zones and Berlin. That same day, they halted all rail and barge traffic in and out of Berlin. On June 25, the Soviets stopped supplying food to the civilian population in the non-Soviet sectors of Berlin. Motor traffic from Berlin to the western zones was permitted, but this required a 14.3-mile detour to a ferry crossing because of alleged “repairs” to a bridge. They also cut off Berlin’s electricity using their control over the generating plants in the Soviet zone.
At the time, West Berlin had 36 days’ worth of food, and 45 days’ worth of coal. Militarily, the Americans and British were greatly outnumbered because of the postwar reduction in their armies. The United States, like other western countries, had disbanded most of its troops and was largely inferior in the European theater. The entire United States Army was reduced to 552,000 men by February 1948. Military forces in the western sectors of Berlin numbered only 8,973 Americans, 7,606 British, and 6,100 French. Soviet military forces in the Soviet sector that surrounded Berlin totaled 1.5 million. The two United States regiments in Berlin could have provided little resistance against a Soviet attack. Believing that Britain, France, and the United States had little option than to acquiesce, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany celebrated the beginning of the blockade.
Berlin Airlift
Although the ground routes were never negotiated, the same was not true of the air. On November 30, 1945, it was agreed in writing that there would be three 20-mile-wide air corridors providing free access to Berlin. Additionally, unlike a force of tanks and trucks, the Soviets could not claim that cargo aircraft were some sort of military threat. In the face of unarmed aircraft refusing to turn around, the only way to enforce the blockade would have been to shoot them down. An airlift would force the Soviet Union to either shoot down unarmed humanitarian aircraft, thus breaking their own agreements, or back down.
Enforcing this would require an airlift that really worked. If the supplies could not be flown in fast enough, Soviet help would eventually be needed to prevent starvation. The American military government, based on a minimum daily ration of 1,990 calories, set a total of daily supplies at 646 tons of flour and wheat, 125 tons of cereal, 64 tons of fat, 109 tons of meat and fish, 180 tons of dehydrated potatoes, 180 tons of sugar, 11 tons of coffee, 19 tons of powdered milk, 5 tons of whole milk for children, 3 tons of fresh yeast for baking, 144 tons of dehydrated vegetables, 38 tons of salt, and 10 tons of cheese. In all, 1,534 tons were required each day to sustain the more than two million people of Berlin. Additionally, for heat and power, 3,475 tons of coal and gasoline were also required daily.
During the first week, the airlift averaged only ninety tons a day, but by the second week it reached 1,000 tons. This likely would have sufficed had the effort lasted only a few weeks as originally believed. The Communist press in East Berlin ridiculed the project. It derisively referred to “the futile attempts of the Americans to save face and to maintain their untenable position in Berlin.”
But by the end of August, after two months, the Airlift was succeeding; daily operations flew more than 1,500 flights a day and delivered more than 4,500 tons of cargo, enough to keep West Berlin supplied.
As the tempo of the Airlift grew, it became apparent that the Western powers might be able to pull off the impossible: indefinitely supplying an entire city by air alone. In response, starting on August 1, the Soviets offered free food to anyone who crossed into East Berlin and registered their ration cards there, but West Berliners overwhelmingly rejected Soviet offers of food.
The Soviets had an advantage in conventional military forces, but were preoccupied with rebuilding their war-torn economy and society. The U.S. had a stronger navy and air force as well as nuclear weapons. Neither side wanted a war; the Soviets did not disrupt the airlift.
Berlin Airlift
Berliners watch a Douglas C-54 Skymaster land at Tempelhof Airport, 1948
Photo of a group of people watching a plane land during the Berlin airlift.
End of the Blockade
On April 15, 1949 the Russian news agency TASS reported a willingness by the Soviets to lift the blockade. The next day the U.S. State Department stated the “way appears clear” for the blockade to end. Soon afterwards, the four powers began serious negotiations, and a settlement was reached on Western terms. On May 4, 1949, the Allies announced an agreement to end the blockade in eight days’ time.
Berlin Airlift Monument in Berlin-Tempelhof displays the names of the 39 British and 31 American airmen who lost their lives during the operation. Similar monuments can be found at the military airfield of Wietzenbruch near the former RAF Celle and at Rhein-Main Air Base.
The Soviet blockade of Berlin was lifted at one minute after midnight on May 12,, 1949. A British convoy immediately drove through to Berlin, and the first train from West Germany reached Berlin at 5:32 a.m. Later that day an enormous crowd celebrated the end of the blockade. General Clay, whose retirement had been announced by US President Truman on May 3, was saluted by 11,000 US soldiers and dozens of aircraft. Once home, Clay received a ticker-tape parade in New York City, was invited to address the US Congress, and was honored with a medal from President Truman.
32.3.4: NATO and the Warsaw Pact
Britain, France, the United States, Canada, and eight other western European countries established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. In 1955, the Soviet Union responded by created the Warsaw Pact.
Learning Objective
Compare the two networks established by NATO and the Warsaw Pact
Key Points
The Treaty of Brussels was signed on March 17, 1948 between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, as an expansion to the preceding year’s defense pledge, the Dunkirk Treaty signed between Britain and France; it is considered a precursor to NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949, thereby establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a mutual defense treaty between 12 nations.
NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War (1950-1953) galvanized the organization’s member states.
In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe, but the NATO countries, fearful that the Soviet Union’s motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.
The Warsaw Pact was created in reaction to the integration of West Germany into NATO in 1955 and represented a Soviet counterweight to NATO, composed of the Soviet Union and seven other Soviet satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe.
For 36 years, NATO and the Warsaw Pact never directly waged war against each other in Europe; the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies implemented strategic policies aimed at the containment of each other in Europe while working and fighting for influence within the wider Cold War on the international stage.
Key Terms
North Atlantic Treaty
A mutual defense treaty signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 that established NATO.
1948 Czechoslovak coup d’état
An event in February 1948 in which the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, with Soviet backing, assumed undisputed control over the government of Czechoslovakia, marking the onset of four decades of Communist dictatorship in the country.
Treaty of Brussels
A treaty signed on March 17, 1948, between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom as an expansion to the preceding year’s defense pledge, the Dunkirk Treaty signed between Britain and France; a mutual defense treaty.
NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization’s member states and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO’s military structure in 1966 for 30 years.
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on March 17, 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union’s Defense Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and prevent the revival of nationalist militarism. In addition, the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d’état by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy.
In 1948, European leaders met with U.S. defense, military, and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon under U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall’s orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association. Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently, they agreed that if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.
The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was formed to direct forces in Europe and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. In September 1950, the NATO Military Committee called for an ambitious buildup of conventional forces to meet the Soviets, subsequently reaffirming this position at the February 1952 meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon.
In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe. The NATO countries, fearing that the Soviet Union’s motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.
The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on May 9, 1955 was described as “a decisive turning point in the history of our continent” by Halvard Lange, Foreign Affairs Minister of Norway at the time. A major reason for Germany’s entry into the alliance was that without German manpower, it would have been impossible to field enough conventional forces to resist a Soviet invasion. One of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on May 14, 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.
North Atlantic Treaty
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., on April 4, 1949 and was ratified by the United States that August.
Photo of U.S. President Harry S. Truman signing the North Atlantic Treaty seated at the desk in the Oval Office with eleven men standing behind him.
The Warsaw Pact
The Warsaw Pact, formally the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance, was a collective defense treaty among the Soviet Union and seven other Soviet satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was the military complement to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the regional economic organization for the communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact was created in reaction to the integration of West Germany into NATO in 1955 per the Paris Pacts of 1954, but it is also considered to have been motivated by Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces in Central and Eastern Europe.
The Soviets wanted to keep their part of Europe and not let the Americans take it from them. Ideologically, the Soviet Union arrogated the right to define socialism and communism and act as the leader of the global socialist movement. A corollary to this idea was the necessity of intervention if a country appeared to be violating core socialist ideas and Communist Party functions, which was explicitly stated in the Brezhnev Doctrine. Geostrategic principles also drove the Soviet Union to prevent invasion of its territory by Western European powers.
The eight member countries of the Warsaw Pact pledged the mutual defense of any member who was attacked. Relations among the treaty signatories were based upon mutual non-intervention in the internal affairs of the member countries, respect for national sovereignty, and political independence. However, almost all governments of those member states were indirectly controlled by the Soviet Union.
While the Warsaw Pact was established as a balance of power or counterweight to NATO, there was no direct confrontation between them. Instead, the conflict was fought on an ideological basis. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact led to the expansion of military forces and their integration into the respective blocs. Its largest military engagement was the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia (with the participation of all Pact nations except Romania).
32.4: Competition between East and West
32.4.1: The Atomic Race
Eisenhower’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, initiated a “New Look” for the Cold War containment strategy, calling for a greater reliance on nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies in wartime, and promoted the doctrine of “massive retaliation,” threatening a severe response to any Soviet aggression.
Learning Objective
Analyze the risks and rewards of the competition for atomic weapons
Key Points
In 1953, changes in political leadership on both sides shifted the dynamic of the Cold War, with the death of Joseph Stalin and the ascendancy of Nikita Khrushchev in the USSR and the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Presidency of the United States.
The New Look was the name given to the national security policy of the United States during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, which reflected Eisenhower’s concern for balancing the Cold War military commitments of the United States with the nation’s financial resources, thereby reducing emphasis on ground troops and increasing focus on nuclear proliferation.
The most prominent of the doctrines to emerge from this policy was “massive retaliation,” which Secretary of State John Foster Dulles announced early in 1954. This policy stated that in the event of an attack from an aggressor, a state would massively retaliate with force disproportionate to the size of the attack, thus deterring an enemy state from initially attacking.
Krushchev developed a similar policy in the USSR, aimed at cutting military spending while creating a nuclear program to match the U.S., but while the Soviets acquired atomic weapons in 1949, it took years for them to reach parity with the United States.
An important part of the Cold War nuclear competition was the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD), in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
MAD is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy’s use of those same weapons.
Key Terms
mutually assured destruction
A doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
“New Look”
The name given to the national security policy of the United States during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It reflected Eisenhower’s concern for balancing the Cold War military commitments of the United States with the nation’s financial resources. The policy emphasized reliance on strategic nuclear weapons to deter potential threats, both conventional and nuclear, from the Eastern Bloc of nations headed by the Soviet Union.
massive retaliation
A military doctrine and nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack.
Background: Political Changes in the U.S. and USSR
When Dwight D. Eisenhower was sworn in as U.S. President in 1953, the Democrats lost their two-decades-long control of the U.S. presidency. Under Eisenhower, however, the nation’s Cold War policy remained essentially unchanged. Whilst a thorough rethinking of foreign policy was launched (known as “Operation Solarium”), the majority of emerging ideas (such as a “rollback of Communism” and the liberation of Eastern Europe) were quickly regarded as unworkable. An underlying focus on the containment of Soviet communism remained to inform the broad approach of U.S. foreign policy.
While the transition from the Truman to the Eisenhower presidencies was a conservative-moderate in character, the change in the Soviet Union was immense. With the death of Joseph Stalin (who led the Soviet Union from 1928 and through the Great Patriotic War) in 1953, his former right-hand man Nikita Khrushchev was named First Secretary of the Communist Party.
During a subsequent period of collective leadership, Khrushchev gradually consolidated his power. At a speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, February 25, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev shocked his listeners by denouncing Stalin’s personality cult and the many crimes that occurred under Stalin’s leadership. Although the contents of the speech were secret, it was leaked to outsiders, shocking both Soviet allies and Western observers. Khrushchev was later named premier of the Soviet Union in 1958.
The impact on Soviet politics was immense. The speech stripped Khrushchev’s remaining Stalinist rivals of their legitimacy in a single stroke, dramatically boosting the First Party Secretary’s power domestically. Khrushchev was then able to ease restrictions, freeing some dissidents and initiating economic policies that emphasized commercial goods rather than just coal and steel production.
American Nuclear Strategy
Along with these major political changes in the U.S. and USSR, the central strategic components of competition between East and West shifted as well. When Eisenhower entered office in 1953, he was committed to two possibly contradictory goals: maintaining — or even heightening — the national commitment to counter the spread of Soviet influence and satisfying demands to balance the budget, lower taxes, and curb inflation. The most prominent of the doctrines to emerge from this goal was “massive retaliation,” which Secretary of State John Foster Dulles announced early in 1954. Eschewing the costly, conventional ground forces of the Truman administration and wielding the vast superiority of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and covert intelligence, Dulles defined this approach as “brinksmanship” in a January 16, 1956, interview with Life: pushing the Soviet Union to the brink of war in order to exact concessions. The aim of massive retaliation is to deter another state from initially attacking. In the event of an attack from an aggressor, a state would massively retaliate with force disproportionate to the size of the attack, which would likely involve the use of nuclear weapons on a massive scale.
This new national security policy approach, reflecting Eisenhower’s concern for balancing the Cold War military commitments of the United States with the nation’s financial resources, was called the “New Look.” The policy emphasized reliance on strategic nuclear weapons to deter potential threats, both conventional and nuclear, from the Eastern Bloc of nations headed by the Soviet Union.
Thus, the administration increased the number of nuclear warheads from 1,000 in 1953 to 18,000 by early 1961. Despite overwhelming U.S. superiority, one additional nuclear weapon was produced each day. The administration also exploited new technology. In 1955 the eight-engine B-52 Stratofortress bomber, the first true jet bomber designed to carry nuclear weapons, was developed.
President Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, right, shown here with President Eisenhower in 1956, became identified with the doctrine of “massive retaliation.”
A photo of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, right, shown here with President Eisenhower in 1956, sitting at a desk looking over papers.
Soviet Nuclear Strategy
In 1960 and 1961, Khrushchev tried to impose the concept of nuclear deterrence on the military. Nuclear deterrence holds that the reason for having nuclear weapons is to discourage their use by a potential enemy. With each side deterred from war because of the threat of its escalation into a nuclear conflict, Khrushchev believed, “peaceful coexistence” with capitalism would become permanent and allow the inherent superiority of socialism to emerge in economic and cultural competition with the West.
Khrushchev hoped that exclusive reliance on the nuclear firepower of the newly created Strategic Rocket Forces would remove the need for increased defense expenditures. He also sought to use nuclear deterrence to justify his massive troop cuts; his downgrading of the Ground Forces, traditionally the “fighting arm” of the Soviet armed forces; and his plans to replace bombers with missiles and the surface fleet with nuclear missile submarines. However, during the Cuban missile crisis the USSR had only four R-7 Semyorkas and a few R-16s intercontinental missiles deployed in vulnerable surface launchers. In 1962 the Soviet submarine fleet had only eight submarines with short-range missiles which could be launched only from submarines that surfaced and lost their hidden submerged status.
Khrushchev’s attempt to introduce a nuclear “doctrine of deterrence: into Soviet military thought failed. Discussion of nuclear war in the first authoritative Soviet monograph on strategy since the 1920s, Marshal Vasilii Sokolovskii’s “Military Strategy,” focused upon the use of nuclear weapons for fighting rather than for deterring a war. Should such a war break out, both sides would pursue the most decisive aims with the most forceful means and methods. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and aircraft would deliver massed nuclear strikes on the enemy’s military and civilian objectives. The war would assume an unprecedented geographical scope, but Soviet military writers argued that the use of nuclear weapons in the initial period of the war would decide the course and outcome of the war as a whole. Both in doctrine and in strategy, the nuclear weapon reigned supreme.
Mutual Assured Destruction
An important part of the Cold War nuclear competition was the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy’s use of those same weapons.
While the Soviets acquired atomic weapons in 1949, it took years for them to reach parity with the United States. In the meantime, the Americans developed the hydrogen bomb, which the Soviets matched during the era of Khrushchev. New methods of delivery such as Submarine-launched ballistic missiles and Intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads meant that each superpower could easily devastate the other, even after attack by an enemy.
The strategy of MAD was fully declared in the early 1960s by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. In McNamara’s formulation there was the very real danger that a nation with nuclear weapons could attempt to eliminate another nation’s retaliatory forces with a surprise, devastating first strike and theoretically “win” a nuclear war relatively unharmed. True second-strike capability could only be achieved when a nation had a guaranteed ability to fully retaliate after a first-strike attack.
The United States had achieved an early form of second-strike capability by fielding continual patrols of strategic nuclear bombers with a large number of planes always in the air on their way to or from fail-safe points close to the borders of the Soviet Union. This meant the United States could still retaliate even after a devastating first-strike attack. The tactic was expensive and problematic because of the high cost of keeping enough planes in the air at all times and the possibility they would be shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft missiles before reaching their targets. In addition, as the idea of a missile gap existing between the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed, there was increasing priority given to ICBMs over bombers.
32.4.2: The Space Race
One of the most important forms of non-violent competition between the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War was the Space Race, with the Soviets taking an early lead in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, followed by the first manned flight.
Learning Objective
Characterize the Space Race
Key Points
The Space Race, the competition between the U.S. and USSR for supremacy in space flight capability, had its origins in the missile-based nuclear arms race between the two nations following World War II.
The technological superiority required for such supremacy was seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of ideological superiority.
The Space Race spawned pioneering efforts to launch artificial satellites, unmanned space probes of the Moon, Venus, and Mars, and human space flight in low Earth orbit and to the Moon.
The Soviets earned an early lead in the Space Race in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, followed by the first manned flight.
The success of the Soviet space program was a great shock to the United States, which believed it was ahead technologically; the ability to launch objects into orbit was especially ominous because it showed Soviet missiles could target anywhere on the planet.
American President John F. Kennedy launched an unprecedented effort, promising that by the end of the 1960s Americans would land a man on the moon. They did so with Apollo 11, beating the Soviets to one of the more important objectives in the space race.
Key Terms
Sputnik 1
The first artificial Earth satellite; the Soviet Union launched it into an elliptical low Earth orbit on October 4, 1957.
Yuri Gagarin
A Russian Soviet pilot and cosmonaut. He was the first human to journey into outer space when his Vostok spacecraft completed an orbit of the Earth on April 12, 1961.
Apollo 11
The first space flight that landed humans on the Moon
Overview
The Space Race was a 20th-century competition between two Cold War rivals, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (U.S.), for supremacy in space flight capability. It had its origins in the missile-based nuclear arms race between the two nations following World War II, aided by captured German missile technology and personnel from their missile program. The technological superiority required for such supremacy was seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of ideological superiority. The Space Race spawned pioneering efforts to launch artificial satellites, unmanned space probes of the Moon, Venus, and Mars, and human space flight in low Earth orbit and to the Moon.
The competition began on August 2, 1955, when the Soviet Union responded to the US announcement four days earlier of intent to launch artificial satellites for the International Geophysical Year by declaring they would also launch a satellite “in the near future.” The Soviet Union beat the U.S. to this with the October 4, 1957 orbiting of Sputnik 1, and later beat the U.S. to the first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, on April 12, 1961. The race peaked with the July 20, 1969, U.S. landing of the first humans on the Moon with Apollo 11. The USSR tried but failed manned lunar missions, and eventually cancelled them and concentrated on Earth orbital space stations.
A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a cooperative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, resulting in the July 1975 rendezvous in Earth orbit of a U.S. astronaut crew with a Soviet cosmonaut crew. The end of the Space Race is harder to pinpoint than its beginning, but it was over by the December, 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, after which true space flight cooperation between the U.S. and Russia began.
First Satellite: Sputnik
In 1955, with both the United States and the Soviet Union building ballistic missiles that could be used to launch objects into space, the “starting line” was drawn for the Space Race. In separate public announcements four days apart, both nations declared they would launch artificial Earth satellites by 1957 or 1958.
In February 1957, chief Soviet rocket scientist Sergei Korolev sought and received permission from the Council of Ministers to create a prosteishy sputnik (PS-1), or “simple satellite.”
Korolev was buoyed by the first successful launches of his R-7 rocket in August and September, which paved the way for him to launch his sputnik. On Friday, October 4, 1957, at exactly 10:28:34 pm Moscow time, the R-7 with the now named Sputnik 1 satellite lifted off the launch pad, placing the artificial “moon” into orbit a few minutes later. This “fellow traveler,” as the name is translated in English, was a small, beeping ball less than two feet in diameter and weighing less than 200 pounds. But the celebrations were muted at the launch control center until the down-range far east tracking station at Kamchatka received the first distinctive beep … beep … beep sounds from Sputnik 1’s radio transmitters, indicating that it was en route to completing its first orbit.
The Soviet success raised a great deal of concern and fear in the United States. The USSR used ICBM technology to launch Sputnik into space. This essentially gave the Soviets two propaganda victories at once (sending the satellite into space and proving the distance capabilities of their missiles). This proved that the Soviets had rockets capable of sending nuclear weapons from Russia to Europe and even North America. This was the most immediate threat posed by the launch of Sputnik 1. Not only did the Soviet Union have this ability, the United States did not. America, a land with a history of geographical security, suddenly seemed vulnerable. Overall, what caused the fear for the American people was not the satellite itself but more so the rocket that put Sputnik into orbit.
On January 31, 1958, nearly four months after the launch of Sputnik 1, von Braun and the United States successfully launched its first satellite on a four-stage Juno I rocket derived from the US Army’s Redstone missile, at Cape Canaveral.
Sputnik 1
The Soviet Union achieved an early lead in the space race by launching the first artificial satellite Sputnik 1 (replica) in 1957.
A photo of a replica of the Soviet satellite Sputnik, a silver orb which was the first satellite launched into space.
First Human in Space: Yuri Gagarin
By 1959, American observers believed the Soviet Union would be the first to get a human into space because of the time needed to prepare for Mercury’s first launch. On April 12, 1961, the USSR surprised the world again by launching Yuri Gagarin into a single orbit around the Earth in a craft they called Vostok 1. They dubbed Gagarin the first cosmonaut, roughly translated from Russian and Greek as “sailor of the universe.” Although he had the ability to take over manual control of his capsule in an emergency by opening an envelope he had in the cabin that contained a code that could be typed into the computer, it was flown in automatic mode as a precaution; medical science at that time did not know what would happen to a human in the weightlessness of space. Vostok 1 orbited the Earth for 108 minutes and made its reentry over the Soviet Union, with Gagarin ejected from the spacecraft at 23,000 feet and landing by parachute.
Gagarin became a national hero of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, and a worldwide celebrity. Moscow and other cities in the USSR held mass demonstrations, second in scale only to the World War II Victory Parade of 1945.
Race to the Moon
Before Gagarin’s flight, U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s support for America’s manned space program was lukewarm. Jerome Wiesner of MIT, who served as a science advisor to presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy and opposed manned space exploration, remarked, “If Kennedy could have opted out of a big space program without hurting the country in his judgement, he would have.” Gagarin’s flight changed this; now Kennedy sensed the humiliation and fear of the American public over the Soviet lead. Kennedy ultimately decided to pursue what became the Apollo program, and on May 25 took the opportunity to ask for Congressional support in a Cold War speech titled “Special Message on Urgent National Needs.” Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s implicit challenge with silence, refusing to publicly confirm or deny if the Soviets were pursuing a “Moon race.” As later disclosed, they did so in secret over the next nine years.
After Kennedy’s death, President Johnson steadfastly pursued the Gemini and Apollo programs, promoting them as Kennedy’s legacy to the American public.
In 1967, both nations faced serious challenges that brought their programs to temporary halts. Both had been rushing at full-speed toward the first piloted flights of Apollo and Soyuz without paying due diligence to growing design and manufacturing problems. The results proved fatal to both pioneering crews.
The United States recovered from the Apollo 1 fire, fixing the fatal flaws in an improved version of the Block II command module. The US proceeded with unpiloted test launches of the Saturn V launch vehicle (Apollo 4 and Apollo 6) and the Lunar Module (Apollo 5) during the latter half of 1967 and early 1968.
Unknown to the Americans, the Soviet Moon program was in deep trouble. After two successive launch failures of the N1 rocket in 1969, Soviet plans for a piloted landing suffered delay. The launch pad explosion of the N-1 on July 3, 1969 was a significant setback.
Apollo 11 was prepared with the goal of a July landing in the Sea of Tranquility. The crew, selected in January 1969, consisted of commander (CDR) Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot (CMP) Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin. They trained for the mission until just before the launch day. On July 16, 1969, at exactly 9:32 am EDT, the Saturn V rocket, AS-506, lifted off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 in Florida.
The trip to the Moon took just over three days. After achieving orbit, Armstrong and Aldrin transferred into the Lunar Module named Eagle, and after a landing gear inspection by Collins remaining in the Command/Service Module Columbia began their descent. After overcoming several computer overload alarms caused by an antenna switch left in the wrong position and a slight downrange error, Armstrong took over manual flight control at about 590 feet and guided the Lunar Module to a safe landing spot at 20:18:04 UTC, July 20, 1969. The first humans on the Moon waited six hours before leaving their craft. At 02:56 UTC, July 21, Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon. The first step was witnessed by at least one-fifth of the population of Earth, or about 723 million people. His first words when he stepped off the LM’s landing footpad were, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Buzz Salutes the US Flag
American Buzz Aldrin during the first Moon walk in 1969. After Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the Moon, Aldrin joined him on the surface almost 20 minutes later. Altogether, they spent just under two and one-quarter hours outside their craft. Armstrong took this photo.
Photo of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon during the Apollo 11 landing. The photo shows him on the surface of the moon, with an American flag in front of him.
32.4.3: Influence Abroad
The United States and the Soviet Union increasingly competed for influence by proxy in the Third World as decolonization gained momentum in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Learning Objective
Describe some of the ways in which the U.S. and the USSR competed for influence outside of Europe
Key Points
The Korean War marked a shift in the focal point of the Cold War, from postwar Europe to East Asia and other Third World nations, as proxy battles for ideological supremacy.
By the early 1950s, the NATO alliance had already integrated Western Europe into the system of mutual defense pacts, providing safeguards against subversion or neutrality in the bloc. The Marshall Plan had bolstered economic recovery, so the U.S. was less concerned with losing Western Europe to Soviet influence.
Following a series of waves of African and Asian decolonization following the Second World War and the emergence of left-leaning leaders in Latin America, the U.S. focused on the Third World.
In such an international setting, the Soviet Union propagated a role as the leader of the “anti-imperialist” camp, currying favor in the Third World as a staunch opponent of colonialism.
The Eisenhower administration attempted to formalize its alliance system through a series of pacts, with East Asian allies joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) while friends in Latin America were placed in the Organization of American States.
Many Third World nations, however, did not want to align themselves with either of the superpowers, and the Non-Aligned Movement, led by India, Egypt, and Austria, attempted to unite the third world against what was seen as imperialism by both the East and the West.
Throughout much of Latin America, reactionary oligarchies ruled through their alliances with the military elite and United States, but by the 1960s, Marxists gained increasing influence throughout the regions, prompting fears in the United States that Latin American instability posed a threat to U.S. national security.
This era also saw battles for ideological alignment in the Congo, Indonesia, and Iran.
Key Terms
John Foster Dulles
Served as U.S. Secretary of State under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1959 and was a significant figure in the early Cold War era, advocating an aggressive stance against Communism throughout the world.
decolonization
The undoing of colonialism, the withdrawal from its colonies of a colonial power; the acquisition of political or economic independence by such colonies. The term refers particularly to the dismantlement, in the years after World War II of the colonial empires established prior to World War I throughout the world. This means not only the complete “removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces” within the geographical space and institutions of the colonized, but also to the “decolonizing of the mind” from the colonizer’s ideas of the colonized as inferior.
Non-Aligned Movement
A group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, especially during the Cold War.
Overview
The Korean War marked a shift in the focal point of the Cold War from postwar Europe to East Asia. After this point, proxy battles in the Third World became an important arena of superpower competition.
The Eisenhower administration adjusted U.S. policy to the impact of decolonization, shifting the focus away from war-torn Europe. By the early 1950s, the NATO alliance had integrated Western Europe into the system of mutual defense pacts, providing safeguards against subversion or neutrality in the bloc. The Marshall Plan had rebuilt a functioning Western economic system, thwarting the electoral appeal of the radical left. When economic aid ended the dollar shortage and stimulated private investment for postwar reconstruction, sparing the U.S. from a crisis of over-production and maintaining demand for U.S. exports, the Eisenhower administration began to focus on other regions.
The combined effects of two great European wars weakened the political and economic domination of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East by European powers. This led to a series of waves of African and Asian decolonization following the Second World War; a world dominated for more than a century by Western imperialist colonial powers was transformed into a world of emerging African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations. The sheer number of nation states increased drastically.
The Cold War placed immense pressure on developing nations to align with one of the superpower factions. Both promised substantial financial, military, and diplomatic aid in exchange for an alliance, in which issues like corruption and human rights abuses were overlooked or ignored. When an allied government was threatened, the superpowers were often prepared and willing to intervene.
In such an international setting, the Soviet Union propagated a role as the leader of the “anti-imperialist” camp, currying favor in the Third World as being a more staunch opponent of colonialism than many independent nations in Africa and Asia. Khrushchev broadened Moscow’s policy by establishing new relations with India and other key non-aligned, non-communist states throughout the Third World. Many countries in the emerging non-aligned movement developed a close relation with Moscow.
In an exercise of the new “rollback” polices, acting on the doctrines of Dulles, Eisenhower thwarted Soviet intervention, using the CIA to overthrow unfriendly governments. In the Arab world, the focus was pan-Arab nationalism. U.S. companies had already invested heavily in the region, which contained the world’s largest oil reserves. The U.S. was concerned about the stability and friendliness of governments in the region, upon which the health of the U.S. economy increasingly grew to depend.
Defense Pacts
The Eisenhower administration attempted to formalize its alliance system through a series of pacts. Its East Asian allies were joined into the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) while friends in Latin America were placed in the Organization of American States. The ANZUS alliance was signed between the Australia, New Zealand, and the US. None of these groupings was as successful as NATO had been in Europe.
John Foster Dulles, a rigid anti-communist, focused aggressively on Third World politics. He intensified efforts to integrate the entire noncommunist Third World into a system of mutual defense pacts, traveling almost 500,000 miles to cement new alliances. Dulles initiated the Manila Conference in 1954, resulting in the SEATO pact that united eight nations (either located in Southeast Asia or with interests there) in a neutral defense pact. This treaty was followed in 1955 by the Baghdad Pact, later renamed the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), uniting the “northern tier” countries of the Middle East—Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan—in a defense organization.
Many Third World nations did not want to align themselves with either of the superpowers. The non-aligned movement, led by India, Egypt, and Austria, attempted to unite the third world against what was seen as imperialism by both the East and the West.
Dulles, along with most U.S. foreign policy-makers of the era, considered many Third World nationalists and “revolutionaries” as essentially under the influence, if not control, of the Warsaw Pact.
Latin America
The Eisenhower-Dulles approach to foreign policy sought to overthrow unfriendly governments in a covert way.
Throughout much of Latin America, reactionary oligarchies ruled through their alliances with the military elite and United States. Although the nature of the U.S. role in the region was established many years before the Cold War, the Cold War gave U.S. interventionism a new ideological tinge. By the mid-20th century, much of the region passed through a higher state of economic development, which bolstered the power and ranks of the lower classes. This made calls for social change and political inclusion more pronounced, posing a challenge to the strong U.S. influence over the region’s economies. By the 1960s, Marxists gained increasing influence throughout the regions, prompting fears in the United States that Latin American instability posed a threat to U.S. national security.
Throughout the Cold War years, the U.S. acted as a barrier to socialist revolutions and targeted populist and nationalist governments aided by the communists. The CIA overthrew other governments suspected of turning pro-communist, such as Guatemala in 1954 under Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. The CIA Operation PBSUCCESS eventually led to the 1954 coup that removed Arbenz from power. The operation drew on a plan first considered in 1951 to oust Arbenz, named Operation PBFORTUNE. Arbenz, who was supported by some local communists, was ousted shortly after he had redistributed 178,000 acres of United Fruit Company land in Guatemala. United Fruit had long monopolized the transportation and communications region there along with the main export commodities, and played a major role in Guatemalan politics. Arbenz was out shortly afterwards, and Guatemala came under control of a repressive military regime.
Future Latin American revolutionaries shifted to guerrilla tactics, particularly following the Cuban Revolution. Arbenz fell when his military had deserted him. Since then, some future Latin American social revolutionaries and Marxists, most notably Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, made the army and governments parts of a single unit and eventually set up single-party states. Overthrowing such regimes would require a war rather than a simple CIA operation, the landing of Marines, or a crude invasion scheme like the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Africa
One of the first decolonized nations to request Eastern aid was the Democratic Republic of the Congo under Patrice Lumumba. A large number of United Nations peacekeepers from NATO nations and other NATO allies had been in the Congo since independence was established from Belgium in 1960. The U.S. used them to shut down air traffic and prevent Eastern arms and troops from getting into the country. However, some Eastern weapons managed to get in from other countries. The peacekeepers decided to remove Lumumba and backed Colonel Joseph Mobutu in a coup in which Lumumba was killed. The Congolese crisis had the effect of alienating from both the West and the East some in the third world who saw the East as weak and impotent and the West unethical and unscrupulous.
Patrice Lumumba
1961 Soviet stamp commemorating Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of the Republic of the Congo, who was killed during a U.S. backed coup d’état.
Image of a stamp from the Soviet Union showing the face of Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of the Republic of the Congo.
Middle East
In 1953, President Eisenhower’s CIA implemented Operation Ajax, a covert operation aimed at the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The popularly elected and non-aligned Mosaddegh had been a Middle Eastern nemesis of Britain since nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. Winston Churchill told the United States that Mosaddegh was “increasingly turning towards communism.” The pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, assumed control as an autocratic monarch. The shah’s policies included banning the communist Tudeh Party and general suppression of political dissent by SAVAK, the shah’s domestic security and intelligence agency.
32.4.4: The Propaganda War
Soviet propaganda was disseminated through tightly controlled media outlets in the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. tried to counter this with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, dedicated to bringing about the peaceful demise of the communist system in the Eastern Bloc by providing an alternative to the controlled and party-dominated domestic press.
Learning Objective
Give examples of propaganda used by both parties to the Cold War
Key Points
Media in the Eastern Bloc was an organ of the state, completely reliant on and subservient to the communist party. Radio and television organizations were typically state-owned while print media was usually owned by political organizations, mostly the local communist parties, and was largely used for disseminating propaganda against capitalism and the West.
State and party ownership of print, television, and radio media was used to control information and society in light of Eastern Bloc leaderships viewing even marginal groups of opposition intellectuals as a potential threat to the bases underlying Communist power therein.
Circumvention of dissemination controls occurred to some degree through samizdat (underground publications produced and disseminated by hand) and limited reception of western radio and television broadcasts.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a United States government-funded broadcasting organization that provides news, information, and analysis to countries “where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed,” and was used especially during the Cold War as a counter to communist propaganda and controlled media in the Eastern Bloc.
RFE played a critical role in Cold War-era Eastern Europe; unlike government-censored programs, RFE publicized anti-Soviet protests and nationalist movements, influencing major events such as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
Key Terms
propaganda
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view; the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of beliefs.
samizdat
A key form of dissident activity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored and underground publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader. This grassroots practice to evade official Soviet censorship was fraught with danger, as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
A United States government-funded broadcasting organization that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East “where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed.”
Overview
Media in the Eastern Bloc was an organ of the state, completely reliant on and subservient to the communist party. Radio and television organizations were typically state-owned, while print media was usually owned by political organizations, mostly by local communist parties. Soviet propaganda used Marxist philosophy to attack capitalism, claiming labor exploitation and war-mongering imperialism were inherent in the system.
Along with the broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Voice of America to Central and Eastern Europe, a major propaganda effort begun in 1949 was Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, dedicated to bringing about the peaceful demise of the communist system in the Eastern Bloc. Radio Free Europe attempted to achieve these goals by serving as a surrogate home radio station, an alternative to the controlled and party-dominated domestic press. Radio Free Europe was a product of some of the most prominent architects of America’s early Cold War strategy, especially those who believed that the Cold War would eventually be fought by political rather than military means, such as George F. Kennan.
Propaganda in the Eastern Bloc
Eastern Bloc media and propaganda was controlled directly by each country’s Communist party, which controlled the state media, censorship, and propaganda organs. State and party ownership of print, television, and radio media was used to control information and society in light of Eastern Bloc leaderships viewing even marginal groups of opposition intellectuals as a potential threat to the bases underlying Communist power therein.
The ruling authorities viewed media as a propaganda tool and widely practiced censorship to exercise almost full control over information dissemination. The press in Communist countries was an organ of and completely reliant on the state. Until the late 1980s, all Eastern Bloc radio and television organizations were state-owned and tightly controlled.
In each country, leading bodies of the ruling Communist Part exercised hierarchical control of the censorship system. Each Communist Party maintained a department of its Central Committee apparatus to supervise media. Censors employed auxiliary tools such as: the power to launch or close down any newspaper, radio or television station, licensing of journalists through unions, and the power of appointment. Party bureaucrats held all leading editorial positions.
Circumvention of censorship occurred to some degree through samizdat (underground publications produced and disseminated by hand) and limited reception of western radio and television broadcasts. In addition, some regimes heavily restricted the flow of information from their countries to outside of the Eastern Bloc by regulating the travel of foreigners and segregating approved travelers from the domestic population.
Soviet Censorship
Nikolai Yezhov, the young man strolling with Joseph Stalin to his right, was shot in 1940. He was edited out from a photo by Soviet censors. Such retouching was a common occurrence during Stalin’s reign.
Two photos of Joseph Stalin and other men, in the second photo one man was edited out by censors.
Radio Free Europe
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a United States government-funded broadcasting organization that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East “where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed.”
During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe (RFE) was broadcast to Soviet satellite countries and Radio Liberty (RL) targeted the Soviet Union. RFE was founded as an anti-communist propaganda source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe. RL was founded two years later and the two organizations merged in 1976. Communist governments frequently sent agents to infiltrate RFE’s headquarters. Radio transmissions into the Soviet Union were regularly jammed by the KGB. RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until 1972. During RFE’s earliest years of existence, the CIA and U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation between them and RFE staff.
Radio Free Europe was created and grew in its early years through the efforts of the National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), an anti-communist CIA front organization formed by Allen Dulles in New York City in 1949. The United States funded a long list of projects to counter the Communist appeal among intellectuals in Europe and the developing world. RFE was developed out of a belief that the Cold War would eventually be fought by political rather than military means. American policymakers such as George Kennan and John Foster Dulles acknowledged that the Cold War was essentially a war of ideas. The implementation of surrogate radio stations was a key part of the greater psychological war effort.
RFE played a critical role in Cold War-era Eastern Europe. Unlike government-censored programs, RFE publicized anti-Soviet protests and nationalist movements. Its audience increased substantially following the failed Berlin riots of 1953 and the highly publicized defection of Józef Światło. Its Hungarian service’s coverage of Poland’s Poznań riots in 1956 arguably served as an inspiration for the Hungarian revolution.
During the Revolution of 1956 RFE broadcasts encouraged rebels to fight and suggested that Western support was imminent. These RFE broadcasts violated Eisenhower’s policy which determined that the United States would not provide military support for the Revolution. In the wake of this scandal a number of changes were implemented at RFE, including the establishment of the Broadcast Analysis Division to ensure that broadcasts were accurate and professional while maintaining the journalists’ autonomy.
32.5: Crisis Points of the Cold War
32.5.1: The 1956 Suez Crisis
The Suez Crisis was a mostly failed invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power.
Learning Objective
Explain the events of the 1956 Suez Crisis
Key Points
The Middle East, directly south of the Soviet Union, was an area of extreme importance and also great instability during the Cold War.
The Suez Crisis was an invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power.
The invasion was poorly planned and Eisenhower persuaded the United Kingdom and France to retreat, which was an international embarrassment for the latter countries and emboldened the USSR and Egypt.
As a result of the conflict, the United Nations created the UNEF Peacekeepers to police the Egyptian–Israeli border, and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden resigned.
The Suez stalemate was a turning point heralding an ever-growing rift between the Atlantic Cold War allies, who were becoming far less of a united monolith than in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.
Key Terms
Gamal Abdel Nasser
The second President of Egypt, serving from 1956 until his death, who led the 1952 overthrow of the monarchy and introduced far-reaching land reforms the following year.
Suez Canal
An artificial sea-level waterway in Egypt connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea through the Isthmus of Suez, which offers watercraft a shorter journey between the North Atlantic and northern Indian oceans via the Mediterranean and Red seas by avoiding the South Atlantic and southern Indian oceans, reducing the journey by approximately 4,300 miles.
Overview
The Suez Crisis, also named the Tripartite Aggression and the Kadesh Operation, was an invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel, followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power. After the fighting started, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations forced the three invaders to withdraw. The episode humiliated Great Britain and France and strengthened Nasser.
On October 29, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai. Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire, which was ignored. On November 5, Britain and France landed paratroopers along the Suez Canal. The Egyptian forces were defeated, but did block the canal to all shipping. It became clear that the Israeli invasion and the subsequent Anglo-French attack were planned beforehand by the three countries.
The three allies attained a number of their military objectives, but the Canal was now useless and heavy pressure from the United States and the USSR forced them to withdraw. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had strongly warned Britain not to invade; he now threatened serious damage to the British financial system. Historians conclude the crisis “signified the end of Great Britain’s role as one of the world’s major powers.” Peden in 2012 stated, “The Suez Crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain’s decline as a world power.” The Suez Canal was closed from October 1956 until March 1957. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran.
As a result of the conflict, the United Nations created the UNEF Peacekeepers to police the Egyptian-Israeli border, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden resigned, Canadian Minister of External Affairs Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the USSR may have been emboldened to invade Hungary.
Nationalization of the Suez Canal
Statue of Ferdinand de Lesseps (a Frenchman who built the Suez Canal) was removed following the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956.
Statue of Ferdinand de Lesseps (a Frenchman who built the Suez Canal) was removed following the nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956.
The Suez Crisis in the Context of the Cold War
The Middle East during the Cold War was of extreme importance and also great instability. The region lay directly south of the Soviet Union, which traditionally had great influence in Turkey and Iran. The area also had vast reserves of oil, not crucial for either superpower in the 1950s (which each held large oil reserves on its own), but essential for the rapidly rebuilding American allies Europe and Japan.
The original American plan for the Middle East was to form a defensive perimeter along the north of the region. Thus Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan signed the Baghdad Pact and joined CENTO. The Eastern response was to seek influence in states such as Syria and Egypt. Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria made arms deals to Egypt and Syria, giving Warsaw Pact members a strong presence in the region. Egypt, a former British protectorate, was one of the region’s most important prizes with its large population and political power throughout the region. British forces were thrown out by General Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956, when he nationalized the Suez Canal. Syria was a former French protectorate.
Eisenhower persuaded the United Kingdom and France to retreat from a badly planned invasion with Israel launched to regain control of the canal from Egypt. While the Americans were forced to operate covertly so as not to embarrass their allies, the Eastern Bloc nations made loud threats against the “imperialists” and worked to portray themselves as the defenders of the Third World. Nasser was later lauded around the globe, especially in the Arab world. While both superpowers courted Nasser, the Americans balked at funding the massive Aswan High Dam project. The Warsaw Pact countries happily agreed, however, and signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Egyptians and the Syrians.
Thus the Suez stalemate was a turning point heralding an ever-growing rift between the Atlantic Cold War allies, which were becoming far less of a united monolith than they were in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. Italy, France, Spain, West Germany, Norway, Canada, and Britain also developed their own nuclear forces as well as a Common Market to be less dependent on the United States. Such rifts mirror changes in global economics. American economic competitiveness faltered in the face of the challenges of Japan and West Germany, which recovered rapidly from the wartime decimation of their respective industrial bases. The 20th-century successor to the UK as the “workshop of the world,” the United States found its competitive edge dulled in the international markets while it faced intensified foreign competition at home. Meanwhile, the Warsaw Pact countries were closely allied both militarily and economically. All Warsaw Pact nations had nuclear weapons and supplied other countries with weapons, supplies, and economic aid.
32.5.2: The Hungarian Uprising
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 occurred shortly after Khrushchev arranged the removal of Hungary’s Stalinist leader Mátyás Rákosi, but the new regime was soon crushed by the Soviet army.
Learning Objective
Examine the circumstances surrounding the Hungarian uprising
Key Points
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 occurred shortly after Khrushchev arranged the removal of Hungary’s Stalinist leader Mátyás Rákosi.
In response to a popular uprising, the new regime formally disbanded the secret police, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact, and pledged to re-establish free elections.
In response, the Soviet army invaded and crushed the revolution.
Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, imprisoned, and deported to the Soviet Union, and approximately 200,000 Hungarians fled Hungary in the chaos.
Hungarian leader Imre Nagy and others were executed following secret trials.
Key Terms
Mátyás Rákosi
A Jewish Hungarian communist politician, the leader of Hungary’s Communist Party from 1945 to 1956, and the de facto ruler of Communist Hungary from 1949 to 1956. An ardent Stalinist, his government was a satellite of the Soviet Union.
Titoists
People who follow the policies and practices associated with Josip Broz Tito during the Cold War, characterized by an opposition to the Soviet Union.
Overview
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 was a nationwide revolt against the government of the Hungarian People’s Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until November 10, 1956. Though initially leaderless, it was the first major threat to Soviet control since the USSR’s forces drove out Nazi Germany from its territory at the end of World War II and broke into Central and Eastern Europe.
The revolt began as a student demonstration, which attracted thousands marching through central Budapest to the Parliament building, calling out on the streets using a van with loudspeakers via Radio Free Europe. A student delegation that entered the radio building to try to broadcast the students’ demands was detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (ÁVH) from within the building. One student died and was wrapped in a flag and held above the crowd. This was the start of the revolution. As the news spread, disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital.
The revolt spread quickly across Hungary and the government collapsed. Thousands organized into militias, battling the ÁVH and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were often executed or imprisoned and former political prisoners were released and armed. Radical impromptu workers’ councils wrested municipal control from the ruling Hungarian Working People’s Party and demanded political changes. A new government formally disbanded the ÁVH, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact, and pledged to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normality began to return.
After announcing a willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution. On November 4, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest and other regions of the country. The Hungarian resistance continued until November 10. More than 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Soviet troops were killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees. Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition. These Soviet actions, while strengthening control over the Eastern Bloc, alienated many Western Marxists, leading to splits and/or considerable losses of membership for Communist Parties in the West.
Public discussion about this revolution was suppressed in Hungary for more than 30 years. Since the thaw of the 1980s, it has been a subject of intense study and debate. At the inauguration of the Third Hungarian Republic in 1989, October 23 was declared a national holiday.
Hungarian Uprising
Flag of Hungary, with the communist coat of arms cut out. The flag with a hole became the symbol of the revolution.
Image of the flag of Hungary, with the communist coat of arms cut out, hanging over a street.
Background
Hungary became a communist state under the severely authoritarian leadership of Mátyás Rákosi. Under Rákosi’s reign, the Security Police (ÁVH) began a series of purges, first within the Communist Party to end opposition to Rákosi’s reign. The victims were labeled as “Titoists,” “western agents,” or “Trotskyists” for as insignificant a crime as spending time in the West to participate in the Spanish Civil War. In total, about half of all the middle and lower level party officials—at least 7,000 people—were purged.
From 1950 to 1952, the Security Police forcibly relocated thousands of people to obtain property and housing for the Working People’s Party members and to remove the threat of the intellectual and “bourgeois” class. Thousands were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps, deported to the east, or executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk. In a single year, more than 26,000 people were forcibly relocated from Budapest. As a consequence, jobs and housing were very difficult to obtain. The deportees generally experienced terrible living conditions and were interned as slave labor on collective farms. Many died as a result of poor living conditions and malnutrition.
The Rákosi government thoroughly politicized Hungary’s educational system to supplant the educated classes with a “toiling intelligentsia.” Russian language study and Communist political instruction were made mandatory in schools and universities nationwide. Religious schools were nationalized and church leaders were replaced by those loyal to the government. In 1949 the leader of the Hungarian Catholic Church, Cardinal József Mindszenty, was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for treason. Under Rákosi, Hungary’s government was among the most repressive in Europe.
The Crushed Uprising
After Stalinist dictator Mátyás Rákosi was replaced by Imre Nagy following Stalin’s death and Polish reformist Władysław Gomułka was able to enact some reformist requests, large numbers of protesting Hungarians compiled a list of Demands of Hungarian Revolutionaries of 1956, including free secret-ballot elections, independent tribunals, and inquiries into Stalin and Rákosi Hungarian activities. Under the orders of Soviet defense minister Georgy Zhukov, Soviet tanks entered Budapest. Protester attacks at the Parliament forced the collapse of the government.
The new government that came to power during the revolution formally disbanded the Hungarian secret police, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact, and pledged to re-establish free elections. The Soviet Politburo thereafter moved to crush the revolution with a large Soviet force invading Budapest and other regions of the country. Approximately 200,000 Hungarians fled Hungary, some 26,000 Hungarians were put on trial by the new Soviet-installed János Kádár government and, of those, 13,000 were imprisoned. Imre Nagy was executed along with Pál Maléter and Miklós Gimes after secret trials in June 1958. By January 1957, the Hungarian government had suppressed all public opposition. These Hungarian government’s violent oppressive actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened communist control in all the European communist states, cultivating the perception that communism was both irreversible and monolithic.
32.5.3: The Korean War
One of the most significant impacts of the U.S. policy of containment was the outbreak of the Korean War, when the U.S. came to aid of South Korea against the communist North Korea.
Learning Objective
Connect the Korean War to the overarching narrative of the Cold War
Key Points
Korea was divided at the end of World War II along the 38th parallel into Soviet and U.S. occupation zones, in which a communist government was installed in the North by the Soviets and an elected government in the South came to power after UN-supervised elections in 1948.
In June 1950, Kim Il-sung’s North Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea.
Fearing that communist Korea under a Kim Il Sung dictatorship could threaten Japan and foster other communist movements in Asia, Truman committed U.S. forces and obtained help from the United Nations to counter the North Korean invasion.
After a Chinese invasion to assist the North Koreans, fighting stabilized along the 38th parallel, which separated the Koreas and devolved into a war of attrition.
The Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953 after the death of Stalin, but no official peace treaty was ever signed and technically North and South Korea are still at war.
Key Terms
cult of personality
When an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods to create an idealized, heroic, and at times worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
war of attrition
A military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material.
proxy war
A conflict between two states or non-state actors in which neither entity directly engages the other. While this can encompass a breadth of armed confrontation, its core definition hinges on two separate powers utilizing external strife to somehow attack the interests or territorial holdings of the other. This frequently involves both countries fighting their opponent’s allies or assisting their allies in fighting their opponent.
Overview
In June 1950, Kim Il-sung’s North Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea. Joseph Stalin “planned, prepared, and initiated” the invasion, creating “detailed [war] plans” that were communicated to the North Koreans. To Stalin’s surprise, the UN Security Council backed the defense of South Korea. Fearing that communist Korea under a Kim Il Sung dictatorship could threaten Japan and foster other communist movements in Asia, Truman committed U.S. forces and obtained help from the United Nations to counter the North Korean invasion. The Soviets boycotted UN Security Council meetings while protesting the Council’s failure to seat the People’s Republic of China and thus did not veto the Council’s approval of UN action to oppose the North Korean invasion. A joint UN force of personnel from South Korea, the United States, Britain, Turkey, Canada, Australia, France, the Philippines, the Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, and other countries joined to stop the invasion.
After the first two months of the conflict, South Korean forces were on the point of defeat, forced back to the Pusan Perimeter. In September 1950, an amphibious UN counter-offensive was launched at Inchon and cut off many of the North Korean troops. Those that escaped envelopment and capture were rapidly forced back north all the way to the border with China at the Yalu River or into the mountainous interior. At this point, in October 1950, Chinese forces crossed the Yalu and entered the war. Chinese intervention triggered a retreat of UN forces that continued until mid-1951.
After these reversals of fortune, which saw Seoul change hands four times, the last two years of conflict became a war of attrition, with the front line close to the 38th parallel. The war in the air, however, was never a stalemate. North Korea was subject to a massive bombing campaign. Jet fighters confronted each other in air-to-air combat for the first time in history, and Soviet pilots covertly flew in defense of their communist allies.
The fighting ended on July 27, 1953, when an armistice was signed. The agreement created the Korean Demilitarized Zone to separate North and South Korea and allowed the return of prisoners. In North Korea, Kim Il-sung created a highly centralized and brutal dictatorship, according himself unlimited power and generating a formidable cult of personality. However, no peace treaty has been signed, and the two Koreas are technically still at war. Periodic clashes, many of which are deadly, have continued to the present.
The Korean War is seen as one of the most significant impacts of the containment policy of the U.S. government, aimed at preventing the spread of communism, and was one of the major proxy wars of the Cold War.
Background
Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan as a result of an agreement with the United States and liberated Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently moved into the south. By 1948, as a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, Korea was split into two regions with separate governments. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of Korea and neither side accepted the border as permanent. The civil war escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces—supported by the Soviet Union and China—moved to the south to unite the country on June 25, 1950.
In early 1950, the United States made its first commitment to form a peace treaty with Japan that would guarantee long-term U.S. military bases. Some observers (including George Kennan) believed that the Japanese treaty led Stalin to approve a plan to invade U.S.-supported South Korea on June 25, 1950.
In the Context of the Cold War
Among other effects, the Korean War galvanized NATO to develop a military structure. Public opinion in countries involved, such as Great Britain, was divided for and against the war. Many feared an escalation into a general war with Communist China and even nuclear war. The strong opposition to the war often strained Anglo-American relations. For these reasons, British officials sought a speedy end to the conflict, hoping to unite Korea under United Nations auspices and withdrawal of all foreign forces.
The war was a political disaster for the Soviet Union. Its central objective, the unification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim Il-Sung regime, was not achieved. Boundaries of both parts of Korea remained practically unchanged. Relations with communist ally China were seriously and permanently spoiled, leading to the Sino-Soviet split that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The United States’ strong resistance to the invasion may have prevented a Soviet intervention in Yugoslavia during the Tito-Stalin split. The war, meanwhile, united the countries within the capitalist bloc: the Korean War accelerated the conclusion of a peace agreement between the U.S. and Japan, the warming of West Germany’s relations with other western countries, and creation of military and political blocs ANZUS (1951) and SEATO (1954). However, because of the war, the authority of the Soviets grew, evident in their readiness to interfere in developing countries of the Third World, many of which went down the socialist path of development after the Korean War after selecting the Soviet Union as their patron.
The U.S. entered the Korean War to defend South Korea from a communist invasion. However, the success of the Inchon landing inspired the U.S. and the United Nations to adopt a rollback strategy to overthrow the Communist North Korean regime, thus allowing nationwide elections under U.N. auspices. General Douglas MacArthur advanced across the 38th parallel into North Korea. The Chinese sent in a large army and defeated the U.N. forces, pushing them below the 38th parallel. Although the Chinese had been planning to intervene for months, this action was interpreted by Truman’s supporters as a response to U.S. forces crossing the 38th parallel. This interpretation allowed the episode to confirm the wisdom of containment doctrine as opposed to rollback. The Communists were later pushed back to around the original border. Truman blamed MacArthur’s focus on victory and adopted a “limited war” policy. His focus shifted to negotiating a settlement,finally reached in 1953. For his part, MacArthur denounced Truman’s “no-win policy.”
Korean War
Clockwise from top: U.S. Marines retreating during the Battle of the Chosin Resevoir, U.N. landing at Incheon, Korean refugees in front of an American M-26 tank, U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Baldomero Lopez, landing at Incheon, and an American F-86 Sabre fighter jet.
Clockwise from top: U.S. Marines retreating during the Battle of the Chosin Resevoir, U.N. landing at Incheon, Korean refugees in front of an American M-26 tank, U.S. Marines, led by First Lieutenant Baldomero Lopez, landing at Incheon, and an American F-86 Sabre fighter jet.
32.5.4: The Building of the Berlin Wall
The Berlin Wall was a barrier that divided Germany from 1961 to 1989, aimed at preventing East Germans from fleeing to stop economically disastrous migration of workers.
Learning Objective
Deconstruct Soviet Union’s reasons for building the Berlin Wall
Key Points
Berlin was divided between East and West since the end of World War II, with the Western powers occupying the Western portion and the Soviet Union occupying the East.
After increasing tensions between the Soviets and the Western powers during the first 15 years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union decided to build a physical barrier between East and West Berlin, thereby creating a real counterpoint to the symbolic “Iron Curtain” that had divided East and West since 1945.
The main purpose of the Wall was to prevent East Germans from fleeing, thus stopping an economically disastrous migration of workers.
The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the “Anti-Fascist Protective Wall” by East German authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered “fascists” by East German propaganda.
With the closing of the East-West sector boundary in Berlin, the vast majority of East Germans could no longer travel or emigrate to West Germany, and Berlin soon went from the easiest place to make an unauthorized crossing between East and West Germany to the most difficult.
Many families were split, while East Berliners employed in the West were cut off from their jobs.
Key Terms
Checkpoint Charlie
The name given by the Western Allies to the best-known Berlin Wall crossing point between East Berlin and West Berlin during the Cold War.
Inner German border
The border between the German Democratic Republic (GDR, East Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany) from 1949 to 1990. Not including the similar but physically separate Berlin Wall, the border was 866 miles long and ran from the Baltic Sea to Czechoslovakia.
German Democratic Republic
A state in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War period. From 1949 to 1990, it administered the region of Germany occupied by Soviet forces at the end of World War II.
Overview
The Berlin Wall was a barrier that divided Germany from 1961 to 1989. Constructed by the German Democratic Republic (GDR, East Germany) starting on August 13, 1961, the Wall completely cut off West Berlin from surrounding East Germany and from East Berlin until government officials opened it in November 1989. Its demolition officially began on June 13, 1990 and was completed in 1992. The barrier included guard towers placed along large concrete walls, which circumscribed a wide area (later known as the “death strip”) that contained anti-vehicle trenches, “fakir beds,” and other defenses. The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the “will of the people” in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall prevented the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.
The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the “Anti-Fascist Protective Wall” by GDR authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered “fascists” by GDR propaganda. The West Berlin city government sometimes referred to it as the “Wall of Shame”—a term coined by mayor Willy Brandt—while condemning the Wall’s restriction on freedom of movement. Along with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB), which demarcated the border between East and West Germany, it came to symbolize a physical marker of the “Iron Curtain” that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.
Before the Wall’s erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin. From there, they could travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the Wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the Wall, with an estimated death toll ranging from 136 to more than 200 in and around Berlin.
Berlin Wall
Photograph of the Berlin Wall taken from the West side. The Wall was built in 1961 to prevent East Germans from fleeing and stop an economically disastrous migration of workers. It was a symbol of the Cold War, and its fall in 1989 marked the approaching end of the war.
Image of the Berlin Wall covered in graffiti.
Effects of the Berlin Wall
With the closing of the East-West sector boundary in Berlin, the vast majority of East Germans could no longer travel or emigrate to West Germany. Berlin soon went from the easiest place to make an unauthorized crossing between East and West Germany to the most difficult. Many families were split, and East Berliners employed in the West were cut off from their jobs. West Berlin became an isolated exclave in a hostile land. West Berliners demonstrated against the Wall, led by their Mayor Willy Brandt, who strongly criticized the United States for failing to respond. Allied intelligence agencies had hypothesized about a wall to stop the flood of refugees, but the main candidate for its location was around the perimeter of the city. In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, “The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it is … to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to communist failure.”
United States and UK sources expected the Soviet sector to be sealed off from West Berlin, but were surprised how long they took to do so. They considered the Wall an end to concerns about a GDR/Soviet retaking or capture of the whole of Berlin; the Wall would presumably have been an unnecessary project if such plans were afloat. Thus, they concluded that the possibility of a Soviet military conflict over Berlin had decreased.
The East German government claimed that the Wall was an “anti-fascist protective rampart” intended to dissuade aggression from the West. Another official justification was the activities of Western agents in Eastern Europe. The Eastern German government also claimed that West Berliners were buying state-subsidized goods in East Berlin. East Germans and others greeted such statements with skepticism, as most of the time the border was closed for citizens of East Germany traveling to the West but not for residents of West Berlin travelling East. The construction of the Wall caused considerable hardship to families divided by it. Most people believed that the Wall was mainly a means of preventing the citizens of East Germany from entering or fleeing to West Berlin.
Defection Attempts
During the years of the Wall, around 5,000 people successfully defected to West Berlin. The number of people who died trying to cross the Wall or as a result of the Wall’s existence has been disputed. The most vocal claims by Alexandra Hildebrandt, Director of the Checkpoint Charlie Museum and widow of the Museum’s founder, estimated the death toll to be well above 200.
The East German government issued shooting orders to border guards dealing with defectors, though these are not the same as “shoot to kill” orders. GDR officials denied issuing the latter. In an October 1973 order later discovered by researchers, guards were instructed that people attempting to cross the Wall were criminals and needed to be shot: “Do not hesitate to use your firearm, not even when the border is breached in the company of women and children, which is a tactic the traitors have often used.”
Early successful escapes involved people jumping the initial barbed wire or leaping out of apartment windows along the line, but these ended as the Wall was fortified. East German authorities no longer permitted apartments near the Wall to be occupied, and any building near the Wall had its windows boarded and later bricked up. On August 15, 1961, Conrad Schumann was the first East German border guard to escape by jumping the barbed wire to West Berlin.
On 22 August 1961, Ida Siekmann was the first casualty at the Berlin Wall: she died after she jumped out of her third floor apartment at 48 Bernauer Strasse. The first person to be shot and killed while trying to cross to West Berlin was Günter Litfin, a 24-year-old tailor. He attempted to swim across the Spree Canal to West Germany on August 24, 1961, the same day that East German police received shoot-to-kill orders to prevent anyone from escaping.
East Germans successfully defected by a variety of methods: digging long tunnels under the Wall, waiting for favorable winds and taking a hot air balloon, sliding along aerial wires, flying ultralights and, in one instance, simply driving a sports car at full speed through the basic initial fortifications. When a metal beam was placed at checkpoints to prevent this kind of defection, up to four people (two in the front seats and possibly two in the boot) drove under the bar in a sports car that had been modified to allow the roof and windscreen to come away when it made contact with the beam. They lay flat and kept driving forward. The East Germans then built zig-zagging roads at checkpoints.
32.5.5: The Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. Navy set up a blockade to halt Soviet nuclear weapons on their way to Cuba, brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before.
Learning Objective
Assess the severity of the Cuban Missile Crisis
Key Points
Continuing to seek ways to oust Castro following the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, Kennedy and his administration experimented with ways of covertly facilitating the overthrow of the Cuban government.
In February 1962, Khrushchev learned of the American plans to assassinate Fidel Castro; preparations to install Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba were undertaken in response.
Alarmed, Kennedy considered various reactions, and ultimately responded to the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba with a naval blockade and presented an ultimatum to the Soviets.
Khrushchev backed down from a confrontation, and the Soviet Union removed the missiles in return for an American pledge not to invade Cuba again.
The tense few days after the American blockade and before the resolution was reached, later called the Cuban Missile Crisis, brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before.
The aftermath of the crisis led to the first efforts in the nuclear arms race at nuclear disarmament and improving relations.
Key Terms
Bay of Pigs Invasion
A failed military invasion of Cuba undertaken by the CIA-sponsored paramilitary group Brigade 2506 on April 17, 1961.
Fidel Castro
A Cuban politician and revolutionary who governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008. Politically a Marxist-Leninist and Cuban nationalist, he also served as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba from 1961 until 2011. Under his administration Cuba became a one-party communist state; industry and business were nationalized and state socialist reforms implemented throughout society.
Moscow–Washington hotline
A system that allows direct communication between the leaders of the United States and the USSR, established in 1963 after the Cuban Missile Crisis to prevent another dangerous confrontation.
Overview
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13-day (October 16-28, 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union concerning American ballistic missile deployment in Italy and Turkey with consequent Soviet ballistic missile deployment in Cuba. Televised worldwide, this event was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.
In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961 and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba’s request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter future harassment of Cuba. An agreement was reached during a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Fidel Castro in July 1962 and construction of a number of missile launch facilities started later that summer.
The 1962 midterm elections were underway in the U.S. and the White House had denied charges that it was ignoring dangerous Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida. These missile preparations were confirmed when an Air Force U-2 spy plane produced clear photographic evidence of medium-range (SS-4) and intermediate-range (R-14) ballistic missile facilities. The United States established a military blockade to prevent further missiles from entering Cuba. It announced that they would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the USSR.
After a long period of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between President John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev on October 27. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a U.S. public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba without direct provocation. Secretly, the United States agreed that it would dismantle all U.S.-built Jupiter MRBMs, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union unbeknownst to the public.
When all offensive missiles and Ilyushin Il-28 light bombers were withdrawn from Cuba, the blockade was formally ended on November 20, 1962. The negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union pointed out the necessity of a quick, clear, and direct communication line between Washington and Moscow. As a result, the Moscow–Washington hotline was established. A series of agreements sharply reduced U.S.–Soviet tensions during the following years.
Background
The United States was concerned about an expansion of Communism, and a Latin American country allying openly with the USSR was regarded as unacceptable given the U.S.-Soviet enmity since the end of World War II. Such an involvement would also directly defy the Monroe Doctrine, a U.S. policy which, while limiting the United States’ involvement in European colonies and European affairs, held that European powers ought not to have involvement with states in the Western Hemisphere.
The United States had been embarrassed publicly by the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in April 1961, launched under President John F. Kennedy by CIA-trained forces of Cuban exiles. Afterward, former President Eisenhower told Kennedy that “the failure of the Bay of Pigs will embolden the Soviets to do something that they would otherwise not do.” The half-hearted invasion left Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev and his advisers with the impression that Kennedy was indecisive and, as one Soviet adviser wrote, “too young, intellectual, not prepared well for decision making in crisis situations … too intelligent and too weak.” U.S. covert operations continued in 1961 with the unsuccessful Operation Mongoose.
In May 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was persuaded to counter the United States’ growing lead in developing and deploying strategic missiles by placing Soviet intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, despite the misgivings of the Soviet Ambassador in Havana, Alexandr Ivanovich Alexeyev, who argued that Castro would not accept the deployment of these missiles. Khrushchev faced a strategic situation where the U.S. was perceived to have a “splendid first strike” capability that put the Soviet Union at a huge disadvantage.
Khrushchev also wanted to bring West Berlin—the American/British/French-controlled democratic enclave within Communist East Germany—into the Soviet orbit. The East Germans and Soviets considered western control over a portion of Berlin a grave threat to East Germany. For this reason among others, Khrushchev made West Berlin the central battlefield of the Cold War. Khrushchev believed that if the U.S. did nothing over the missile deployments in Cuba, he could muscle the West out of Berlin using said missiles as a deterrent to western counter-measures in Berlin. If the U.S. tried to bargain with the Soviets after becoming aware of the missiles, Khrushchev could demand trading the missiles for West Berlin. Since Berlin was strategically more important than Cuba, the trade would be a win for Khrushchev.
Khrushchev was also reacting in part to the nuclear threat of obsolescent Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles that the U.S. installed in Turkey in April 1962.
American Blockade and Deepening Crisis
Kennedy met with members of Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOMM) and other top advisers on October 21, considering two remaining options after ruling out diplomacy with the Soviets and full-on invasion: an air strike primarily against the Cuban missile bases or a naval blockade of Cuba. McNamara supported the naval blockade as a strong but limited military action that left the U.S. in control. However, the term “blockade” was problematic. According to international law a blockade is an act of war, but the Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade. Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations wrote a position paper that helped Kennedy to differentiate between what they termed a “quarantine” of offensive weapons and a blockade of all materials, claiming that a classic blockade was not the original intention.
On October 22, President Kennedy addressed the nation, saying:
To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba, from whatever nation or port, will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948.
The crisis continued unabated, and on the evening of October 24, the Soviet news agency TASS broadcast a telegram from Khrushchev to President Kennedy in which Khrushchev warned that the United States’s “outright piracy” would lead to war. However, this was followed by a telegram from Khrushchev to Kennedy in which Khrushchev stated, “if you weigh the present situation with a cool head without giving way to passion, you will understand that the Soviet Union cannot afford not to decline the despotic demands of the USA” and that the Soviet Union views the blockade as “an act of aggression” and their ships will be instructed to ignore it.
The U.S. requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on October 25. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson confronted Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin in an emergency meeting of the Security Council, challenging him to admit the existence of the missiles. The next day at 10 p.m. EST, the U.S. raised the readiness level of SAC forces to DEFCON 2, indicating “next step to nuclear war,” and one step away from “nuclear war imminent.” For the only confirmed time in U.S. history, while B-52 bombers went on continuous airborne alert, B-47 medium bombers were dispersed to various military and civilian airfields and prepared for takeoff, fully equipped with nuclear warheads, on 15 minutes’ notice.
At this point, the crisis was ostensibly at a stalemate. The USSR had shown no indication that they would back down and in fact made several comments to the contrary. The U.S. had no reason to believe otherwise and was in the early stages of preparing for an invasion along with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in case it responded militarily as expected.
Crisis Resolution
The crisis continued with Cuba preparing for invasion until October 27 when, after much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy’s cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in southern Italy and in Turkey, the latter on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for Khrushchev’s removal of all missiles in Cuba. At 9 a.m. EST on October 28, a new message from Khrushchev was broadcast on Radio Moscow in which he stated that “the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as ‘offensive’ and their crating and return to the Soviet Union.” Kennedy immediately responded, issuing a statement calling the letter “an important and constructive contribution to peace.” He continued this with a formal letter:
I consider my letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly carried out … The US will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from US territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba.
The compromise embarrassed Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Italy and Turkey was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Khrushchev went to Kennedy thinking that the crisis was getting out of hand. The Soviets were seen as retreating from circumstances they had started. Khrushchev’s fall from power two years later was in part because of the Politburo embarrassment at both Khrushchev’s eventual concessions to the U.S. and his ineptitude in precipitating the crisis in the first place. According to Dobrynin, the top Soviet leadership took the Cuban outcome as “a blow to its prestige bordering on humiliation.”
Cuban Missile Crisis
A U.S. Navy P-2H Neptune of VP-18 flying over a Soviet cargo ship with crated Il-28s on deck during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A U.S. Navy P-2H Neptune of VP-18 flying over a Soviet cargo ship with crated Il-28s on deck during the Cuban Crisis.
Hitler and his Nazi Party ruled Germany from 1933-1945 as a fascist totalitarian state which controlled nearly all aspects of life.
Learning Objective
Characterize Germany under the Nazi regime
Key Points
The German economy suffered severe setbacks after the end of World War I, partly because of reparations payments required under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. These reparations created social unrest and provided an opportunity for the Nazi Party to attract popularity.
Racism, especially antisemitism, was a central feature of the Nazi Party.
After the Nazi Party won a majority of seats in the German parliament, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the President of the Weimar Republic Paul von Hindenburg on January, 30 1933, and soon eliminated all political opposition and consolidated his power.
In March 1933, the Enabling Act, an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, passed in the Reichstag. This allowed Hitler and his cabinet to pass laws—even laws that violated the constitution—without the consent of the president or the Reichstag.
President Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, and Hitler became dictator of Germany by merging the powers and offices of the Chancellery and Presidency.
Germany was now a totalitarian state with Hitler at its head.
Key Terms
Adolf Hitler
A German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party, Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945; he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and was a central figure of the Holocaust.
antisemitism
Hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.
Nazi Party
A political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that practiced the ideology of Nazism, a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism.
fascist
A form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, whose proponents believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and respond effectively to economic difficulties.
Nazi Germany is the common English name for the period in German history from 1933 to 1945 when the country was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Under Hitler’s rule, Germany was transformed into a fascist totalitarian state that controlled nearly all aspects of life. The official name of the state was Deutsches Reich from 1933 to 1943 and Großdeutsches Reich (“Greater German Reich”) from 1943 to 1945. The period is also known under the names the Third Reich and the National Socialist Period. The Nazi regime came to an end after the Allied Forces defeated Germany in May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.
Hitler’s Rise to Power
Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the President of the Weimar Republic Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. The Nazi Party then began to eliminate all political opposition and consolidate its power. Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, and Hitler became dictator of Germany by merging the powers and offices of the Chancellery and Presidency. A national referendum held August 19, 1934 confirmed Hitler as sole Führer (leader) of Germany. All power was centralized in Hitler’s person, and his word became above all laws. The government was not a coordinated, co-operating body, but a collection of factions struggling for power and Hitler’s favor. In the midst of the Great Depression, the Nazis restored economic stability and ended mass unemployment using heavy military spending and a mixed economy. Extensive public works were undertaken, including the construction of Autobahnen (motorways). The return to economic stability boosted the regime’s popularity.
Racism, especially antisemitism, was a central feature of the regime. The Germanic people (the Nordic race) were considered by the Nazis to be the purest branch of the Aryan race, and therefore were viewed as the master race. Millions of Jews and other peoples deemed undesirable by the state were murdered in the Holocaust. Opposition to Hitler’s rule was ruthlessly suppressed. Members of the liberal, socialist, and communist opposition were killed, imprisoned, or exiled. The Christian churches were also oppressed, with many leaders imprisoned. Education focused on racial biology, population policy, and fitness for military service. Career and educational opportunities for women were curtailed. Recreation and tourism were organised via the Strength Through Joy program, and the 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage. Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels made effective use of film, mass rallies, and Hitler’s hypnotizing oratory to control public opinion. The government controlled artistic expression, promoting specific art forms and banning or discouraging others.
Beginning in the late 1930s, Nazi Germany made increasingly aggressive territorial demands, threatening war if they were not met. It seized Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939. Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, launching World War II in Europe.
Nazi Flag
National flag of Germany, 1935–45
Image of the Nazi flag with a black swastika surrounded by red.
The Rise of the Nazi Party
The German economy suffered severe setbacks after the end of World War I, partly because of reparations payments required under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The government printed money to make the payments and repay the country’s war debt; the resulting hyperinflation led to higher prices for consumer goods, economic chaos, and food riots. When the government failed to make the reparations payments in January 1923, French troops occupied German industrial areas along the Ruhr. Widespread civil unrest followed.
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) was the renamed successor of the German Workers’ Party founded in 1919, one of several far-right political parties active in Germany at the time. The party platform included removal of the Weimar Republic, rejection of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, radical antisemitism, and anti-Bolshevism. They promised a strong central government, increased Lebensraum (living space) for Germanic peoples, formation of a national community based on race, and racial cleansing via the active suppression of Jews, who would be stripped of their citizenship and civil rights. The Nazis proposed national and cultural renewal based upon the Völkisch (German populist) movement.
When the stock market in the United States crashed on October 24, 1929, the effect on Germany was dire. Millions were thrown out of work, and several major banks collapsed. Hitler and the Nazi Party prepared to take advantage of the emergency to gain support for their party. They promised to strengthen the economy and provide jobs. Many voters decided the Nazi Party was capable of restoring order, quelling civil unrest, and improving Germany’s international reputation. After the federal election of 1932, the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag (elected parliament), holding 230 seats with 37.4 percent of the popular vote.
Hitler Seizes Power
Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the Nazi Party and the German National People’s Party. Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power). In the following months, the Nazi Party used a process termed Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) to rapidly bring all aspects of life under control of the party. All civilian organizations, including agricultural groups, volunteer organizations, and sports clubs, had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathizers or party members. By June 1933, virtually the only organisations not under control of the Nazi Party were the army and the churches.
On the night of February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building was set afire; Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch communist, was found guilty of starting the blaze. Hitler proclaimed that the arson marked the start of a communist uprising. Violent suppression of communists by the Sturmabteilung (SA) was undertaken all over the country, and 4,000 members of the Communist Party of Germany were arrested. The Reichstag Fire Decree, imposed on February 28, 1933, rescinded most German civil liberties, including rights of assembly and freedom of the press. The decree also allowed the police to detain people indefinitely without charges or a court order. The legislation was accompanied by a propaganda blitz that led to public support for the measure.
In March 1933, the Enabling Act, an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, passed in the Reichstag by a vote of 444 to 94. This amendment allowed Hitler and his cabinet to pass laws—even laws that violated the constitution—without the consent of the president or the Reichstag. As the bill required a two-thirds majority to pass, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned. On May 10 the government seized the assets of the Social Democrats; they were banned in June. The remaining political parties were dissolved, and on July 14, 1933, Germany became a de facto one-party state when the founding of new parties was made illegal. Further elections in November 1933, 1936, and 1938 were entirely Nazi-controlled and saw only the Nazis and a small number of independents elected. The regional state parliaments and the Reichsrat (federal upper house) were abolished in January 1934.
On 2 August 1934, President von Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the “Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich,” which stated that upon Hindenburg’s death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government. He was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). Germany was now a totalitarian state with Hitler at its head. As head of state, Hitler became Supreme Commander of the armed forces. The new law altered the traditional loyalty oath of servicemen so that they affirmed loyalty to Hitler personally rather than the office of supreme commander or the state. On August 19, the merger of the presidency with the chancellorship was approved by 90 percent of the electorate in a plebiscite.
Adolf Hitler
Hitler became Germany’s head of state, with the title of Führer und Reichskanzler, in 1934.
Photo of Adolph Hitler with his arms crossed.
31.1.2: Italy Under Mussolini
Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories.
Learning Objective
Describe Mussolini’s Italy
Key Points
Social unrest after World War I, led mainly by communists, led to counter-revolution and repression throughout Italy.
The liberal establishment, fearing a Soviet-style revolution, started to endorse the small National Fascist Party led by Benito Mussolini.
In the night between October 27-28, 1922, about 30,000 Fascist blackshirts (paramilitary of the Fascist party) gathered in Rome to demand the resignation of liberal Prime Minister Luigi Facta and the appointment of a new Fascist government. This event is called the “March on Rome.”
Between 1925 and 1927, Mussolini progressively dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power, building a police state.
A law passed on Christmas Eve 1925 changed Mussolini’s formal title from “president of the Council of Ministers” to “head of the government” and thereafter he began styling himself as Il Duce (the leader).
On October 25, 1936, Mussolini agreed to form a Rome-Berlin Axis, sanctioned by a cooperation agreement with Nazi Germany and signed in Berlin, forming the so-called Axis Powers of World War II.
Key Terms
March on Rome
A march by which Italian dictator Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party came to power in the Kingdom of Italy.
Benito Mussolini
An Italian politician, journalist, and leader of the National Fascist Party, ruling the country as Prime Minister from 1922 to 1943; he ruled constitutionally until 1925, when he dropped all pretense of democracy and set up a legal dictatorship.
Blackshirts
The paramilitary wing of the National Fascist Party in Italy and after 1923, an all-volunteer militia of the Kingdom of Italy.
The socialist agitations that followed the devastation of World War I, inspired by the Russian Revolution, led to counter-revolution and repression throughout Italy. The liberal establishment, fearing a Soviet-style revolution, started to endorse the small National Fascist Party led by Benito Mussolini. In October 1922 the Blackshirts of the National Fascist Party attempted a coup (the “March on Rome”) which failed, but at the last minute, King Victor Emmanuel III refused to proclaim a state of siege and appointed Mussolini prime minister. Over the next few years, Mussolini banned all political parties and curtailed personal liberties, thus forming a dictatorship. These actions attracted international attention and eventually inspired similar dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain.
In 1935, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, resulting in international alienation and leading to Italy’s withdrawal from the League of Nations; Italy allied with Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan and strongly supported Francisco Franco in the Spanish civil war. In 1939, Italy annexed Albania, a de facto protectorate for decades. Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940. After initially advancing in British Somaliland and Egypt, the Italians were defeated in East Africa, Greece, Russia and North Africa.
Mussolini’s Rise to Power
The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini’s close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called Blackshirts (or squadristi) with the goal of restoring order to the streets of Italy with a strong hand. The blackshirts clashed with communists, socialists, and anarchists at parades and demonstrations; all of these factions were also involved in clashes against each other. The Italian government rarely interfered with the blackshirts’ actions, owing in part to a looming threat and widespread fear of a communist revolution. The Fascisti grew rapidly, within two years transforming themselves into the National Fascist Party at a congress in Rome. In 1921 Mussolini won election to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.
In the night between October 27-28, 1922, about 30,000 Fascist blackshirts gathered in Rome to demand the resignation of liberal Prime Minister Luigi Facta and the appointment of a new Fascist government. This event is known as the “March on Rome.” On the morning of October 28, King Victor Emmanuel III, who according to the Albertine Statute held the supreme military power, refused the government request to declare martial law, leading to Facta’s resignation. The King then handed over power to Mussolini (who stayed in his headquarters in Milan during the talks) by asking him to form a new government. The King’s controversial decision has been explained by historians as a combination of delusions and fears; Mussolini enjoyed a wide support in the military and among the industrial and agrarian elites, while the King and the conservative establishment were afraid of a possible civil war and ultimately thought they could use Mussolini to restore law and order in the country, but failed to foresee the danger of a totalitarian evolution.
March on Rome
Mussolini and the Quadrumviri during the March on Rome in 1922. From left to right: Michele Bianchi, Emilio De Bono, Italo Balbo, and Cesare Maria De Vecchi.
A photo of Mussolini surrounded by other men during the March on Rome.
As Prime Minister, the first years of Mussolini’s rule were characterized by a right-wing coalition government composed of Fascists, nationalists, liberals, and two Catholic clerics from the Popular Party. The Fascists made up a small minority in his original governments. Mussolini’s domestic goal was the eventual establishment of a totalitarian state with himself as supreme leader (Il Duce) a message that was articulated by the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo, now edited by Mussolini’s brother, Arnaldo. To that end, Mussolini obtained from the legislature dictatorial powers for one year (legal under the Italian constitution of the time). He favored the complete restoration of state authority with the integration of the Fasci di Combattimento into the armed forces (the foundation in January 1923 of the Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) and the progressive identification of the party with the state. In political and social economy, he passed legislation that favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatizations, liberalizations of rent laws, and dismantlement of the unions).
Between 1925 and 1927, Mussolini progressively dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power, thereby building a police state. A law passed on Christmas Eve 1925 changed Mussolini’s formal title from “president of the Council of Ministers” to “head of the government” (though he was still called “Prime Minister” by most non-Italian outlets). Thereafter he began styling himself as Il Duce (the leader). He was no longer responsible to Parliament and could be removed only by the king. While the Italian constitution stated that ministers were responsible only to the sovereign, in practice it had become all but impossible to govern against the express will of Parliament. The Christmas Eve law ended this practice, and also made Mussolini the only person competent to determine the body’s agenda. This law transformed Mussolini’s government into a de facto legal dictatorship. Local autonomy was abolished, and podestàs appointed by the Italian Senate replaced elected mayors and councils.
Fascist Italy
Mussolini’s foremost priority was the subjugation of the minds of the Italian people and the use of propaganda to do so. A lavish cult of personality centered on the figure of Mussolini was promoted by the regime.
Mussolini pretended to incarnate the new fascist Übermensch, promoting an aesthetics of exasperated Machism and a cult of personality that attributed to him quasi-divine capacities. At various times after 1922, Mussolini personally took over the ministries of the interior, foreign affairs, colonies, corporations, defense, and public works. Sometimes he held as many as seven departments simultaneously as well as the premiership. He was also head of the all-powerful Fascist Party and the armed local fascist militia, the MVSN or “Blackshirts,” who terrorized incipient resistances in the cities and provinces. He would later form the OVRA, an institutionalized secret police that carried official state support. He thus succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any rival.
All teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the fascist regime. Newspaper editors were all personally chosen by Mussolini and no one without a certificate of approval from the fascist party could practice journalism. These certificates were issued in secret; Mussolini thus skillfully created the illusion of a “free press.” The trade unions were also deprived of independence and integrated into what was called the “corporative” system. The aim (never completely achieved), inspired by medieval guilds, was to place all Italians in various professional organizations or corporations under clandestine governmental control.
In his early years in power, Mussolini operated as a pragmatic statesman, trying to achieve advantages but never at the risk of war with Britain and France. An exception was the bombardment and occupation of Corfu in 1923, following an incident in which Italian military personnel charged by the League of Nations to settle a boundary dispute between Greece and Albania were assassinated by Greek bandits. At the time of the Corfu incident, Mussolini was prepared to go to war with Britain, and only desperate pleading by Italian Navy leadership, who argued that Italian Navy was no match for the British Royal Navy, persuaded him to accept a diplomatic solution. In a secret speech to the Italian military leadership in January 1925, Mussolini argued that Italy needed to win spazio vitale (vital space), and as such his ultimate goal was to join “the two shores of the Mediterranean and of the Indian Ocean into a single Italian territory.”
Path to War
By the late 1930s, Mussolini’s obsession with demography led him to conclude that Britain and France were finished as powers, and that Germany and Italy were destined to rule Europe if for no other reason than their demographic strength. Mussolini stated his belief that declining birth rates in France were “absolutely horrifying” and that the British Empire was doomed because a quarter of the British population was older than 50. As such, Mussolini believed that an alliance with Germany was preferable to an alignment with Britain and France as it was better to be allied with the strong instead of the weak. Mussolini saw international relations as a Social Darwinian struggle between “virile” nations with high birth rates that were destined to destroy “effete” nations with low birth rates. Such was the extent of Mussolini’s belief that it was Italy’s destiny to rule the Mediterranean because of the country’s high birth rate that he neglected much of the serious planning and preparations necessary for a war with the Western powers.
On October 25, 1936, Mussolini agreed to form a Rome-Berlin Axis, sanctioned by a cooperation agreement with Nazi Germany and signed in Berlin. At the Munich Conference in September 1938, Mussolini continued to pose as a moderate working for European peace while helping Nazi Germany annex the Sudetenland. The 1936 Axis agreement with Germany was strengthened by the Pact of Steel signed on May 22, 1939, which bound Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in a full military alliance.
Hitler and Mussolini
On 25 October 1936, an Axis was declared between Italy and Germany.
Photo of Mussolini and Hitler in uniform standing side by side.
31.1.3: Japanese Expansion
Pre-WWII Japan was characterized by political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, expansionism, and fascism culminating in Japan’s invasion of China in 1937.
Learning Objective
Identify Japanese actions taken in the interest of territorial expansion
Key Points
During the early Shōwa period, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism, as well as a series of expansionist wars culminating in Japan’s invasion of China in 1937.
The rise of Japanese nationalism paralleled the growth of nationalism within the West.
During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria.
Japan’s expansionist ambitions led to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.
After their victory in the Chinese capital, the Japanese military committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, which involved a massive number of civilian deaths including infants and elderly and the large-scale rape of Chinese women.
In response to American economic sanctions, Japan forged an alliance with Germany and Italy in 1940 known as the Tripartite Pact.
Key Terms
Tripartite Pact
An agreement between Germany, Japan, and Italy signed in Berlin on September 27, 1940 that created the alliance known as the Axis Powers of WWII.
Manchurian Incident
A staged event engineered by Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion in 1931 of northeastern China, known as Manchuria.
Nanking Massacre
An episode of mass murder and rape committed by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanking.
The Shōwa period is the era of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of the Shōwa Emperor, Hirohito, from December 25, 1926, through January 7, 1989. The Shōwa period was longer than the reign of any previous Japanese emperor. During the pre-1945 period, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism, as well as a series of expansionist wars culminating in Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. This was part of an overall global period of social upheavals and conflicts such as the Great Depression and the Second World War.
Rise of Nationalism
Prior to 1868, most Japanese more readily identified with their feudal domain rather than the idea of “Japan” as a whole. But with the introduction of mass education, conscription, industrialization, centralization, and successful foreign wars, Japanese nationalism became a powerful force in society. Mass education and conscription served as a means to indoctrinate the coming generation with “the idea of Japan” as a nation instead of a series of Daimyo (domains), supplanting loyalty to feudal domains with loyalty to the state. Industrialization and centralization gave the Japanese a strong sense that their country could rival Western powers technologically and socially. Moreover, successful foreign wars gave the populace a sense of martial pride in their nation.
The rise of Japanese nationalism paralleled the growth of nationalism within the West. Certain conservatives such as Gondō Seikei and Asahi Heigo saw the rapid industrialization of Japan as something that had to be tempered. It seemed, for a time, that Japan was becoming too “Westernized” and that if left unimpeded, something intrinsically Japanese would be lost. During the Meiji period, such nationalists railed against the unequal treaties, but in the years following the First World War, Western criticism of Japanese imperial ambitions and restrictions on Japanese immigration changed the focus of the nationalist movement in Japan.
During the first part of the Shōwa era, racial discrimination against other Asians was habitual in Imperial Japan, starting with Japanese colonialism. The Shōwa regime preached racial superiority and racialist theories based on the sacred nature of the Yamato-damashii.
Invasion of China
Left-wing groups were subject to violent suppression by the end of the Taishō period, and radical right-wing groups, inspired by fascism and Japanese nationalism, rapidly grew in popularity. The extreme right became influential throughout the Japanese government and society, notably within the Kwantung Army, a Japanese army stationed in China along the Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railroad. During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria. The Kwantung Army conquered Manchuria and set up the puppet government of Manchukuo there without permission from the Japanese government. International criticism of Japan following the invasion led to Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations.
Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai of the Seiyūkai Party attempted to restrain the Kwantung Army and was assassinated in 1932 by right-wing extremists. Because of growing opposition within the Japanese military and the extreme right to party politicians, who they saw as corrupt and self-serving, Inukai was the last party politician to govern Japan in the pre-World War II era. In February 1936 young radical officers of the Japanese Army attempted a coup d’état, assassinating many moderate politicians before the coup was suppressed. In its wake, the Japanese military consolidated its control over the political system and most political parties were abolished when the Imperial Rule Assistance Association was founded in 1940.
Japan’s expansionist vision grew increasingly bold. Many of Japan’s political elite aspired to have the country acquire new territory for resource extraction and settlement of surplus population. These ambitions led to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. After their victory in the Chinese capital, the Japanese military committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, which involved a massive number of civilian deaths including infants and elderly and the large-scale rape of Chinese women. The exact number of casualties is an issue of fierce debate between Chinese and Japanese historians; estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000 people.
Rape of Nanking
The corpses of massacred victims from the Nanking Massacre on the shore of the Qinhuai River with a Japanese soldier standing nearby.
The corpses of massacred victims on the shore of the Qinhuai River with a Japanese soldier standing nearby.
The Japanese military failed to defeat the Chinese government led by Chiang Kai-shek and the war descended into a bloody stalemate that lasted until 1945. Japan’s stated war aim was to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a vast pan-Asian union under Japanese domination. Hirohito’s role in Japan’s foreign wars remains a subject of controversy, with various historians portraying him as either a powerless figurehead or an enabler and supporter of Japanese militarism.
The United States opposed Japan’s invasion of China and responded with increasingly stringent economic sanctions intended to deprive Japan of the resources to continue its war in China. Japan reacted by forging an alliance with Germany and Italy in 1940, known as the Tripartite Pact, which worsened its relations with the U.S. In July 1941, the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands froze all Japanese assets when Japan completed its invasion of French Indochina by occupying the southern half of the country, further increasing tension in the Pacific.
31.2: The Allied Powers
31.2.1: The USSR
During Stalin’s totalitarian rule of the Soviet Union, he transformed the state through aggressive economic planning, the development of a cult of personality around himself, and the violent repression of so-called “enemies of the working class,” overseeing the murder of millions of Soviet citizens.
Learning Objective
Analyze the political atmosphere of the Soviet Union
Key Points
After being appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1922, Joseph Stalin sought to destroy his enemies while transforming Soviet society with aggressive economic planning, in particular a sweeping collectivization of agriculture and rapid development of heavy industry.
Stalin consolidated his power within the party and the state to degree of a cult of personality.
Soviet secret-police and the mass-mobilization Communist party served as Stalin’s major tools in molding Soviet society.
Stalin’s brutal methods to achieve his goals, which included party purges, political repression of the general population, and forced collectivization, led to millions of deaths in Gulag labor camps and during man-made famine.
In August 1939, after failed attempts to conclude anti-Hitler pacts with other major European powers, Stalin entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This agreement divided their influence and territory within Eastern Europe, resulting in their invasion of Poland in September of that year.
Key Terms
Bolsheviks
The founding and ruling political party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a communist party organized on the basis of democratic centralism.
Joseph Stalin
The leader and effective dictator of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953.
First Five-Year Plan
A list of economic goals created by General Secretary Joseph Stalin and based on his policy of Socialism in One Country, implemented between 1928 and 1932, that focused on the forced collectivization of agriculture.
The Rise of Stalin
From its creation, the government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The stated purpose of the one-party state was to ensure that capitalist exploitation would not return to the Soviet Union and that the principles of democratic centralism would be effective in representing the people’s will in a practical manner. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for a power struggle in the years after Lenin’s death in 1924. Initially, Lenin was to be replaced by a “troika” (“collective leadership”) consisting of Grigory Zinoviev of the Ukrainian SSR, Lev Kamenev of the Russian SFSR, and Joseph Stalin of the Transcaucasian SFSR.
On April 3, 1922, Stalin was named the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Lenin had appointed Stalin the head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, which gave Stalin considerable power. By gradually consolidating his influence and isolating and outmaneuvering his rivals within the party, Stalin became the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union and by the end of the 1920s had established totalitarian rule. In October 1927, Grigory Zinoviev and Leon Trotsky were expelled from the Central Committee and forced into exile.
In 1928, Stalin introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In place of the internationalism expressed by Lenin throughout the Revolution, it aimed to build Socialism in One Country. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization. In agriculture, rather than adhering to the “lead by example” policy advocated by Lenin, forced collectivization of farms was implemented all over the country. This was intended to increase agricultural output from large-scale mechanized farms, bring the peasantry under more direct political control, and make tax collection more efficient. Collectivization brought social change on a scale not seen since the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and alienation from control of the land and its produce. Collectivization also meant a drastic drop in living standards for many peasants, leading to violent reactions.
Purges and Executions
From collectivization, famines ensued, causing millions of deaths; surviving kulaks were persecuted and many sent to Gulags to do forced labour. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s. Stalin’s Great Purge resulted in the execution or detainment of many “Old Bolsheviks” who had participated in the October Revolution with Lenin. During the Great Purge, Lenin undertook a massive campaign of repression of the party, government, armed forces, and intelligentsia, in which millions of so-called “enemies of the working class” were imprisoned, exiled, or executed, often without due process. Major figures in the Communist Party and government, and many Red Army high commanders, were killed after being convicted of treason in show trials. According to declassified Soviet archives, in 1937 and 1938, the NKVD arrested more than 1.5 million people, of whom 681,692 were shot. Over those two years, that averages to over 1,000 executions a day. According to historian Geoffrey Hosking, “…excess deaths during the 1930s as a whole were in the range of 10–11 million.”
Letter to Stalin
Lavrentiy Beria’s January 1940 letter to Stalin asking permission to execute 346 “enemies of the CPSU and of the Soviet authorities” who conducted “counter-revolutionary, right-Trotskyite plotting and spying activities.”
Image of a page from a Soviet book containing a letter to Stalin asking permission to execute 346 “enemies of the CPSU and of the Soviet authorities.”
Cult of Personality
Cults of personality developed in the Soviet Union around both Stalin and Lenin. Numerous towns, villages and cities were renamed after the Soviet leader and the Stalin Prize and Stalin Peace Prize were named in his honor. He accepted grandiloquent titles (e.g., “Coryphaeus of Science,” “Father of Nations,” “Brilliant Genius of Humanity,” “Great Architect of Communism,” “Gardener of Human Happiness,” and others), and helped rewrite Soviet history to provide himself a more significant role in the revolution of 1917. At the same time, according to Nikita Khrushchev, he insisted that he be remembered for “the extraordinary modesty characteristic of truly great people.” Although statues of Stalin depict him at a height and build approximating the very tall Tsar Alexander III, sources suggest he was approximately 5 feet 4 inches.
Portrait of Stalin
Stalin depicted in the style of Socialist Realism. Painting by Isaak Brodsky.
Painting of Stalin in a brown jacket, holding a piece of paper, with red curtains behind him.
International Relations Pre-WWII
The early 1930s saw closer cooperation between the West and the USSR. From 1932 to 1934, the Soviet Union participated in the World Disarmament Conference. In 1933, diplomatic relations between the United States and the USSR were established when in November, newly elected President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to formally recognize Stalin’s Communist government and negotiated a new trade agreement between the two nations. In September 1934, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations. After the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, the USSR actively supported the Republican forces against the Nationalists, who were supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
In December 1936, Stalin unveiled a new Soviet Constitution. This document was seen as a personal triumph for Stalin, who on this occasion was described by Pravda as a “genius of the new world, the wisest man of the epoch, the great leader of communism.” By contrast, Western historians and historians from former Soviet occupied countries have viewed the constitution as a meaningless propaganda document.
The late 1930s saw a shift towards the Axis powers. In 1939, almost a year after the United Kingdom and France concluded the Munich Agreement with Germany, the USSR dealt with the Nazis both militarily and economically during extensive talks. The two countries concluded the German–Soviet Nonaggression Pact and the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement in August 1939. The nonaggression pact made possible Soviet occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and eastern Poland. In late November of the same year, unable to coerce the Republic of Finland by diplomatic means into moving its border 16 miles back from Leningrad, Joseph Stalin ordered the invasion of Finland.
In the east, the Soviet military won several decisive victories during border clashes with the Empire of Japan in 1938 and 1939. However, in April 1941 USSR signed the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact with the Empire of Japan, recognizing the territorial integrity of Manchukuo, a Japanese puppet state.
31.2.2: France at the End of the Interwar Period
During the interwar period, war-torn France collected reparations from Germany, in some cases through occupation, suffered social upheaval and the consequent rise of socialism, and promoted defensive foreign policies.
Learning Objective
Describe the state of France prior to 1939
Key Points
Foreign policy was of central interest to France during the interwar period.
Because of the horrible devastation of the war, including the death of 1.5 million French soldiers, the destruction of much of the steel and coal regions, and the long-term costs for veterans, France demanded that Germany assume many of the costs incurred from the war through annual reparation payments.
As a response to the failure of the Weimar Republic to pay reparations in the aftermath of World War I, France occupied the industrial region of the Ruhr as a means of ensuring repayments from Germany.
In the 1920s, France established an elaborate system of border defenses called the Maginot Line, designed to fight off any German attack.
France experienced a mild financial depression during the time of the Great Depression, but saw a more potent social reaction to financial strain culminating in a riot in 1934.
Socialist Leon Blum, leading the Popular Front, brought together Socialists and Radicals to become Prime Minister from 1936 to 1937.
Key Terms
Maginot Line
A line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations that France constructed on the French side of its borders with Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg during the 1930s.
Treaty of Versailles
One of the peace treaties at the end of World War I, which required “Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage” during the war.
Weimar Republic
An unofficial designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933.
Popular Front
An alliance of left-wing movements during the interwar period, including the French Communist Party (PCF), the French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO), and the Radical and Socialist Party.
Losses from WWI, Gains from the Treaty of Versailles
The war brought great losses of manpower and resources. Fought in large part on French soil, it led to approximately 1.4 million French dead including civilians, and four times as many wounded. Peace terms were imposed by the Big Four, meeting in Paris in 1919: David Lloyd George of Britain, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, and Woodrow Wilson of the United States. Clemenceau demanded the harshest terms and won most of them in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Germany was forced to admit its guilt for starting the war, and its military was permanently weakened. Germany also had to pay huge sums in war reparations to the Allies (who in turn had large loans from the U.S. to pay off).
France regained Alsace-Lorraine and occupied the German industrial Saar Basin, a coal and steel region. The German African colonies were put under League of Nations mandates to be administered by France and other victors. From the remains of the Ottoman Empire, France acquired the Mandate of Syria and the Mandate of Lebanon.
Interwar Period
France was part of the Allied force that occupied the Rhineland following the Armistice. Foch supported Poland in the Greater Poland Uprising and in the Polish–Soviet War, and France also joined Spain during the Rif War. From 1925 until his death in 1932, Aristide Briand, as prime minister during five short intervals, directed French foreign policy, using his diplomatic skills and sense of timing to forge friendly relations with Weimar Germany as the basis of a genuine peace within the framework of the League of Nations. He realized France could neither contain the much larger Germany by itself nor secure effective support from Britain or the League.
As a response to the failure of the Weimar Republic to pay reparations in the aftermath of World War I, France occupied the industrial region of the Ruhr to ensure repayments from Germany. The intervention was a failure, and France accepted the American solution to the reparations issues expressed in the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan.
French Enter Essen
French cavalry entering Essen during the Occupation of the Ruhr.
A photo of French cavalry marching through a German street during the Occupation of Ruhr.
In the 1920s, France established an elaborate system of border defenses called the Maginot Line, designed to fight off any German attack. (Unfortunately, the Maginot Line did not extend into Belgium, where Germany attacked in 1940.) Military alliances were signed with weak powers in 1920–21, called the “Little Entente.”
Great Depression and Social Upheaval
The worldwide financial crisis affected France a bit later than other countries, hitting around 1931. While the GDP in the 1920s grew at the very strong rate of 4.43% per year, the 1930s rate fell to only 0.63%. The depression was relatively mild: unemployment peaked under 5% and the fall in production was at most 20% below the 1929 output; there was no banking crisis.
In contrast to the mild economic upheaval, though, the political upheaval was enormous. After 1931, rising unemployment and political unrest led to the February 6, 1934, riots. Socialist Leon Blum, leading the Popular Front, brought together Socialists and Radicals to become Prime Minister from 1936 to 1937; he was the first Jew and the first Socialist to lead France. The Communists in the Chamber of Deputies (parliament) voted to keep the government in power and generally supported its economic policies, but rejected its foreign policies. The Popular Front passed numerous labor reforms, which increased wages, cut working hours to 40 hours with overtime illegal, and provided many lesser benefits to the working class, such as mandatory two-week paid vacations. However, renewed inflation canceled the gains in wage rates, unemployment did not fall, and economic recovery was very slow. Historians agree that the Popular Front was a failure in terms of economics, foreign policy, and long-term stability. At first the Popular Front created enormous excitement and expectations on the left—including large-scale sitdown strikes—but in the end it failed to live up to its promise. In the long run, however, later Socialists took inspiration from the attempts of the Popular Front to set up a welfare state.
Foreign Relations
The government joined Britain in establishing an arms embargo during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39). Blum rejected support for the Spanish Republicans because of his fear that civil war might spread to deeply divided France. Financial support in military cooperation with Poland was also a policy. The government nationalized arms suppliers and dramatically increased its program of rearming the French military in a last-minute catch up with the Germans.
Appeasement of Germany in cooperation with Britain was the policy after 1936, as France sought peace even in the face of Hitler’s escalating demands. Édouard Daladier refused to go to war against Germany and Italy without British support as Neville Chamberlain wanted to save peace at Munich in 1938.
31.2.3: The United Kingdom and Appeasement
Vivid memories of the horrors and deaths of the World War made Britain and its leaders strongly inclined to pacifism in the interwar era, exemplified by their policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany, which led to the German annexation of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia.
Learning Objective
Explain why Prime Minister Chamberlain followed the policy of appeasement
Key Points
World War I was won by Britain and its allies at a terrible human and financial cost, creating a sentiment to avoid war at all costs.
The theory that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances and that by removing the source of these grievances the dictatorship would become less aggressive led to Britain’s policy of appeasement.
One major example of appeasement was when Britain learned of Hitler’s intention to annex Austria, which Chamberlain’s government decided it was unable to stop and thus acquiesced to what later became known as the Anschluss of March 1938.
When Germany intended to annex parts of Czechoslovakia, Britain and other European powers came together without consulting Czechoslovakia and created the Munich Agreement, allowing Hitler to take over portions of Czechoslovakia named the Sudetenland.
Key Terms
Munich Agreement
A settlement permitting Nazi Germany’s annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia along the country’s borders mainly inhabited by German speakers, for which a new territorial designation “Sudetenland” was coined.
appeasement
A diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict.
Anschluss
The Nazi propaganda term for the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938.
The Policy of Appeasement
World War I was won by Britain and its allies at a terrible human and financial cost, creating a sentiment that wars should be avoided at all costs. The League of Nations was founded with the idea that nations could resolve their differences peacefully. As with many in Europe who had witnessed the horrors of the First World War and its aftermath, United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was committed to peace. The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive. His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain “the general policy of appeasement.”
Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement emerged from the failures of the League of Nations and of collective security. The League of Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War I in the hope that international cooperation and collective resistance to aggression might prevent another war. Members of the League were entitled to assist other members if they came under attack. The policy of collective security ran in parallel with measures to achieve international disarmament and where possible was based on economic sanctions against an aggressor. It appeared ineffectual when confronted by the aggression of dictators, notably Germany’s Remilitarization of the Rhineland and Italian leader Benito Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia.
Anschluss
The first European crisis of Chamberlain’s premiership was over the German annexation of Austria. The Nazi regime was already behind the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss in 1934 and was now pressuring Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg. Informed of Germany’s objectives, Chamberlain’s government decided it was unable to stop these events and acquiesced to what later became known as the Anschluss of March 1938. Although the victorious Allies of World War I had prohibited the union of Austria and Germany, their reaction to the Anschluss was mild. Even the strongest voices against annexation, those of Fascist Italy, France, and Britain, were not backed by force. In the House of Commons Chamberlain said that “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.” The American reaction was similar. The international reaction to the events of March 12, 1938 led Hitler to conclude that he could use even more aggressive tactics in his plan to expand the Third Reich. The Anschluss paved the way for Munich in September 1938 because it indicated the likely non-response of Britain and France to future German aggression.
Anschluss
Immediately after the Anschluss, Vienna’s Jews were forced to wash pro-independence slogans from the city’s pavements.
Photo of Jews washing the streets with Germany soldiers looking over them.
The Sudetenland Crisis and the Munich Agreement
The second crisis came over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, home to a large ethnic German minority. Under the guise of seeking self-determination for the Sudeten Germans, Hitler planned to launch a war of aggression on October 1, 1938. In an effort to defuse the looming crisis, Chamberlain followed a strategy of pressuring Prague to make concessions to the ethnic Germans while warning Berlin about the dangers of war. The problems of the tight wire act were well-summarized by the Chancellor the Exchequer Sir John Simon in a diary entry during the May Crisis of 1938:
We are endeavoring at one & the same time, to restrain Germany by warning her that she must not assume we could remain neutral if she crossed the frontier; to stimulate Prague to make concessions; and to make sure that France will not take some rash action such as mobilization (when has mobilization been anything but a prelude to war?), under the delusion that we would join her in defense of Czechoslovakia. We won’t and can’t-but an open declaration to this effect would only give encouragement to Germany’s intransigence.
In a letter to his sister, Chamberlain wrote that he would contact Hitler to tell him “The best thing you [Hitler] can do is tell us exactly what you want for your Sudeten Germans. If it is reasonable we will urge the Czechs to accept and if they do, you must give assurances that you will let them alone in the future.”
Out of these attitudes grew what is known as the Munich Agreement, signed on September 30, 1938, a settlement permitting Nazi Germany’s annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia along the country’s borders mainly inhabited by German speakers. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of the Sudetenland in the face of ethnic demands made by Adolf Hitler. The agreement was signed by Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border defenses and banks were situated there along with heavy industrial districts. Because the state of Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference, it considered itself betrayed and refers to this agreement as the “Munich Betrayal.”
Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Nazi Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government, realizing the hopelessness of fighting the Nazis alone, reluctantly capitulated and agreed to abide by the agreement. The settlement gave Germany the Sudetenland starting October 10 and de facto control over the rest of Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler promised to go no further. On September 30 after some rest, Chamberlain went to Hitler and asked him to sign a peace treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany. After Hitler’s interpreter translated it for him, he happily agreed.
Munich Agreement
From left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Ciano pictured before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany.
A photo of Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Ciano pictured before signing the Munich Agreement.
31.2.4: American Isolationism
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress continued to demand American neutrality, but President Roosevelt and the American public began to support war with Nazi Germany by 1941.
Learning Objective
Describe why the United States initially stayed out of the war
Key Points
In the wake of the First World War, non-interventionist tendencies of U.S. foreign policy and resistance to the League of Nations gained ascendancy, led by Republicans in the Senate such as William Borah and Henry Cabot Lodge.
Although the U.S. was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they continued to engage in international negotiations and treaties that sought international peace.
The economic depression that ensued after the Crash of 1929 further committed the United States to doctrine of isolationism, the nation focusing instead on economic recovery.
Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts, which included an act forbidding Americans from sailing on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trading arms with warring nations.
When the war broke out in Europe after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, the American people split into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists.
As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the U.S. was on a course to war.
By late 1941, 72% of Americans agreed that “the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government,” and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.
Key Terms
Lend-Lease Act
A program under which the United States supplied Free France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of China, and later the USSR and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945.
Kellogg–Briand Pact
A 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”
Interwar Period
In the wake of the First World War, non-interventionist tendencies of U.S. foreign policy gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles and thus U.S. participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Republican-dominated Senate in the final months of Wilson’s presidency. A group of senators known as the Irreconcilables, identifying with both William Borah and Henry Cabot Lodge, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Lodge, echoing Wilson, issued 14 Reservations regarding the treaty; among them, the second argued that America would sign only with the understanding that:
Nothing compels the United States to ensure border contiguity or political independence of any nation, to interfere in foreign domestic disputes regardless of their status in the League, or to command troops or ships without Congressional declaration of war.
While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, some bore a reassertion of nativist and inward-looking policy.
Although the U.S. was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they continued to engage in international negotiations and treaties. In August 1928, 15 nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. This pact, said to outlaw war and show the U.S. commitment to international peace, had its semantic flaws. For example, it did not hold the U.S. to the conditions of any existing treaties, still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it. The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the U.S. than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.
The economic depression that ensued after the Crash of 1929 also encouraged non-intervention. The country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy while the rise of aggressive expansionism policies by Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan led to conflicts such as the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations, while official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutal Spanish Civil War.
Non-Intervention Before Entering WWII
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the U.S. Congress continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities played a role in American entrance into World War I.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American people two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war. However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said. Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the U.S., he still echoed the dangers of staying out of the war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.
The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The sides argued over America’s involvement in this Second World War. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.” A national survey found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported “arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble”, and that 71% favored “the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men.”
Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the U.S. and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. Writer Archibald MacLeish asked, “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?” In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”
However, there were many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well-organized and had a powerful presence in Congress. Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I. “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,” Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay. Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war.
“No Foreign Entanglements”
Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
A photo of a protester’s sign reading “No foreign entanglements.”
As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the U.S. was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the U.S. to trade arms with belligerent nations as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms and paid for them in cash. This policy was quickly dubbed “Cash and Carry. The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941, which allowed the President “to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'” American public opinion supported Roosevelt’s actions. As U.S. involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic grew with incidents such as the sinking of the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that “the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government,” and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.
31.3: Hostilities Commence
31.3.1: September 1, 1939
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland under the false pretext that the Poles had carried out a series of sabotage operations against German targets near the border, an event that caused Britain and France to declare war on Germany.
Learning Objective
Summarize the events of September 1, 1939
Key Points
Following several staged incidents that German propaganda used as a pretext to claim that German forces were acting in self-defense, the first regular act of war took place on September 1, 1939, when the Luftwaffe attacked the Polish town of Wieluń, destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people, most of them civilians.
As the Wehrmacht advanced, Polish forces withdrew from their forward bases of operation close to the Polish-German border to more established lines of defense to the east. After the mid-September Polish defeat in the Battle of the Bzura, the Germans gained an undisputed advantage.
On September 3 after a British ultimatum to Germany to cease military operations was ignored, Britain and France declared war on Germany.
On October 8, after an initial period of military administration, Germany directly annexed western Poland and the former Free City of Danzig and placed the remaining block of territory under the administration of the newly established General Government.
Key Terms
Gleiwitz incident
A false flag operation by Nazi forces posing as Poles on August 31, 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany on the eve of World War II in Europe. The goal was to use the staged attack as a pretext for invading Poland.
Battle of the Border
Refers to the battles that occurred in the first days of the German invasion of Poland in September, 1939; the series of battles ended in a German victory as Polish forces were either destroyed or forced to retreat.
The Invasion of Poland
The Invasion of Poland, also known as the September Campaign, was a joint invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the Free City of Danzig, the Soviet Union, and a small Slovak contingent that marked the beginning of World War II in Europe. The German invasion began on September 1, 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, while the Soviet invasion commenced on September 17 following the Molotov-Tōgō agreement that terminated the Russian and Japanese hostilities in the east on September 16. The campaign ended on October 6 with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland under the terms of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty.
German forces invaded Poland from the north, south, and west the morning after the Gleiwitz incident. As the Wehrmacht advanced, Polish forces withdrew from their forward bases of operation close to the Polish-German border to more established lines of defense to the east. After the mid-September Polish defeat in the Battle of the Bzura, the Germans gained an undisputed advantage. Polish forces then withdrew to the southeast where they prepared for a long defense of the Romanian Bridgehead and awaited expected support and relief from France and the United Kingdom. While those two countries had pacts with Poland and declared war on Germany on September 3, in the end their aid to Poland was limited.
The Soviet Red Army’s invasion of Eastern Poland on September 17, in accordance with a secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, rendered the Polish plan of defense obsolete. Facing a second front, the Polish government concluded that defense of the Romanian Bridgehead was no longer feasible and ordered an emergency evacuation of all troops to neutral Romania. On October 6, following the Polish defeat at the Battle of Kock, German and Soviet forces gained full control over Poland. The success of the invasion marked the end of the Second Polish Republic, though Poland never formally surrendered.
On October 8, after an initial period of military administration, Germany directly annexed western Poland and the former Free City of Danzig and placed the remaining block of territory under the administration of the newly established General Government. The Soviet Union incorporated its newly acquired areas into its constituent Belarusian and Ukrainian republics and immediately started a campaign of sovietization. In the aftermath of the invasion, a collective of underground resistance organizations formed the Polish Underground State within the territory of the former Polish state. Many military exiles who managed to escape Poland subsequently joined the Polish Armed Forces in the West, an armed force loyal to the Polish government in exile.
The Invasion of Poland
This map shows the beginning of World War II in September 1939 in a European context. The Second Polish Republic, one of the three original allies of World War II, was invaded and divided between the Third Reich and Soviet Union, acting together in line with the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, dividing Central and Eastern Europe between the two countries. The Polish allies of that time were France and Great Britain.
A map of Europe depicting the Invasion of Poland from Germany and the Soviet Union.
Details of September 1 Invasion
Following several staged incidents (like the Gleiwitz incident, part of Operation Himmler), in which German propaganda was used as a pretext to claim that German forces were acting in self-defense, the first regular act of war took place on September 1, 1939, when the Luftwaffe attacked the Polish town of Wieluń, destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people, mostly civilians. This invasion subsequently began World War II. Five minutes later, the old German pre-dreadnought battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish military transit depot at Westerplatte in the Free City of Danzig on the Baltic Sea. Four hours later, German troops—still without a formal declaration of war issued—attacked near the Polish town of Mokra. The Battle of the Border had begun. Later that day, Germans attacked on Poland’s western, southern and northern borders while German aircraft began raids on Polish cities. The main axis of attack led eastwards from Germany proper through the western Polish border. Supporting attacks came from East Prussia in the north and a co-operative German-Slovak tertiary attack by units from German-allied Slovakia in the south. All three assaults converged on the Polish capital of Warsaw.
Invasion of Poland
Soldiers of the German Wehrmacht tearing down the border crossing between Poland and the Free City of Danzig, September 1, 1939.
Photo of several German soldiers dismantling a border gate during the Invasion of Poland.
War Erupts
On September 3 after a British ultimatum to Germany to cease military operations was ignored, Britain and France, followed by the fully independent Dominions of the British Commonwealth—Australia (3 September), Canada (10 September), New Zealand (3 September), and South Africa (6 September)—declared war on Germany. However, initially the alliance provided limited direct military support to Poland, consisting of a cautious, half-hearted French probe into the Saarland.
The German-French border saw only a few minor skirmishes, although the majority of German forces, including 85% of their armored forces, were engaged in Poland. Despite some Polish successes in minor border battles, German technical, operational, and numerical superiority forced the Polish armies to retreat from the borders towards Warsaw and Lwów. The Luftwaffe gained air superiority early in the campaign. By destroying communications, the Luftwaffe increased the pace of the advance, overrunning Polish airstrips and early warning sites and causing logistical problems for the Poles. Many Polish Air Force units ran low on supplies, and 98 withdrew into then-neutral Romania. The Polish initial strength of 400 was reduced to just 54 by September 14, and air opposition virtually ceased.
The Western Allies also began a naval blockade of Germany, which aimed to damage the country’s economy and war effort. Germany responded by ordering U-boat warfare against Allied merchant and warships, which later escalated into the Battle of the Atlantic.
31.3.2: German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship
The German-Soviet Treaty of Friendship was a secret supplementary protocol of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, signed on September 28, 1939, by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union after their joint invasion and occupation of sovereign Poland that delineated the spheres of interest between the two powers.
Learning Objective
Argue for and against the Soviet Union’s decision to sign the Treaty of Friendship with the Third Reich
Key Points
The German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation was a secret supplementary protocol of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, amended on September 28, 1939, by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union after their joint invasion and occupation of sovereign Poland.
These amendments allowed for the exchange of Soviet and German nationals between the two occupied zones of Poland, redrew parts of the central European spheres of interest dictated by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and stated that neither party to the treaty would allow on its territory any “Polish agitation” directed at the other party.
The existence of this secret protocol was denied by the Soviet government until 1989, when it was finally acknowledged and denounced.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact, was a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, that delineated the spheres of interest between the two powers.
Key Terms
Wehrmacht
The unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1946, including army (Heer), navy (Kriegsmarine), and air force (Luftwaffe).
German-Soviet Frontier Treaty
Also known as the The German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation, this treaty was a secret clause amended on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on September 28, 1939, by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union after their joint invasion and occupation of sovereign Poland.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
A neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939.
The German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation (later known as the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty) was a second supplementary protocol of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact. It was a secret clause as amended on September 28, 1939, by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union after their joint invasion and occupation of sovereign Poland and thus after the beginning of World War II. It was signed by Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, the foreign ministers of Germany and the Soviet Union respectively, in the presence of Joseph Stalin. The treaty was a follow-up to the first secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed on August 23, 1939, between the two countries prior to their invasion of Poland and the start of World War II in Europe. Only a small portion of the protocol which superseded the first treaty was publicly announced, while the spheres of influence of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union remained classified. The third secret protocol of the Pact was signed on January 10, 1941 by Friedrich Werner von Schulenberg and Molotov, in which Germany renounced its claims to portions of Lithuania only a few months before its anti-Soviet Operation Barbarossa.
Secret Articles
Several secret articles were attached to the treaty. These allowed for the exchange of Soviet and German nationals between the two occupied zones of Poland, redrew parts of the central European spheres of interest dictated by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and stated that neither party would allow on its territory any “Polish agitation” directed at the other party.
During the western invasion of Poland, the German Wehrmacht had taken control of the Lublin Voivodeship and eastern Warsaw Voivodeship, territories that according to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact were in the Soviet sphere of influence. To compensate the Soviet Union for this “loss,” the treaty’s secret attachment transferred Lithuania to the Soviet sphere of influence, with the exception of a small territory in the Suwałki Region sometimes known as the Suwałki Triangle. After this transfer, the Soviet Union issued an ultimatum to Lithuania, occupied it on June 15, 1940, and established the Lithuanian SSR.
The existence of this secret protocol was denied by the Soviet government until 1989, when it was finally acknowledged and denounced. Some time later, the new Russian revisionists, including historians Alexander Dyukov and Nataliya Narotchnitskaya, described the pact as a necessary measure because of the British and French failure to enter into an anti-fascist pact. Vladimir Putin has also defended the pact.
German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship
Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signs the German–Soviet Pact in Moscow, September 28, 1939; behind him are Richard Schulze-Kossens (Ribbentrop’s adjutant), Boris Shaposhnikov (Red Army Chief of Staff), Joachim von Ribbentrop, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Pavlov (Soviet translator). Alexey Shkvarzev (Soviet ambassador in Berlin), stands next to Molotov.
Several Soviet and German officials, including Joseph Stalin, witnessing the signing of the German-Soviety Treaty of Friendship.
Background: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact, was a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939 by foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, respectively.
The pact delineated the spheres of interest between the two powers, confirmed by the supplementary protocol of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty amended after the joint invasion of Poland. The pact remained in force for nearly two years until the German government of Adolf Hitler launched an attack on the Soviet positions in Eastern Poland during Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.
The clauses of the Nazi-Soviet Pact provided a written guarantee of non-belligerence by each party towards the other and a declared commitment that neither government would ally itself to or aid an enemy of the other party. In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Romania into German and Soviet “spheres of influence,” anticipating “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, a day after the Soviet–Japanese ceasefire agreement came into effect. In November, parts of southeastern Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania. Advertised concern about ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians had been proffered as justification for the Soviet invasion of Poland. Stalin’s invasion of Bukovina in 1940 violated the pact as it went beyond the Soviet sphere of influence agreed with the Axis.
31.3.3: Dunkirk and Vichy France
The Dunkirk evacuation was the removal of Allied soldiers from the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk by the attack of German soldiers, which started as a disaster but soon became a miraculous triumph.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the success or failure of the evacuation at Dunkirk
Key Points
During the 1930s, the French constructed the Maginot Line, a series of fortifications along their border with Germany.
The area immediately to the north of the Maginot Line was covered by the heavily wooded Ardennes region, which French General Philippe Pétain declared to be “impenetrable” as long as “special provisions” were taken.
The German army decided to attach through the Ardennes region, then establish bridgeheads on the Meuse River and rapidly drive to the English Channel. This would cut off the Allied armies in Belgium and Flanders.
When this occurred and the French army was surrounded, the British decided on a plan of evacuation.
On the first day of the evacuation, only 7,669 men were evacuated, but by the end of the eighth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers had been rescued by a hastily assembled fleet of over 800 boats.
More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of southwest England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated.
In his speech to the House of Commons on June 4, Churchill reminded the country that “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.”
Key Terms
Vichy France
The common name of the French State during World War II, specifically the southern, unoccupied “Free Zone,” as Germany militarily occupied northern France.
Maginot Line
A line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations that France constructed on the French side of its borders with Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg during the 1930s.
Dunkirk evacuation
The evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk, France, between May 26 and June 4, 1940, during World War II.
Dunkirk Evacuation
The Dunkirk evacuation, code-named Operation Dynamo and also known as the Miracle of Dunkirk, was the evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, France between May 26 and June 4, 1940, during World War II. The operation was decided upon when large numbers of Belgian, British, and French troops were cut off and surrounded by the German army during the Battle of France. In a speech to the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the events in France “a colossal military disaster,” saying “the whole root and core and brain of the British Army” had been stranded at Dunkirk and seemed about to perish or be captured. In his We shall fight on the beaches speech on June 4, he hailed their rescue as a “miracle of deliverance.”
On the first day of the evacuation, only 7,669 men were evacuated, but by the end of the eighth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers had been rescued by a hastily assembled fleet of over 800 boats. Many troops were able to embark from the harbor’s protective mole onto 39 British destroyers and other large ships, while others had to wade out from the beaches, waiting for hours in the shoulder-deep water. Some were ferried from the beaches to the larger ships by what came to be known as the little ships of Dunkirk, a flotilla of hundreds of merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft, and lifeboats called into service for the emergency. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) lost 68,000 soldiers during the French campaign and had to abandon nearly all of their tanks, vehicles, and other equipment.
In his speech to the House of Commons on June 4, Churchill reminded the country that “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.”
More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of southwest England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated. British ships ferried French troops to Brest, Cherbourg, and other ports in Normandy and Brittany, although only about half of the repatriated troops were deployed against the Germans before the surrender of France. For many French soldiers, the Dunkirk evacuation represented only a few weeks’ delay before being killed or captured by the German army after their return to France. Of the French soldiers evacuated from France in June 1940, about 3,000 joined Charles de Gaulle’s Free French army in Britain.
Dunkirk Evacuation
British troops evacuating Dunkirk’s beaches.
Photo of British troops on a ship bringing French troops aboard, who are lined up in the water.
Background
In 1939, after Nazi Germany invaded Poland marking the beginning of the Second World War, the United Kingdom sent the BEF to aid in the defense of France, landing troops at Cherbourg, Nantes, and Saint-Nazaire. By May 1940 the force consisted of ten divisions in three corps under the command of General John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort. Working with the BEF were the Belgian Army and the French First, Seventh, and Ninth Armies.
During the 1930s, the French constructed the Maginot Line, a series of fortifications along their border with Germany. This line was designed to deter a German invasion across the Franco-German border and funnel an attack into Belgium, where it would be met by the best divisions of the French Army. Thus, any future war would take place outside of French territory, avoiding a repeat of the First World War. The area immediately to the north of the Maginot Line was covered by the heavily wooded Ardennes region, which French General Philippe Pétain declared to be “impenetrable” as long as “special provisions” were taken. He believed that any enemy force emerging from the forest would be vulnerable to a pincer attack and destroyed. The French commander-in-chief, Maurice Gamelin, also believed the area to be of limited threat, noting that it “never favoured large operations.” With this in mind, the area was left lightly defended.
The initial plan for the German invasion of France called for an encirclement attack through the Netherlands and Belgium, avoiding the Maginot Line. Erich von Manstein, then Chief of Staff of the German Army Group A, prepared the outline of a different plan and submitted it to the OKH (German High Command) via his superior, Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt. Manstein’s plan suggested that Panzer divisions should attack through the Ardennes, then establish bridgeheads on the Meuse River and rapidly drive to the English Channel. The Germans would thus cut off the Allied armies in Belgium and Flanders. This part of the plan later became known as the Sichelschnitt (“sickle cut”). Adolf Hitler approved a modified version of Manstein’s ideas, today known as the Manstein Plan, after meeting with him on February 17.
On May 10, Germany attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. Army Group B, under Generaloberst Fedor von Bock, attacked into Belgium, while the three Panzer corps of Army Group A under Rundstedt swung around to the south and drove for the Channel. The BEF advanced from the Belgian border to positions along the River Dyle within Belgium, where they fought elements of Army Group B starting on May 10. They were ordered to begin a fighting withdrawal to the Escaut River on May 14 when the Belgian and French positions on their flanks failed to hold. During a visit to Paris on May 17, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was astonished to learn from Gamelin that the French had committed all their troops to the ongoing engagements and had no strategic reserves.
On May 19, Gort met with French General Gaston Billotte, commander of the French First Army and overall coordinator of the Allied forces. Billotte revealed that the French had no troops between the Germans and the sea. Gort immediately saw that evacuation across the Channel was the best course of action and began planning a withdrawal to Dunkirk, the closest location with good port facilities. Surrounded by marshes, Dunkirk boasted old fortifications and the longest sand beach in Europe, where large groups could assemble. After continued engagements and a failed Allied attempt on May 21 at Arras to cut through the German spearhead, the BEF was trapped along with the remains of the Belgian forces and the three French armies in an area along the northern French coast. By May 24, the Germans had captured the port of Boulogne and surrounded Calais. Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, which called for the Luftwaffe to defeat the trapped Allied forces and stop their escape. On May 26, Hitler ordered the panzer groups to continue their advance, but most units took another 16 hours to attack. The delay gave the Allies time to prepare defenses vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille.
The Halt Order has been the subject of much discussion by historians. Guderian considered the failure to order a timely assault on Dunkirk to be one of the major German mistakes on the Western Front. Rundstedt called it “one of the great turning points of the war,” and Manstein described it as “one of Hitler’s most critical mistakes.”
Vichy France
Vichy France is the common name of the French State headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain during World War II. In particular, it represents the unoccupied “Free Zone” (zone libre) that governed the southern part of the country.
From 1940 to 1942, while the Vichy regime was the nominal government of France as a whole, Germany’s military occupied northern France. Thus, while Paris remained the de jure capital of France, the de facto capital of southern “unoccupied” France was the town of Vichy, 360 km to the south. Following the Allied landings in French North Africa in November 1942, southern France was also militarily occupied by Germany and Italy. The Vichy government remained in existence, but as a de facto client and puppet of Nazi Germany. It vanished in late 1944 when the Allies occupied all of France.
The French State maintained nominal sovereignty over the whole of French territory, but had effective full sovereignty only in the Free Zone. It had limited civil authority in the northern zones under military occupation. The occupation was to be provisional pending the conclusion of the war, which at the time appeared imminent. The occupation also presented certain advantages, such as keeping the French Navy and the colonial empire under French control and avoiding full occupation of the country by Germany, thus maintaining a meaningful degree of French independence and neutrality. The French Government at Vichy never joined the Axis alliance.
31.4: The European Front
31.4.1: The Battle of Britain
The Battle of Britain, when the British Royal Air Force defended the United Kingdom against the German Air Force attacks, was the first major Nazi defeat and a turning point of World War II.
Learning Objective
Describe the Battle of Britain
Key Points
The Battle of Britain began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbors.
On July 19, Hitler publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this ultimatum.
The main German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, and a proposed invasion called Operation Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on September 17.
The German strategic bombing offensive intensified as night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.
The Nazi failure in the Battle of Britain is seen as a turning point in the war toward German defeat.
Key Terms
The Blitz
The name borrowed by the British press and applied to the heavy and frequent bombing raids carried out over Britain in 1940 and 1941 during the Second World War.
Royal Air Force
The United Kingdom’s aerial warfare force; formed towards the end of the First World War on 1 April 1918, it is the oldest independent air force in the world.
Operation Sea Lion
Nazi Germany’s code name for a provisionally proposed invasion of the United Kingdom during the Battle of Britain in the Second World War.
Luftwaffe
The aerial warfare branch of the German Wehrmacht (armed forces) during World War II.
The Battle of Britain occurred during the Second World War when the Royal Air Force (RAF) defended the United Kingdom against the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) attacks from the end of June 1940. It is described as the first major campaign fought entirely by air forces.
The primary objective of the Nazi German forces was to compel Britain to agree to a negotiated peace settlement. In July 1940, the air and sea blockade began with the Luftwaffe mainly targeting coastal shipping convoys, ports, and shipping centers such as Portsmouth. On August 1, the Luftwaffe was directed to achieve air superiority over RAF with the aim of incapacitating RAF Fighter Command. Twelve days later, it shifted the attacks to RAF airfields and infrastructure. As the battle progressed, the Luftwaffe also targeted factories involved in aircraft production and strategic infrastructure and eventually employed terror bombing on areas of political significance and civilians.
By preventing the Luftwaffe’s air superiority over the UK, the British forced Adolf Hitler to postpone and eventually cancel Operation Sea Lion, a proposed amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain. However, Nazi Germany continued bombing operations on Britain, known as the Blitz. The failure to destroy Britain’s air defenses to force an armistice (or even outright surrender) is considered the Nazis’ first major defeat in World War II and a crucial turning point in the conflict.
Several reasons have been suggested for the failure of the German air offensive. The Luftwaffe High Command did not develop a strategy for destroying British war industry; instead of maintaining pressure on any of them, it frequently switched from one type of industry to another. Neither was the Luftwaffe equipped to carry out strategic bombing; the lack of a heavy bomber and poor intelligence on British industry denied it the ability to prevail.
Battle of Britain
Nazi Heinkel He 111 bombers during the Battle of Britain
Photo of six Nazi planes in flight during the Battle of Britain.
Background
The early stages of World War II saw successful German invasions on the continent aided by the air power of the Luftwaffe, which was able to establish tactical air superiority with great efficiency. The speed with which German forces defeated most of the defending armies in Norway in early 1940 created a significant political crisis in Britain. In early May 1940, the Norway Debate questioned the fitness for office of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. On May 10, the same day Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister, the Germans initiated the Battle of France with an aggressive invasion of French territory. RAF Fighter Command was desperately short of trained pilots and aircraft, but despite the objections of its commander Hugh Dowding that the diversion of his forces would leave home defenses weak, Churchill sent fighter squadrons to support operations in France, where the RAF suffered heavy losses.
After the evacuation of British and French soldiers from Dunkirk and the French surrender on June 22, 1940, Hitler mainly focused his energies on the possibility of invading the Soviet Union in the belief that the British, defeated on the continent and without European allies, would quickly come to terms. The Germans were so convinced of an imminent armistice that they began constructing street decorations for the homecoming parades of victorious troops. Although the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, and certain elements of the British public favored negotiated peace with an ascendant Germany, Churchill and a majority of his Cabinet refused to consider an armistice. Instead, Churchill used his skillful rhetoric to harden public opinion against capitulation and prepare the British for a long war. In his “This was their finest hour” speech of 18 June 1940, Churchill declared:
What General Weygand has called The Battle of France is over. The battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”
From the outset of his rise to power, Hitler expressed admiration for Britain and throughout the Battle period he sought neutrality or a peace treaty. In secret conference on May 23, 1939 Hitler set out his rather contradictory strategy that an attack on Poland was essential and “will only be successful if the Western Powers keep out of it. If this is impossible, then it will be better to attack in the West and to settle Poland at the same time [with a surprise attack]. If Holland and Belgium are successfully occupied and held, and if France is also defeated, the fundamental conditions for a successful war against England will have been secured. England can then be blockaded from Western France at close quarters by the Air Force, while the Navy with its submarines extend the range of the blockade.”
The Blitz
The Blitz, from the German word “Blitzkrieg” (lightning war) was the name borrowed by the British press and applied to the heavy and frequent bombing raids carried out over Britain in 1940 and 1941 during the Second World War. This concentrated, direct bombing of industrial targets and civilian centers began with heavy raids on London on September 7, 1940, during the Battle of Britain. Adolf Hitler’s and Hermann Goering’s plans to destroy the Royal Air Force to allow an invasion of Britain were failing. In response to an RAF raid on Berlin, itself prompted by an accidental German bombing of London, they changed their tactics to the sustained bombing of civilian targets.
From September 7, 1940, one year into the war, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London. Ports and industrial centers outside London were also attacked. The main Atlantic sea port of Liverpool was bombed, causing nearly 4,000 deaths within the Merseyside area during the war. The North Sea port of Hull, a convenient and easily found target or secondary target for bombers unable to locate their primary targets, was subjected to 86 raids in the Hull Blitz during the war, with a conservative estimate of 1,200 civilians killed and 95 percent of its housing stock destroyed or damaged. Other ports, including Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, and Swansea, were also bombed, as were the industrial cities of Birmingham, Belfast, Coventry, Glasgow, Manchester, and Sheffield. Birmingham and Coventry were chosen because of the Spitfire and tank factories in Birmingham and the many munitions factories in Coventry. The city center of Coventry was almost destroyed, as was Coventry Cathedral.
The bombing failed to demoralize the British into surrender or significantly damage the war economy. The eight months of bombing never seriously hampered British production and the war industries continued to operate and expand. The Blitz was only authoried when the Luftwaffe failed to meet preconditions for a 1940 launch of Operation Sea Lion, the provisionally planned German invasion of Britain. By May 1941, the threat of an invasion of Britain had ended, and Hitler’s attention turned to Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. In comparison to the later Allied bombing campaign against Germany, the Blitz resulted in relatively few casualties; the British bombing of Hamburg in July 1943 inflicted some 42,000 civilian deaths, about the same as the entire Blitz.
The Blitz
Office workers make their way to work through debris after a heavy air raid by the German Luftwaffe.
Photo of British citizens walking to work through rubble caused by German air raids.
31.4.2: Conflict in the Atlantic
The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign in World War II, running from 1939 to the defeat of Germany in 1945. It focused on naval blockades and counter-blockades to prevent wartime supplies from reaching Britain or Germany.
Learning Objective
Explain the breadth of the conflict in the Atlantic
Key Points
The Battle of the Atlantic pitted U-boats and other warships of the German navy against the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Navy, United States Navy, and Allied merchant shipping.
At its core was the Allied naval blockade of Germany, announced the day after the declaration of war, and Germany’s subsequent counter-blockade.
In essence, the Battle of the Atlantic was a tonnage war: the Allied struggle to supply Britain and the Axis attempt to stem the flow of merchant shipping that enabled Britain to keep fighting.
The situation changed constantly, with one side or the other gaining advantage as participating countries surrendered, joined, and even changed sides, and as new weapons, tactics, counter-measures, and equipment were developed by both sides.
The Germans failed to stop the flow of strategic supplies to Britain, which resulted in the build-up of troops and supplies needed for the D-Day landings.
Key Terms
U-boat
Military submarines, especially used by the German navy in WWI and WWII; the anglicised version of the German word U-Boot, a shortening of Unterseeboot, literally “undersea boat.”
Battle of the Atlantic
The longest continuous military campaign in World War II, running from 1939 to the defeat of Germany in 1945; at its core was the Allied naval blockade of Germany, announced the day after the declaration of war, and Germany’s subsequent counter-blockade.
The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign in World War II, running from 1939 to the defeat of Germany in 1945. At its core was the Allied naval blockade of Germany, announced the day after the declaration of war, and Germany’s subsequent counter-blockade. This battle peaked from mid-1940 through to the end of 1943. The Battle of the Atlantic pitted U-boats and other warships of the Kriegsmarine (German navy) and aircraft of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) against the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Navy, United States Navy, and Allied merchant shipping. The convoys, mainly from North America and going to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, were primarily protected for the most part by the British and Canadian navies and air forces. These forces were aided by ships and aircraft of the United States from September 13, 1941. The Germans were joined by submarines of the Italian Royal Navy (Regia Marina) after their Axis ally Italy entered the war on June 10, 1940.
As an island nation, the United Kingdom was dependent on imported goods. Britain required more than a million tons of imported material per week in order to be able to survive and fight. In essence, the Battle of the Atlantic was a tonnage war: the Allied struggle to supply Britain and the Axis attempt to stem the flow of merchant shipping that enabled Britain to keep fighting. From 1942 on, the Germans sought to prevent the build-up of Allied supplies and equipment in the British Isles in preparation for the invasion of occupied Europe. The defeat of the U-boat threat was a prerequisite for pushing back the Germans. Winston Churchill later wrote,
The Battle of the Atlantic was the dominating factor all through the war. Never for one moment could we forget that everything happening elsewhere, on land, at sea or in the air depended ultimately on its outcome.— Winston ChurchillThe outcome of the battle was a strategic victory for the Allies—the German blockade failed—but at great cost: 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.
The name “Battle of the Atlantic” was coined by Winston Churchill in February 1941. It has been called the “longest, largest, and most complex” naval battle in history. It involved thousands of ships in more than 100 convoy battles and perhaps 1,000 single-ship encounters, in a theater covering thousands of square miles of ocean. The situation changed constantly, with one side or the other gaining advantage as participating countries surrendered, joined, and even changed sides, and as new weapons, tactics, counter-measures, and equipment were developed by both sides. The Allies gradually gained the upper hand, overcoming German surface raiders by the end of 1942 and defeating the U-boats by mid-1943, though losses due to U-boats continued until war’s end.
Battle of the Atlantic
Officers on the bridge of a destroyer, escorting a large convoy of ships tokeep a sharp look out for attacking enemy submarines during the Battle of the Atlantic, October 1941.
Photo of officers on the bridge of a destroyer, escorting a large convoy of ships keep a sharp look out for attacking enemy submarines.
Early Skirmishes
In 1939, the Kriegsmarine lacked the strength to challenge the combined British Royal Navy and French Navy for command of the sea. Instead, German naval strategy relied on commerce raiding using capital ships, armed merchant cruisers, submarines, and aircraft. Many German warships were already at sea when war was declared, including most of the available U-boats and the “pocket battleships” which sortied into the Atlantic in August. These ships immediately attacked British and French shipping. U-30 sank the ocean liner SS Athenia within hours of the declaration of war in breach of her orders not to sink passenger ships. The U-boat fleet which dominated so much of the Battle of the Atlantic was small at the beginning of the war; many of the 57 available U-boats were the small and short-range Type IIs, useful primarily for mine laying and operations in British coastal waters. Much of the early German anti-shipping activity involved mine laying by destroyers, aircraft, and U-boats off British ports.
With the outbreak of war, the British and French immediately began a blockade of Germany, although this had little immediate effect on German industry. The Royal Navy quickly introduced a convoy system for the protection of trade that gradually extended out from the British Isles, eventually reaching as far as Panama, Bombay, and Singapore. Convoys allowed the Royal Navy to concentrate its escorts near the one place the U-boats were guaranteed to be found, the convoys. Each convoy consisted of between 30 and 70 mostly unarmed merchant ships.
U-Boat Strategy
Early in the war, Dönitz submitted a memorandum to Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, the German navy’s Commander-in-Chief, in which he estimated effective submarine warfare could bring Britain to her knees because of her dependence on overseas commerce. He advocated a system known as the Rudeltaktik (the so-called “wolf pack”), in which U-boats would spread out in a long line across the projected course of a convoy. Upon sighting a target, they would come together to attack en masse and overwhelm any escorting warships. While escorts chased individual submarines, the rest of the “pack” would be able to attack the merchant ships with impunity. Dönitz calculated that 300 of the latest Atlantic Boats (the Type VII) would create enough havoc among Allied shipping that Britain would be knocked out of the war.
Some historians maintain that the German U-boat strategy came close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, that the Allies were almost defeated, and that Britain was brought to the brink of starvation. Others, including Blair and Alan Levin, disagree.
The focus on U-boat successes, the “aces” and their scores, the convoys attacked, and the ships sunk, serves to camouflage the Kriegsmarine‘s manifold failures. In particular, this was because most of the ships sunk by U-boat were not in convoys, but sailing alone.
At no time during the campaign were supply lines to Britain interrupted; even during the Bismarck crisis, convoys sailed as usual (although with heavier escorts). In all, during the Atlantic Campaign only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only about 10%were lost. More than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully.
Outcomes
The Germans failed to stop the flow of strategic supplies to Britain, resulting in the build-up of troops and supplies needed for the D-Day landings. The defeat of the U-boat was a necessary precursor for accumulation of Allied troops and supplies to ensure Germany’s defeat.
Victory was achieved at a huge cost: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships (totaling 14.5 million gross tons) and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives. The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-quarters of Germany’s 40,000-man U-boat fleet.
31.4.3: Operation Barbarossa
In June 1941, the German army launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theater of war in history and trapping most of the Axis’ military forces in a war of attrition.
Learning Objective
Analyze the significance of Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union
Key Points
Operation Barbarossa was the code name for Nazi Germany’s World War II invasion of the Soviet Union, which began on June 22, 1941.
The operation was driven by Adolf Hitler’s ideological desire to destroy the Soviet Union as outlined in his 1925 manifesto Mein Kampf, which characterized Eastern Europeans as “sub-humans.”
The Germans won resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the Soviet Union, mainly in Ukraine, both inflicting and sustaining heavy casualties.
Despite their successes, the German offensive stalled on the outskirts of Moscow and was subsequently pushed back by a Soviet counteroffensive, bolstered by the fact that the German army was unprepared for the harsh Soviet winter.
The failure of Operation Barbarossa was a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich, including opening up the Eastern Front, to which more forces were committed than in any other theater of war in world history, and transforming the perception of the Soviet Union from aggressor to victim.
Key Terms
Einsatzgruppen
Paramilitary death squads of Nazi Germany that were responsible for mass killings, primarily by shooting, during World War II.
Weltanschauungen
A particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group.
Mein Kampf
An autobiography by the National Socialist leader Adolf Hitler, in which he outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany; German for “my struggle.”
Operation Barbarossa was the code name for Nazi Germany’s World War II invasion of the Soviet Union, which began on June 22, 1941. The operation was driven by Adolf Hitler’s ideological desire to destroy the Soviet Union as outlined in his 1925 manifesto Mein Kampf.
Setting the Stage for the Invasion
In the two years leading up to the invasion, the two countries signed political and economic pacts for strategic purposes. Nevertheless, on December 18, 1940, Hitler authorized an invasion of the Soviet Union with a planned start date of May 15, 1941. The actual invasion began on June 22, 1941. Over the course of the operation, about four million Axis soldiers invaded the Soviet Union along a 1,800-mile front, the largest invasion force in the history of warfare. In addition to troops, the Germans employed some 600,000 motor vehicles and between 600,000 and 700,000 horses. It transformed the perception of the Soviet Union from aggressor to victim and marked the beginning of the rapid escalation of the war, both geographically and in the formation of the Allied coalition.
The Germans won resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the Soviet Union, mainly in Ukraine, both inflicting and sustaining heavy casualties. Despite their successes, the German offensive stalled on the outskirts of Moscow and was subsequently pushed back by a Soviet counteroffensive. The Red Army repelled the Wehrmacht’s strongest blows and forced the unprepared Germany into a war of attrition. The Germans would never again mount a simultaneous offensive along the entire strategic Soviet-Axis front. The failure of the operation drove Hitler to demand further operations inside the USSR of increasingly limited scope that eventually failed, such as Case Blue and Operation Citadel.
The failure of Operation Barbarossa was a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich. Most importantly, the operation opened up the Eastern Front, to which more forces were committed than in any other theater of war in world history. The Eastern Front became the site of some of the largest battles, most horrific atrocities, and highest casualties for Soviets and Germans alike, all of which influenced the course of both World War II and the subsequent history of the 20th century. The German forces captured millions of Soviet prisoners of war who were not granted protections stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. A majority m never returned alive; Germany deliberately starved the prisoners to death as part of a “Hunger Plan” that aimed to reduce the population of Eastern Europe and then re-populate it with ethnic Germans. Over a million Soviet Jews were murdered by Einsatzgruppen death squads and gassing as part of the Holocaust.
Motivations for Invading USSR
As early as 1925, Adolf Hitler vaguely declared in his political manifesto and autobiography Mein Kampf that he would invade the Soviet Union, asserting that the German people needed to secure Lebensraum (“living space”) to ensure the survival of Germany for generations to come. On February 10, 1939, Hitler told his army commanders that the next war would be “purely a war of Weltanschauungen…totally a people’s war, a racial war.” On November 23, once World War II already started, Hitler declared that “racial war has broken out and this war shall determine who shall govern Europe, and with it, the world.” The racial policy of Nazi Germany viewed the Soviet Union (and all of Eastern Europe) as populated by non-Aryan Untermenschen (“sub-humans”), ruled by “Jewish Bolshevik conspirators.” Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that Germany’s destiny was to “turn to the East” as it did “six hundred years ago.” Accordingly, it was stated Nazi policy to kill, deport, or enslave the majority of Russian and other Slavic populations and repopulate the land with Germanic peoples, under the Generalplan Ost (“General Plan for the East”). The Germans’ belief in their ethnic superiority is discernible in official German records and by pseudoscientific articles in German periodicals at the time, which covered topics such as “how to deal with alien populations.”
Overview of the Battles
The initial momentum of the German ground and air attack completely destroyed the Soviet organizational command and control within the first few hours, paralyzing every level of command from the infantry platoon to the Soviet High Command in Moscow. Therefore, Moscow failed to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe that confronted the Soviet forces in the border area. Marshal Semyon Timoshenko called for a general counteroffensive on the entire front “without any regards for borders” that both men hoped would sweep the enemy from Soviet territory. Timoshenko’s order was not based on a realistic appraisal of the military situation at hand and resulted in devastating casualties.
Four weeks into the campaign, the Germans realized they had grossly underestimated Soviet strength. The German troops used their initial supplies without attaining the expected strategic freedom of movement. Operations were slowed to allow for resupply and adapt strategy to the new situation. Hitler had lost faith in battles of encirclement as large numbers of Soviet soldiers had escaped the pincers. He now believed he could defeat the Soviets by economic damage, depriving them of the industrial capacity to continue the war. That meant seizing the industrial center of Kharkov, the Donbass, and the oil fields of the Caucasus in the south and the speedy capture of Leningrad, a major center of military production, in the north.
After a German victory in Kiev, the Red Army no longer outnumbered the Germans and no more trained reserves were available. To defend Moscow, Stalin could field 800,000 men in 83 divisions, but no more than 25 divisions were fully effective. Operation Typhoon, the drive to Moscow, began on October 2. The Germans initially won several important battles, and the German government now publicly predicted the imminent capture of Moscow and convinced foreign correspondents of a pending Soviet collapse. On December 2, the German army advanced to within 15 miles of Moscow and could see the spires of the Kremlin, but by then the first blizzards had already begun. A reconnaissance battalion also managed to reach the town of Khimki, about 5 miles away from the Soviet capital. It captured the bridge over the Moscow-Volga Canal as well as the railway station, which marked the farthest eastern advance of German forces. But in spite of the progress made, the Wehrmacht was not equipped for winter warfare, and the bitter cold caused severe problems for their guns and equipment. Further, weather conditions grounded the Luftwaffe from conducting large-scale operations. Newly created Soviet units near Moscow now numbered over 500,000 men, and on December 5, they launched a massive counterattack as part of the Battle of Moscow that pushed the Germans back over 200 miles. By late December 1941, the Germans had lost the Battle for Moscow, and the invasion had cost the German army over 830,000 casualties in killed, wounded, captured, or missing in action.
Significance
Operation Barbarossa was the largest military operation in human history—more men, tanks, guns, and aircraft were committed than had ever been deployed before in a single offensive. Seventy-five percent of the entire German military participated. The invasion opened up the Eastern Front of World War II, the largest theater of war during that conflict, which witnessed titanic clashes of unprecedented violence and destruction for four years that resulted in the deaths of more than 26 million people. More people died fighting on the Eastern Front than in all other fighting across the globe during World War II. Damage to both the economy and landscape was enormous for the Soviets as approximately 1,710 towns and 70,000 villages were completely annihilated.
More than just ushering in untold death and devastation, Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent German failure to achieve their objectives changed the political landscape of Europe, dividing it into eastern and western blocs. The gaping political vacuum left in the eastern half of the continent was filled by the USSR when Stalin secured his territorial prizes of 1939–40 and firmly placed his Red Army in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the eastern half of Germany. As a consequence, eastern Europe became Communist in political disposition and western Europe fell under the democratic sway of the United States, a nation uncertain about its future policies in Europe. Instead of profiting the German people, Operation Barbarossa’s failure instigated untold suffering when an estimated 1.4 million ethnic Germans died as a result of their forced flight from the East to the West, whether during the German retreat or later following the surrender.
Operation Barbarossa
Clockwise from top left: German soldiers advance through Northern Russia, German flamethrower team in the Soviet Union, Soviet planes flying over German positions near Moscow, Soviet prisoners of war on the way to German prison camps, Soviet soldiers fire at German positions.
Clockwise from top left: German soldiers advance through Northern Russia, German flamethrower team in the Soviet Union, Soviet planes flying over German positions near Moscow, Soviet prisoners of war on the way to German prison camps, Soviet soldiers fire at German positions.
31.4.4: The Holocaust
The German government led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party was responsible for the Holocaust: the deliberate and systematic extermination of approximately six million Jews, 2.7 million ethnic Poles, and four million others who were deemed “unworthy of life.”
Learning Objective
Connect the events of the Holocaust to previous Anti-Semitic actions taken under the Nazi Regime
Key Points
The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew for “the catastrophe”), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed approximately six million Jews.
Other victims of Nazi crimes included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled, bringing the total number of Holocaust victims to 11 million.
The persecution and genocide were carried out in stages, culminating in what Nazis termed the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” an agenda to exterminate Jews in Europe. Initially, though, the Nazis used legal repression and forced deportation and relocation to eliminate Jews from German culture.
In 1941, as Germany conquered new territory in eastern Europe, specialized paramilitary units called Einsatzgruppen (“death squads”) murdered around two million Jews, partisans, and others, often in mass shootings.
By the end of 1942, victims were regularly transported by freight trains to extermination camps where most who survived the journey were systematically killed in gas chambers.
Key Terms
Nuremberg Laws
Antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder, mainly Jews, were classed as state subjects without citizenship rights.
Final Solution
The Nazi plan for the total extermination of the Jews during World War II, carried out in the period known as the Holocaust.
extermination camps
Camps designed and built by Nazi Germany during World War II to systematically kill millions of Jews, Slavs, and others considered “sub-human,” primarily by gassing but also in mass executions and through extreme work under starvation conditions.
genocide
The intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew for “the catastrophe”), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed approximately six million Jews. The victims included 1.5 million children and represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who resided in Europe. Some definitions of the Holocaust include the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to about 11 million. Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany, German-occupied territories, and territories held by allies of Nazi Germany.
The Plan for Genocide
From 1941 to 1945, Jews were systematically murdered in one of the deadliest genocides in history, part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and killings of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazi regime. Under the coordination of the SS and direction from the highest leadership of the Nazi Party, every arm of Germany’s bureaucracy was involved in the logistics and administration of the genocide. Other victims of Nazi crimes included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the mentally and physically disabled. A network of about 42,500 facilities in Germany and German-occupied territories was used to concentrate victims for slave labor, mass murder, and other human rights abuses. Over 200,000 people were Holocaust perpetrators.
The persecution and genocide were carried out in stages, culminating in what Nazis termed the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” an agenda to exterminate Jews in Europe. Initially, the German government passed laws to exclude Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Nazis established a network of concentration camps starting in 1933 and ghettos following the outbreak of World War II in 1939. In 1938, legal repression and resettlement turned to violence on Kristallnacht (“Night of Broken Glass”), when Jews were attacked and Jewish property was vandalized. Over 7,000 Jewish shops and more than 1,200 synagogues (roughly two-thirds of the synagogues in areas under German control) were damaged or destroyed. In 1941, as Germany conquered new territory in eastern Europe, specialized paramilitary units called Einsatzgruppen (“death squads”) murdered around two million Jews, partisans, and others, often in mass shootings. By the end of 1942, victims were regularly transported by freight trains to extermination camps where most who survived the journey were systematically killed in gas chambers. This continued until the end of World War II in Europe in April–May 1945.
Jewish armed resistance was limited. The most notable exception was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, when thousands of poorly-armed Jewish fighters held the Waffen-SS at bay for four weeks. An estimated 20,000–30,000 Jewish partisans actively fought against the Nazis and their collaborators in Eastern Europe. French Jews took part in the French Resistance, which conducted a guerrilla campaign against the Nazis and Vichy French authorities. More than 100 armed Jewish uprisings took place.
Nuremberg Laws
Racial classification chart based on the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.
Image of a poster created to classify race based on family lineage.
Distinguishing Features
All branches of Germany’s bureaucracy were engaged in the logistics that led to the genocides, turning the Third Reich into what one Holocaust scholar, Michael Berenbaum, has called “a genocidal state”:
Every arm of the country’s sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the killing process. Parish churches and the Interior Ministry supplied birth records showing who was Jewish; the Post Office delivered the deportation and denaturalization orders; the Finance Ministry confiscated Jewish property; German firms fired Jewish workers and disenfranchised Jewish stockholders.
Saul Friedländer writes that: “Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews.” He writes that some Christian churches declared that converted Jews should be regarded as part of the flock, but only up to a point. Friedländer argues that this makes the Holocaust distinctive because antisemitic policies were able to unfold without the interference of countervailing forces normally found in advanced societies, such as industry, small businesses, churches, trade unions, and other vested interests and lobby groups.
In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy. The Holocaust, however, was driven almost entirely by ideology. Israeli historian and scholar Yehuda Bauer argues:
The basic motivation [of the Holocaust] was purely ideological, rooted in an illusionary world of Nazi imagination, where an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world was opposed to a parallel Aryan quest. No genocide to date had been based so completely on myths, on hallucinations, on abstract, nonpragmatic ideology—which was then executed by very rational, pragmatic means.
The use of extermination camps (also called “death camps”) equipped with gas chambers for the systematic mass extermination of peoples was an unprecedented feature of the Holocaust. These were established at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chełmno, Jasenovac, Majdanek, Maly Trostenets, Sobibór, and Treblinka. They were built for the systematic killing of millions, primarily by gassing but also by execution and extreme work under starvation conditions. Stationary facilities built for the purpose of mass extermination resulted from earlier Nazi experimentation with poison gas during the secret Action T4 euthanasia program against mental patients. Rudolf Höss, the longest-serving commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp, said:
Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated, since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz.
Auschwitz
Hungarian Jews being selected by Nazis to be sent to the gas chamber at Auschwitz concentration camp.
A large crowd of Jews coming off trains, being selected by German soldiers for the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
31.5: The Pacific War
31.5.1: Pearl Harbor
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base on the morning of December 7, 1941, which led to the U.S. entry into World War II.
Learning Objective
Evaluate the effect the attack on Pearl Harbor had on the American nation
Key Points
Japan intended the attack on Pearl Harbor as a preventive action to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan planned in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States.
During the attacks, 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed, 2,403 Americans were killed, and 1,178 others were wounded.
The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the U.S. entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters.
Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, reciprocated by the U.S. the same day.
Key Terms
Tripartite Pact
A defensive military alliance between Germany, Japan, and Italy signed in Berlin on September 27, 1940.
Nanking Massacre
An episode of mass murder and mass rape committed by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanking, then the capital of the Republic of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory, on the morning of December 7, 1941. The attack led to the U.S. entry into World War II.
Japan intended the attack as a preventive action to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan planned in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the U.S. Over the next seven hours there were coordinated Japanese attacks on the U.S.-held Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island and on the British Empire in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
The Day of the Attack
At 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time, the base was attacked by 353 Imperial Japanese fighter planes, bombers, and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers. All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged and four sunk. All but the USS Arizona (BB-39) were later raised, and six were returned to service and went on to fight in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and one minelayer. 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed, 2,403 Americans were killed, and 1,178 others were wounded. Important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light: 29 aircraft and five midget submarines lost and 64 servicemen killed. One Japanese sailor, Kazuo Sakamaki, was captured.
The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. The following day, December 8, the United States declared war on Japan. Domestic support for non-interventionism, which had been fading since the Fall of France in 1940, disappeared entirely. Clandestine support of the United Kingdom (e.g., the Neutrality Patrol) was replaced by active alliance. Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, reciprocated by the U.S. the same day.
There were numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action by Japan. However, the lack of any formal warning, particularly while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim December 7, 1941, “a date which will live in infamy.” Because the attack happened without a declaration of war and without explicit warning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was judged by the Tokyo Trials to be a war crime.
Attack on Pearl Harbor
Photograph of Battleship Row taken from a Japanese plane at the beginning of the attack. The explosion in the center is a torpedo strike on USS West Virginia. Two attacking Japanese planes can be seen: one over USS Neosho and one over the Naval Yard.
Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island shortly after the beginning of the Pearl Harbor attack. View looks about east, with the supply depot, submarine base and fuel tank farm in the right center distance. A torpedo has just hit USS West Virginia on the far side of Ford Island (center). Other battleships moored nearby are (from left): Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee (inboard of West Virginia), Oklahoma (torpedoed and listing) alongside Maryland, and California. On the near side of Ford Island, to the left, are light cruisers Detroit and Raleigh, target and training ship Utah and seaplane tender Tangier. Raleigh and Utah have been torpedoed, and Utah is listing sharply to port. Japanese planes are visible in the right center (over Ford Island) and over the Navy Yard at right. U.S. Navy planes on the seaplane ramp are on fire. Japanese writing in the lower right states that the photograph was reproduced by authorization of the Navy Ministry.
Background
War between Japan and the U.S. was a possibility each nation had been planning for since the 1920s, and serious tensions began with Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria. Over the next decade, Japan continued to expand into China, leading to all-out war between those countries in 1937. Japan spent considerable effort trying to isolate China and achieve sufficient resource independence to attain victory on the mainland; the “Southern Operation” was designed to assist these efforts.
From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on USS Panay, the Allison incident, and the Nanking Massacre swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan. Fearing Japanese expansion, the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France provided loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China.
The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941 following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption. This caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory. On August 17, Roosevelt warned Japan that the U.S. was prepared to take steps against Japan if it attacked “neighboring countries.” The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of Southeast Asia.
The Japanese attack had several major aims. First, it intended to destroy important American fleet units, thereby preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya and enabling Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference. Second, it was hoped to buy time for Japan to consolidate its position and increase its naval strength before shipbuilding authorized by the 1940 Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory. Third, to deliver a blow to America’s ability to mobilize its forces in the Pacific, battleships were chosen as the main targets since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time. Finally, it was hoped that the attack would undermine American morale so the U.S. government would drop its demands contrary to Japanese interests and seek a compromise peace.
Aftermath of the Attack
The day after the attack, Roosevelt delivered his famous Infamy Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, calling for a formal declaration of war on the Empire of Japan. Congress obliged his request less than an hour later. On December 11, Germany and Italy, honoring their commitments under the Tripartite Pact, declared war on the United States. The pact was an earlier agreement between Germany, Italy, and Japan, which had the principal objective of limiting U.S. intervention in any conflicts involving the three nations. Congress issued a declaration of war against Germany and Italy later that same day. The UK actually declared war on Japan nine hours before the U.S. did, partially due to Japanese attacks on Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong and partially due to Winston Churchill’s promise to declare war “within the hour” of a Japanese attack on the United States.
The attack was an initial shock to all the Allies in the Pacific Theater. Further losses compounded the alarming setback. Japan attacked the Philippines hours later. Only three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk off the coast of Malaya, causing British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later to recollect,
“In all the war I never received a more direct shock. As I turned and twisted in bed the full horror of the news sank in upon me. There were no British or American capital ships in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific except the American survivors of Pearl Harbor who were hastening back to California. Over this vast expanse of waters Japan was supreme and we everywhere were weak and naked.”
31.5.2: The Battle of Midway
The Battle of Midway was a decisive naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II, won by the American navy after code-breakers discovered the date and time of the Japanese attack.
Learning Objective
Describe the events of the Battle of Midway
Key Points
This Japanese operation, like the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, sought to eliminate the United States as a strategic power in the Pacific, giving Japan a free hand in establishing supremacy in East Asia.
American cryptographers were able to determine the date and location of the planned attack, enabling the forewarned U.S. Navy to prepare its own ambush.
All four of Japan’s large aircraft carriers and a heavy cruiser were sunk, while the U.S. lost only the carrier Yorktown and a destroyer.
After Midway and the exhausting attrition of the Solomon Islands campaign, Japan’s capacity to replace its losses in material and men rapidly became insufficient to cope with mounting casualties, while the United States’ massive industrial and training capabilities made losses far easier to replace. Thus, the Midway battle was a turning point in the war.
Key Terms
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
An imperialist propaganda concept created and promulgated for occupied Asian populations during the first third of the Shōwa era by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It extended further than East Asia and promoted the cultural and economic unity of Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, and Oceanians. It also declared the intention to create a self-sufficient “bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers.”
Pacific Theater
A major theater of the war between the Allies and Japan. It was defined by the Allied powers’ Pacific Ocean Area command, which included most of the Pacific Ocean and its islands and excluded mainland Asia, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, Australia, most of the Territory of New Guinea, and the western part of the Solomon Islands.
The Battle of Midway was a decisive naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Between June 4 and 7, 1942, only six months after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the United States Navy under Admirals Chester Nimitz, Frank Jack Fletcher, and Raymond A. Spruance decisively defeated an attacking fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy under Admirals Isoroku Yamamoto, Chuichi Nagumo, and Nobutake Kondo near Midway Atoll, inflicting devastating damage on the Japanese fleet that proved irreparable. Military historian John Keegan called it “the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare.”
Reasons for the Attack
The Japanese operation, like the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, sought to eliminate the United States as a strategic power in the Pacific, giving Japan a free hand in establishing its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese hoped another demoralizing defeat would force the U.S. to capitulate in the Pacific War and thus ensure Japanese dominance in the Pacific. Luring the American aircraft carriers into a trap and occupying Midway was part of an overall “barrier” strategy to extend Japan’s defensive perimeter in response to the Doolittle air raid on Tokyo. This operation was also preparatory for further attacks against Fiji, Samoa, and Hawaii itself.
The plan was handicapped by faulty Japanese assumptions of the American reaction and poor initial dispositions. Most significantly, American cryptographers were able to determine the date and location of the planned attack, enabling the forewarned U.S. Navy to prepare its own ambush. All four of Japan’s large aircraft carriers—Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu, part of the six-carrier force that attacked Pearl Harbor six months earlier—and a heavy cruiser were sunk, while the U.S. lost only the carrier Yorktown and a destroyer. After Midway and the exhausting attrition of the Solomon Islands campaign, Japan’s capacity to replace its losses in material (particularly aircraft carriers) and men (especially well-trained pilots and maintenance crewmen) rapidly became insufficient to cope with mounting casualties, while the United States’ massive industrial and training capabilities made losses far easier to replace. The Battle of Midway, along with the Guadalcanal Campaign, is considered a turning point in the Pacific War.
USS Yorktown
Yorktown at the moment of impact of a torpedo from a Nakajima B5N of Lieutenant Hashimoto’s 2nd fleet.
USS Yorktown ship just hit by torpedo fire, surrounded by smoke.
The Role of Code-Breaking
American Admiral Chester Nimitz had one priceless advantage going into battle: US cryptanalysts had partially broken the Japanese Navy’s JN-25b code. Since early 1942, the US had been decoding messages stating that there would soon be an operation at objective “AF”. It was initially not known where “AF” was, but Commander Joseph Rochefort and his team at Station HYPO were able to confirm that it was Midway; Captain Wilfred Holmes devised a ruse of telling the base at Midway (by secure undersea cable) to broadcast an uncoded radio message stating that Midway’s water purification system had broken down. Within 24 hours, the code breakers picked up a Japanese message that “AF was short on water.” No Japanese radio operators who intercepted the message seemed concerned that the Americans were broadcasting uncoded that a major naval installation close to the Japanese threat ring was having a water shortage, which could have tipped off Japanese intelligence officers that it was a deliberate attempt at deception. HYPO was also able to determine the date of the attack as either June 4 or 5 and provide Nimitz with a complete IJN order of battle. Japan had a new codebook, but its introduction was delayed, enabling HYPO to read messages for several crucial days. The new code came into use on May 24 and took several days to crack, but the important breaks had already been made.
As a result, the Americans entered the battle with a very good picture of where, when, and in what strength the Japanese would appear. Nimitz knew that the Japanese had negated their numerical advantage by dividing their ships into four separate task groups, all too widely separated to support each other. This dispersal resulted in few fast ships being available to escort the Carrier Striking Force, reducing the number of anti-aircraft guns protecting the carriers. Nimitz calculated that the aircraft on his three carriers plus those on Midway Island gave the U.S. rough parity with Yamamoto’s four carriers, mainly because American carrier air groups were larger than Japanese ones. The Japanese, by contrast, remained mainly unaware of their opponent’s true strength and dispositions even after the battle began.
The Battle
As anticipated by Nimitz, the Japanese fleet arrived off Midway on June 4 and was spotted by PBY patrol aircraft. Nagumo executed a first strike against Midway, while Fletcher launched his aircraft for Nagumo’s carriers. At 09:20 the first U.S. carrier aircraft arrived, TBD Devastator torpedo bombers from Hornet, but their attacks were poorly coordinated and ineffectual; thanks in part to faulty aerial torpedoes, they failed to score a single hit and all 15 were wiped out by defending Zero fighters. At 09:35, 15 additional TBDs from Enterprise attacked and 14 were lost, again with no hits. Thus far, Fletcher’s attacks were disorganized and seemingly ineffectual, but succeeded in drawing Nagumo’s defensive fighters down to sea level where they expended much of their fuel and ammunition repulsing the two waves of torpedo bombers. As a result, when U.S. dive bombers arrived at high altitude, the Zeros were poorly positioned to defend. To make matters worse, Nagumo’s four carriers drifted out of formation in their efforts to avoid torpedoes, reducing the concentration of their anti-aircraft fire. Nagumo’s indecision had also created confusion aboard his carriers. Alerted to the need of a second strike on Midway but wary of the need to deal with the American carriers that he now knew were in the vicinity, Nagumo twice changed the arming orders for his aircraft. As a result, the American dive bombers found the Japanese carriers with their decks cluttered with munitions as the crews worked hastily to properly re-arm their air groups.
With the Japanese CAP out of position and the carriers at their most vulnerable, SBD Dauntlesses from Enterprise and Yorktown appeared at an altitude of 10,000 feet (3,000 m) and commenced their attack, quickly dealing fatal blows to three fleet carriers: Sōryū, Kaga, and Akagi. Within minutes, all three were ablaze and had to be abandoned with great loss of life. Hiryū managed to survive the wave of dive bombers and launched a counter-attack against the American carriers, which caused severe damage to Yorktown (later finished off by a Japanese submarine). A second attack from the U.S. carriers a few hours later found and destroyed Hiryū, the last remaining fleet carrier available to Nagumo.
With his carriers lost and the Americans withdrawn out of range of his powerful battleships, Yamamoto was forced to call off the operation, leaving Midway in American hands. The battle proved to be a decisive victory for the Allies. For the second time, Japanese expansion had been checked and its formidable Combined Fleet was significantly weakened by the loss of four fleet carriers and many highly trained, virtually irreplaceable personnel. Japan would be largely on the defensive for the rest of the war.
31.5.3: The Guadalcanal Campaign
Guadalcanal marked the decisive Allied transition from defensive operations to the strategic initiative in the Pacific theater, leading to offensive operations such as the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Central Pacific campaigns that eventually resulted in Japan’s surrender and the end of World War II.
Learning Objective
Understand the strategic significance of the Guadalcanal Campaign
Key Points
Up to this point, the Allies were on the defensive in the Pacific, but the strategic victories at Midway and other battles provided an opportunity to seize the initiative from Japan.
On August 7, 1942, Allied forces, predominantly United States Marines, landed on the islands of Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and Florida in the southern Solomon Islands with the objective of denying their use by the Japanese to threaten Allied supply and communication routes between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.
The Allies overwhelmed the outnumbered Japanese defenders who had occupied the islands since May 1942 and captured Tulagi and Florida as well as an airfield (later named Henderson Field) that was under construction on Guadalcanal.
Surprised by the Allied offensive, the Japanese made several attempts between August and November to retake Henderson Field.
Three major land battles, seven large naval battles (five nighttime surface actions and two carrier battles), and continual, almost daily aerial battles culminated in the decisive Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in early November, in which the last Japanese attempt to bombard Henderson Field from the sea and land with enough troops to retake it was defeated.
Key Terms
Europe first
Also known as Germany first, the key element of the grand strategy agreed upon by the United States and the United Kingdom during World War II. According to this policy, the United States and the United Kingdom would use the preponderance of their resources to subdue Nazi Germany in Europe first. Simultaneously, they would fight a holding action against Japan in the Pacific, using fewer resources. After the defeat of Germany—considered the greatest threat to Great Britain—all Allied forces could be concentrated against Japan.
parity
Functional equivalence, as in the weaponry or military strength of adversaries.
The Guadalcanal Campaign, also known as the Battle of Guadalcanal and code-named Operation Watchtower, originally referred to an operation to take the island of Tulagi by Allied forces. This military campaign was fought between August 7, 1942, and February 9, 1943, on and around the island of Guadalcanal in the Pacific theater of World War II. It was the first major offensive by Allied forces against the Empire of Japan.
Overview
On August 7, 1942, Allied forces, predominantly United States Marines, landed on the islands of Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and Florida in the southern Solomon Islands with the objective of denying their use by the Japanese to threaten Allied supply and communication routes between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. The Allies also intended to use Guadalcanal and Tulagi as bases to support a campaign to capture or neutralize the major Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain. The Allies overwhelmed the outnumbered Japanese defenders, who had occupied the islands since May 1942, and captured Tulagi and Florida, as well as an airfield (later named Henderson Field) that was under construction on Guadalcanal. Powerful American and Australian naval forces supported the landings.
Surprised by the Allied offensive, the Japanese made several attempts between August and November to retake Henderson Field. Three major land battles, seven large naval battles (five nighttime surface actions and two carrier battles), and continual, almost daily aerial battles culminated in the decisive Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in early November, in which the last Japanese attempt to bombard Henderson Field from the sea and land with enough troops to retake it was defeated. In December, the Japanese abandoned their efforts to retake Guadalcanal and evacuated their remaining forces by February 7, 1943, in the face of an offensive by the U.S. Army’s XIV Corps.
The Guadalcanal campaign was a significant strategic combined arms Allied victory in the Pacific theater. Along with the Battle of Midway, it has been called a turning-point in the war against Japan. The Japanese reached the peak of their conquests in the Pacific. The victories at Milne Bay, Buna-Gona, and Guadalcanal marked the Allied transition from defensive operations to strategic initiative, leading to offensive operations such as the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Central Pacific campaigns that eventually resulted in Japan’s surrender and the end of World War II.
Background
On December 7, 1941, Japanese forces attacked the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The attack crippled much of the U.S. battleship fleet and precipitated an open and formal war between the two nations. The initial goals of Japanese leaders were to neutralize the U.S. Navy, seize possessions rich in natural resources, and establish strategic military bases to defend Japan’s empire in the Pacific Ocean and Asia. To further those goals, Japanese forces captured the Philippines, Thailand, Malaya, Singapore, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, New Britain, and Guam. Joining the U.S. in the war against Japan were the rest of the Allied powers, several of whom, including the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands, had also been attacked by Japan.
Two attempts by the Japanese to continue their strategic initiative and offensively extend their outer defensive perimeter in the south and central Pacific to where they could threaten Australia and Hawaii or the U.S. West Coast were thwarted at the naval battles of Coral Sea and Midway respectively. Coral Sea was a tactical stalemate, but a strategic Allied victory which became clear only much later. Midway was not only the Allies’ first major victory against the Japanese, it significantly reduced the offensive capability of Japan’s carrier forces but did not change their offensive mindset for several crucial months in which they compounded mistakes by moving ahead with brash decisions such as the attempt to assault Port Moresby over the Kokoda trail. Up to this point, the Allies were on the defensive in the Pacific, but these strategic victories provided them an opportunity to seize the initiative from Japan.
Significance
The Battle of Guadalcanal was one of the first prolonged campaigns in the Pacific, alongside the related and concurrent Solomon Islands campaign. Both were battles that strained the logistical capabilities of the combatant nations. For the United States, this need prompted the development of effective combat air transport for the first time. A failure to achieve air superiority forced Japan to rely on reinforcement by barges, destroyers, and submarines, with very uneven results. Early in the campaign, the Americans were hindered by a lack of resources as they suffered heavy losses in cruisers and carriers, with replacements from ramped-up shipbuilding programs still months away.
The U.S. Navy suffered such high personnel losses during the campaign that it refused to publicly release total casualty figures for years. However, as the campaign continued and the American public became more and more aware of the plight and perceived heroism of the American forces on Guadalcanal, more forces were dispatched to the area. This spelled trouble for Japan as its military-industrial complex was unable to match the output of American industry and manpower. As the campaign wore on, the Japanese were losing irreplaceable units while the Americans were rapidly replacing and even augmenting their forces.
The Guadalcanal campaign was costly to Japan both strategically and in material losses and manpower. Roughly 30,000 personnel, including 25,000 experienced ground troops, died during the campaign. As many as three-quarters of the deaths were from non-combat causes such as starvation and tropical diseases. The drain on resources directly contributed to Japan’s failure to achieve its objectives in the New Guinea campaign.
After the victory at the Battle of Midway, America was able to establish naval parity in the Pacific. However, this alone did not change the direction of the war. It was only after the Allied victories in Guadalcanal and New Guinea that the Japanese offensive thrust was ended and the strategic initiative passed to the Allies permanently. The Guadalcanal Campaign ended all Japanese expansion attempts and placed the Allies in a position of clear supremacy. It can be argued that this Allied victory was the first step in a long string of successes that eventually led to the surrender of Japan and the occupation of the Japanese home islands.
The “Europe first” policy of the United States initially only allowed for defensive actions against Japanese expansion to focus resources on defeating Germany. However, Admiral King’s argument for the Guadalcanal invasion and its successful implementation convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the Pacific Theater could be pursued offensively as well. By the end of 1942, it was clear that Japan had lost the Guadalcanal campaign, a serious blow to Japan’s strategic plans for defense of its empire and an unanticipated defeat at the hands of the Americans.
Perhaps as important as the military victory for the Allies was the psychological victory. On a level playing field, the Allies had beaten Japan’s best land, air, and naval forces. After Guadalcanal, Allied personnel regarded the Japanese military with much less fear and awe than they had previously. In addition, the Allies viewed the eventual outcome of the Pacific War with increased optimism.
Guadalcanal Campaign
A U.S. Marine patrol crosses the Matanikau River in September 1942.
Photo of American soldiers walking through water with palm trees and other plants in the background.
31.6: The Allies Gain Ground
31.6.1: The Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Stalingrad has been described as the biggest defeat in the history of the German Army and a decisive turning point in the downfall of Hitler in World War II.
Learning Objective
Argue for or against the categorization of the Battle of Stalingrad as a turning point in the war
Key Points
The Battle of Stalingrad was marked by constant close quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians by air raids, and it is often regarded as one of the single largest and bloodiest battles in the history of warfare.
By mid-November, the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad in bitter street fighting when the Soviets began their second winter counter-offensive, starting with an encirclement of German forces at Stalingrad and an assault on the Rzhev salient near Moscow.
By early February 1943, the German Army had taken tremendous losses; German troops at Stalingrad were forced to surrender, and the front line had been pushed back beyond its position before the summer offensive.
It was a turning point in the European theater of World War II; German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to replace their losses.
Key Terms
Battle of Moscow
The name given by Soviet historians to two periods of strategically significant fighting on a 600 km (370 mi) sector of the Eastern Front during World War II. It took place between October 1941 and January 1942 and was part of the German Operation Barbarossa.
Operation Barbarossa
The code name for Nazi Germany’s World War II invasion of the Soviet Union, which began on June 22, 1941.
Overview
The Battle of Stalingrad (August 23, 1942 – February 2, 1943) was a major battle on the Eastern Front of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia, on the eastern boundary of Europe.
Marked by constant close-quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians by air raids, it is often regarded as one of the single largest (nearly 2.2 million personnel) and bloodiest (1.7–2 million wounded, killed, or captured) battles in the history of warfare. The heavy losses inflicted on the German Wehrmacht make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war and a turning point in the European theater of World War II. German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to replace their losses.
The German offensive to capture Stalingrad began in late summer 1942, using the German 6th Army and elements of the 4th Panzer Army. The attack was supported by intensive Luftwaffe bombing that reduced much of the city to rubble. The fighting degenerated into house-to-house fighting, and both sides poured reinforcements into the city. By mid-November 1942, the Germans pushed the Soviet defenders back at great cost into narrow zones along the west bank of the Volga River.
On November 19, 1942, the Red Army launched Operation Uranus, a two-pronged attack targeting the weaker Romanian and Hungarian forces protecting the German 6th Army’s flanks. The Axis forces on the flanks were overrun and the 6th Army was cut off and surrounded in the Stalingrad area. Adolf Hitler ordered that the army stay in Stalingrad and make no attempt to break out; instead, attempts were made to supply the army by air and to break the encirclement from the outside. Heavy fighting continued for another two months. By the beginning of February 1943, the Axis forces in Stalingrad had exhausted their ammunition and food. The remaining elements of the 6th Army surrendered. The battle lasted five months, one week, and three days.
Battle of Stalingrad
Soviet soldiers attack a house, February 1943
Photo of Soviet soldiers attacking a house in Stalingrad. In the background are the ruins of buildings and rubble filling the streets.
Background
By the spring of 1942, despite the failure of Operation Barbarossa to decisively defeat the Soviet Union in a single campaign, the Germans had captured vast expanses of territory, including Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic republics. Elsewhere, the war had been progressing well: the U-boat offensive in the Atlantic had been very successful and Rommel had just captured Tobruk. In the east, they stabilized their front in a line running from Leningrad in the north to Rostov in the south. There were a number of salients, but these were not particularly threatening. Hitler was confident that he could master the Red Army after the winter of 1942, because even though Army Group Centre had suffered heavy losses west of Moscow the previous winter, 65% of its infantry had not been engaged and was rested and re-equipped. Neither Army Group North nor Army Group South had been particularly hard pressed over the winter. Stalin was expecting the main thrust of the German summer attacks to be directed against Moscow again.
Since the initial operations were so successful, the Germans decided that their summer campaign in 1942 would be directed at the southern parts of the Soviet Union. The initial objectives in the region around Stalingrad were the destruction of the industrial capacity of the city and the deployment of forces to block the Volga River. The river was a key route from the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea to central Russia. Its capture would disrupt commercial river traffic. The Germans cut the pipeline from the oilfields when they captured Rostov on July 23. The capture of Stalingrad would make the delivery of Lend Lease supplies from America via the Persian Corridor much more difficult.
Aftermath
The German public was not officially told of the impending disaster until the end of January 1943, though positive media reports ended in the weeks before the announcement. Stalingrad marked the first time that the Nazi government publicly acknowledged a failure in its war effort; it was not only the first major setback for the German military, but a crushing, unprecedented defeat where German losses were almost equal to those of the Soviets. Prior losses of the Soviet Union were generally three times as high as the German ones. On January 31, regular programming on German state radio was replaced by a broadcast of the somber Adagio movement from Anton Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony, followed by the announcement of the defeat at Stalingrad.
On 18 February, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels gave the famous Sportpalast speech in Berlin, encouraging the Germans to accept a total war that would claim all resources and efforts from the entire population.
Based on Soviet records, more than 10,000 soldiers continued to resist in isolated groups within the city for the next month. Some have presumed that they were motivated by a belief that fighting on was better than a slow death in Soviet captivity. The Israeli historian Omer Bartov claims they were motivated by National Socialism. He studied 11,237 letters sent by soldiers inside of Stalingrad between December 20, 1942 and January 16, 1943 to their families in Germany. Almost every letter expressed belief in Germany’s ultimate victory and their willingness to fight and die at Stalingrad to achieve that victory. Bartov reported that many of the soldiers were aware that they would not be able to escape from Stalingrad, but in their letters to their families boasted that they were proud to “sacrifice themselves for the Führer.”
Significance
Stalingrad has been described as the biggest defeat in the history of the German Army. It is often identified as the turning point on the Eastern Front, in the war against Germany overall, and the entire Second World War. Before Stalingrad, the German forces went from victory to victory on the Eastern Front, with only a limited setback in the winter of 1941–42. After Stalingrad, they won no decisive battles, even in summer. The Red Army had the initiative and the Wehrmacht was in retreat. A year of German gains during Case Blue had been wiped out. Germany’s Sixth Army had ceased to exist, and the forces of Germany’s European allies, except Finland, had been shattered. In a speech on November 9, 1944, Hitler himself blamed Stalingrad for Germany’s impending doom.
Stalingrad’s significance has been downplayed by some historians, who point either to the Battle of Moscow or the Battle of Kursk as more strategically decisive. Others maintain that the destruction of an entire army (the largest killed, captured, wounded figures for Axis soldiers, nearly 1 million, during the war) and the frustration of Germany’s grand strategy made the battle a watershed moment. At the time, however, the global significance of the battle was not in doubt.
Regardless of the strategic implications, there is little doubt that Stalingrad was a morale watershed. Germany’s defeat shattered its reputation for invincibility and dealt a devastating blow to morale. On January 30, 1943, his 10th anniversary of coming to power, Hitler chose not to speak. Joseph Goebbels read the text of his speech for him on the radio. The speech contained an oblique reference to the battle which suggested that Germany was now in a defensive war. The public mood was sullen, depressed, fearful, and war-weary. Germany was looking in the face of defeat.
The reverse was the case on the Soviet side. There was an overwhelming surge in confidence and belief in victory. A common saying was: “You cannot stop an army which has done Stalingrad.” Stalin was feted as the hero of the hour and made a Marshal of the Soviet Union.
The news of the battle echoed round the world, with many people now believing that Hitler’s defeat was inevitable.
31.6.2: The North African Front
The North African Campaign was fought between the Allies and Axis powers, many of whom had colonial interests in Africa dating from the late 19th century. It took place from June 10, 1940, to May 13, 1943, and included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
Learning Objective
Examine the significance of the North African Campaign
Key Points
The North African Campaign of WWII included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts (Western Desert Campaign, also known as the Desert War) and in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch) and Tunisia (Tunisia Campaign).
Fighting in North Africa started with the Italian declaration of war on June 10, 1940, when British troops crossed the border from Egypt into Libya and captured the Italian Fort Capuzzo.
A see-saw series of battles for control of Libya and parts of Egypt followed, reaching a climax in the Second Battle of El Alamein in 1942 when British Commonwealth forces under the command of Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery delivered a decisive defeat to the Axis forces and pushed them back to Tunisia.
Operation Torch in November 1942 was a compromise operation that met the British objective of securing victory in North Africa while allowing American armed forces the opportunity to engage in the fight against Nazi Germany on a limited scale.
After fighting in Tunisia, the Axis forces surrendered on May 13, 1943 yielding over 275,000 prisoners of war.
Key Terms
Tunisia Campaign
A series of battles that took place in Tunisia during the North African Campaign of the Second World War, between Axis and Allied forces.
Ultra
The designation adopted by British military intelligence in June 1941 for wartime signals intelligence obtained by breaking high-level encrypted enemy radio and teleprinter communications at the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park.
pincer
A military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both flanks (sides) of an enemy formation.
Overview
The North African Campaign of the Second World War took place in North Africa from June 10, 1940, to May 13, 1943. It included campaigns fought in the Libyan and Egyptian deserts (Western Desert Campaign, also known as the Desert War) and in Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch) and Tunisia (Tunisia Campaign).
The campaign was fought between the Allies and Axis powers, many of whom had colonial interests in Africa dating from the late 19th century. The Allied war effort was dominated by the British Commonwealth and exiles from German-occupied Europe. The United States entered the war in December 1941 and began direct military assistance in North Africa on May 11, 1942.
Fighting in North Africa started with the Italian declaration of war on June 10, 1940. On June 14, the British Army’s 11th Hussars (assisted by elements of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, 1st RTR) crossed the border from Egypt into Libya and captured the Italian Fort Capuzzo. This was followed by an Italian counter-offensive into Egypt and the capture of Sidi Barrani in September 1940 and then in December 1940 by a Commonwealth counteroffensive, Operation Compass. During Operation Compass, the Italian 10th Army was destroyed and the German Afrika Korps—commanded by Erwin Rommel, who later became known as “The Desert Fox”—was dispatched to North Africa during Operation Sonnenblume to reinforce Italian forces and prevent a complete Axis defeat.
A see-saw series of battles for control of Libya and parts of Egypt followed, reaching a climax in the Second Battle of El Alamein in 1942 when British Commonwealth forces under the command of Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery delivered a decisive defeat to the Axis forces and pushed them back to Tunisia. After the Allied Operation Torch landings in Northwest Africa in late 1942 and subsequent battles against Vichy France forces (who then changed sides), the Allies finally encircled Axis forces in northern Tunisia and forced their surrender.
Operation Torch in November 1942 was a compromise operation that met the British objective of securing victory in North Africa while allowing American armed forces the opportunity to engage in the fight against Nazi Germany on a limited scale. In addition, as Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, had long been demanding a second front be opened to engage the Wehrmacht and relieve pressure on the Red Army, it provided some degree of relief for the Red Army on the Eastern Front by diverting Axis forces to the African theater, tying them up and destroying them there.
Information gleaned via British Ultra code-breaking intelligence proved critical to Allied success in North Africa. Victory for the Allies in this campaign immediately led to the Italian Campaign, which culminated in the downfall of the fascist government in Italy and the elimination of a German ally.
Western Desert Campaign
The Western Desert Campaign, or the Desert War, took place in the Western Desert of Egypt and Libya and was a theater in the North African Campaign during the Second World War. The campaign began in September 1940 with the Italian invasion of Egypt. The Italians halted to bring up supplies and Operation Compass, a British five-day raid in December 1940, led to the destruction of the Italian 10th Army. Benito Mussolini sought help from Adolf Hitler and a small German blocking detachment was sent to Tripoli under Directive 22 (January 11). These were the first units of the Afrika Korps under nominal Italian command but Italian dependency on Nazi Germany made it the dominant partner.
In the spring of 1941, Axis forces under Rommel pushed the British back and reached Tobruk, which was subjected to the Siege of Tobruk until it was relieved during Operation Crusader. The Axis forces were forced to retire to their starting point by the end of the year. In 1942 Axis forces drove the British back and captured Tobruk at the end of the Battle of Gazala, but failed to gain a decisive victory. On the final Axis push to Egypt, the British retreated to El Alamein. At the Second Battle of El Alamein the Eighth Army defeated the Axis forces, which never recovered and were driven out of Libya to Tunisia, where they were defeated in the Tunisia Campaign. After the British defeats in the Balkan Campaign, the Western Desert Campaign became more important to British strategy. For Hitler, the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union dwarfed the desert war, which was a holding action of secondary importance. The Axis never had sufficient resources or the means to deliver them to defeat the British, who missed several opportunities to finish the campaign by diverting resources to Greece and the Levant in 1941 and the Far East in 1942.
Battle of El Alamein, 1942
British infantry advances through the dust and smoke of the battle.
El Alamein 1942: British infantry advances through the dust and smoke of the battle.
Operation Torch
Operation Torch was the British-American invasion of French North Africa during the North African Campaign of the Second World War.
The Soviet Union pressed the United States and United Kingdom to start operations in Europe and open a second front to reduce the pressure of German forces on the Soviet troops. While the American commanders favored Operation Sledgehammer and landed in Occupied Europe as soon as possible, the British commanders believed that such a course would end in disaster.
An attack on French North Africa was proposed instead, which would clear the Axis powers from North Africa, improve naval control of the Mediterranean Sea, and prepare for an invasion of Southern Europe in 1943. U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt suspected the African operation would rule out an invasion of Europe in 1943, but agreed to support British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Operation Torch started on November 8, 1942, and finished on November 11. In an attempt to pincer German and Italian forces, Allied forces (American and British Commonwealth), landed in Vichy-held French North Africa under the assumption that there would be little to no resistance. In fact, Vichy French forces put up a strong and bloody resistance to the Allies in Oran and Morocco, but not in Algiers, where a coup d’état by the French resistance on November 8 neutralized the French XIX Corps before the landing and arrested the Vichy commanders. Consequently, the landings met no practical opposition in Algiers, and the city was captured on the first day along with the entire Vichy African command. After three days of talks and threats, Generals Mark Clark and Dwight Eisenhower compelled the Vichy Admiral François Darlan (and General Alphonse Juin) to order the cessation of armed resistance in Oran and Morocco by French forces on November 10-11 with the provision that Darlan would be head of a Free French administration. During Operation Torch, American, Vichy French, and German navy vessels fought the Naval Battle of Casablanca, ending in an American victory.
The Allied landings prompted the Axis occupation of Vichy France. In addition, the French fleet was captured at Toulon by the Italians, which did them little good as the main portion of the fleet had been scuttled to prevent its use by the Axis. The Vichy army in North Africa joined the Allies.
Operation Torch
American soldiers land near Algiers.
Photo of about 200 American soldiers landing on the beach near Algiers.
Tunisian Campaign
Following the Operation Torch landings, the Germans and Italians initiated a buildup of troops in Tunisia to fill the vacuum left by Vichy troops who had withdrawn. During this period of weakness, the Allies decided against a rapid advance into Tunisia while they wrestled with the Vichy authorities. Many of the Allied soldiers were tied up in garrison duties because of the uncertain status and intentions of the Vichy forces.
By the beginning of March, the British Eighth Army—advancing westward along the North African coast—reached the Tunisian border. Rommel and von Arnim found themselves in an Allied “two army” pincer. They were outflanked, outmanned, and outgunned. The British Eighth Army bypassed the Axis defence on the Mareth Line in late March and First Army in central Tunisia launched their main offensive in mid-April to squeeze the Axis forces until their resistance in Africa collapsed. The Axis forces surrendered on May 13, 1943, yielding over 275,000 prisoners of war. The last Axis force to surrender in North Africa was the 1st Italian Army. This huge loss of experienced troops greatly reduced the military capacity of the Axis powers, although the largest percentage of Axis troops escaped Tunisia. This defeat in Africa led to all Italian colonies in Africa being captured.
31.6.3: The Sicilian Campaign
The Allied invasion of Sicily, code named Operation Husky, was a major campaign of World War II in which the Allies took the island of Sicily from the Axis powers.
Learning Objective
Discuss the events of the Sicilian Campaign
Key Points
Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in North Africa in May 1943, there was disagreement between the Allies as to what the next step should be. Churchill wanted to invade Italy, which he called “the soft underbelly of the axis.”
Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader, was pressing Churchill and Roosevelt to open a “second front” in Europe to lessen the German Army’s focus on the Eastern Front, where the bulk of its forces were fighting in the largest armed conflict in history.
To distract and confuse the Axis, the Allies engaged in several deception operations, most famously Operation Mincemeat, where the British allowed a corpse disguised as a British Royal Marines officer to drift ashore in Spain carrying a briefcase containing fake secret documents.
Joint Allied forces planned and commanded the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, followed in September by the invasion of the Italian mainland and the campaign on Italian soil until the surrender of the German Armed Forces in Italy in May 1945.
Key Terms
Operation Mincemeat
A successful British disinformation plan during the Second World War, which convinced the German high command that the Allies planned to invade Greece and Sardinia in 1943 instead of Sicily, the actual objective.
Operation Husky
Codename for the allied invasion of Sicily in which the Allies took the island of Sicily from the Axis powers.
Overview
The Allied invasion of Sicily, code named Operation Husky, was a major campaign of World War II in which the Allies took the island of Sicily from the Axis powers (Italy and Nazi Germany). It was a large amphibious and airborne operation followed by a six-week land campaign and began the Italian Campaign.
Husky began on the night of July 9-10, 1943, and ended on August 17. Strategically, Husky achieved the goals set out for it by Allied planners; the Allies drove Axis air, land, and naval forces from the island and the Mediterranean sea lanes were opened for Allied merchant ships for the first time since 1941. Italian fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, was toppled from power, opening the way for the invasion of Italy. Hitler “canceled a major offensive at Kursk after only a week, in part to divert forces to Italy,” resulting in a reduction of German strength on the Eastern Front.
Background
Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in North Africa in May 1943, there was disagreement between the Allies as to what the next step should be. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wanted to invade Italy, which in November 1942 he called “the soft underbelly of the axis” (and General Mark Clark, in contrast, later called “one tough gut”). Popular support in Italy for the war was declining, and he believed an invasion would remove Italy and thus the influence of Axis forces in the Mediterranean Sea, opening it to Allied traffic. This would reduce the shipping capacity needed to supply Allied forces in the Middle East and Far East at a time when the disposal of Allied shipping capacity was in crisis, and increase British and American supplies to the Soviet Union. In addition, it would tie down German forces. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader, had been pressing Churchill and Roosevelt to open a “second front” in Europe, which would lessen the German Army’s focus on the Eastern Front where the bulk of its forces were fighting in the largest armed conflict in history.
Deception
To distract the Axis and possibly divert some of their forces to other areas, the Allies engaged in several deception operations. The most famous and successful of these was Operation Mincemeat. The British allowed a corpse disguised as a British Royal Marines officer to drift ashore in Spain carrying a briefcase containing fake secret documents that purported to reveal that the Allies were planning “Operation Brimstone” and that an “Operation Husky” was an invasion of Greece. German intelligence accepted the authenticity of the documents and the Germans diverted much of their defensive effort from Sicily to Greece until the occupation of Pantellaria on June 11, which concentrated German and Italian attention on the western Mediterranean. Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel was sent to Greece to assume command. The Germans transferred a group of “R boats” (German minesweepers and minelayers) from Sicily and laid three additional minefields off the Greek coast. They also moved three panzer divisions to Greece, one from France and two from the Eastern Front, which reduced German combat strength in the Kursk salient.
The Invasion of Sicily
A combined British-Canadian-Indian-American invasion of Sicily began on July 10, 1943 with both amphibious and airborne landings at the Gulf of Gela (U.S. Seventh Army, Patton) and north of Syracuse (British Eighth Army, Montgomery). The original plan contemplated a strong advance by the British northwards along the east coast to Messina, with the Americans in a supporting role along their left flank. When the Eighth Army were held up by stubborn defenses in the rugged hills south of Mount Etna, Patton amplified the American role by a wide advance northwest toward Palermo and then directly north to cut the northern coastal road. This was followed by an eastward advance north of Etna towards Messina, supported by a series of amphibious landings on the north coast, that propelled Patton’s troops into Messina shortly before the first elements of Eighth Army. The defending German and Italian forces were unable to prevent the Allied capture of the island, but succeeded in evacuating most of their troops to the mainland, the last leaving on August 17, 1943. Allied forces gained experience in opposed amphibious operations, coalition warfare, and mass airborne drops.
Invasion of Sicily
Troops from the British 51st Division unloading stores from tank landing craft on the opening day of the invasion of Sicily, July 10, 1943.
Image of British troops unloading stores onto the beach from tank landing craft on the opening day of the invasion of Sicily.
The Italian Campaign
After the successful invasion of Sicily, forces of the British Eighth Army, still under Montgomery, landed in the “toe” of Italy on September 3, 1943 in Operation Baytown, the day the Italian government agreed to an armistice with the Allies. The armistice was publicly announced on September 8 by two broadcasts, first by Eisenhower and then a proclamation by Marshal Badoglio. Although the German forces prepared to defend without Italian assistance, only two of their divisions opposite the Eighth Army and one at Salerno were not tied up disarming the Italian Army.
On September 9, forces of the U.S. Fifth Army, expecting little resistance, landed against heavy German resistance at Salerno in Operation Avalanche; in addition, British forces landed at Taranto in Operation Slapstick, which was almost unopposed. There had been a hope that with the surrender of the Italian government, the Germans would withdraw to the north, since at the time Adolf Hitler had been persuaded that Southern Italy was strategically unimportant. However, this was not to be, though the Eighth Army was able to make relatively easy progress up the eastern coast, capturing the port of Bari and the important airfields around Foggia.
The American forces took possession of Rome on June 4, 1944. The German Tenth Army were allowed to get away and in the next few weeks were responsible for doubling the Allied casualties in the previous few months.
The Allies’ final offensive commenced with massive aerial and artillery bombardments on April 9, 1945. By April 18, Eighth Army forces in the east had broken through the Argenta Gap and sent armor racing forward in an encircling move to meet the US IV Corps advancing from the Apennines in Central Italy and trap the remaining defenders of Bologna.
As April came to an end, Army Group C, the Axis forces in Italy, was retreating on all fronts and had lost most of its fighting strength, left with little option but surrender. General Heinrich von Vietinghoff, who had taken command of Army Group C after Kesselring was transferred to become Commander-in-Chief of the Western Front (OB West) in March 1945, signed the instrument of surrender on behalf of the German armies in Italy on April 29, formally bringing hostilities to an end on May 2, 1945.
31.6.4: The Tehran Conference
The Tehran Conference was a strategy meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill from November 28 to December 1, 1943, resulting in the Western Allies’ commitment to open a second front against Nazi Germany.
Learning Objective
List the agreements reached by the parties participating in the Tehran Conference
Key Points
The Tehran Conference was the first World War II conference of the “Big Three” Allied leaders.
Although the leaders arrived with differing objectives, the main outcome of the Tehran Conference was the Western Allies’ commitment to open a second front against Nazi Germany, including an invasion on France.
Iran and Turkey were discussed in detail, with Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin all agreeing to support Iran’s government and the Soviet Union pledging support to Turkey if they entered the war.
After the conference, the Yugoslav Partisans were given full Allied support and Allied support to the Yugoslav Chetniks was halted as they were believed to be cooperating with the occupying Germans rather than fighting them.
The invasion of France on June 6, 1944 took place about as planned.
Key Term
Big Three
The leaders of the main three countries that together opposed the Axis powers during the Second World War: the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, namely Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin.
Overview
The Tehran Conference (code named Eureka) was a strategy meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill from November 28 to December 1, 1943. It was held in the Soviet Union’s embassy in Tehran, Iran and was the first World War II conference of the “Big Three” Allied leaders (the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom). It closely followed the Cairo Conference which took place on November 22-26 1943, and preceded the 1945 Yalta and Potsdam conferences. Although the three leaders arrived with differing objectives, the main outcome of the Tehran Conference was the Western Allies’ commitment to open a second front against Nazi Germany. The conference also addressed the Allies’ relations with Turkey and Iran, operations in Yugoslavia and against Japan, and the envisaged post-war settlement. A separate protocol signed at the conference pledged the Big Three to recognize Iran’s independence.
Proceedings
The conference was to convene at 4 p.m. on November 28, 1943. Stalin arrived early, followed by Roosevelt, who brought in his wheelchair from his accommodation adjacent to the venue. Roosevelt, who had traveled 7,000 miles (11,000 km) to attend and whose health was already deteriorating, met Stalin for the first time. Churchill, walking with his General Staff from their accommodations nearby, arrived half an hour later.
The U.S. and Great Britain wanted to secure the cooperation of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany. Stalin agreed, but at a price: the U.S. and Britain would accept Soviet domination of eastern Europe, support the Yugoslav Partisans, and agree to a westward shift of the border between Poland and the Soviet Union.
The leaders then turned to the conditions under which the Western Allies would open a new front by invading northern France (Operation Overlord), as Stalin had pressed them to do since 1941. Up to this point Churchill had advocated the expansion of joint operations of British, American, and Commonwealth forces in the Mediterranean, as Overlord in 1943 was physically impossible due to a lack of shipping, which left the Mediterranean and Italy as viable goals for 1943. It was agreed Overlord would occur by May 1944; Stalin agreed to support it by launching a concurrent major offensive on Germany’s eastern front to divert German forces from northern France.
Iran and Turkey were discussed in detail. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin all agreed to support Iran’s government. In addition, the Soviet Union was required to pledge support to Turkey if that country entered the war. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin agreed that it would also be most desirable if Turkey entered on the Allies’ side before the year was out.
Despite accepting the above arrangements, Stalin dominated the conference, using the prestige of the Soviet victory at the Battle of Kursk to get his way. Roosevelt attempted to cope with Stalin’s onslaught of demands, but was able to do little except appease him. Churchill argued for the invasion of Italy in 1943, then Overlord in 1944, on the basis that Overlord was physically impossible in 1943 and it would be unthinkable to do anything major until it could be launched.
Churchill proposed to Stalin a moving westwards of Poland, which Stalin accepted, giving the Poles industrialized German land to the west and gave up marshlands to the east while providing a territorial buffer to the Soviet Union against invasion.
Decisions
The declaration issued by the three leaders on conclusion of the conference on December 1, 1943, recorded the following military conclusions:
The Yugoslav Partisans should be supported by supplies and equipment and also by commando operations.
It would be desirable for Turkey to enter war on the side of the Allies before the end of the year.
The leaders took note of Stalin’s statement that if Turkey found herself at war with Germany and as a result Bulgaria declared war on Turkey or attacked her, the Soviet Union would immediately be at war with Bulgaria. The Conference further noted that this could be mentioned in the forthcoming negotiations to bring Turkey into the war.
The cross-channel invasion of France (Operation Overlord) would be launched during May 1944 in conjunction with an operation against southern France. The latter operation would be as strong as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further noted Joseph Stalin’s statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front.
The leaders agreed that the military staffs of the Three Powers should keep in close touch with each other in regard to the impending operations in Europe. In particular, it was agreed that a cover plan to mislead the enemy about these operations should be concerted between the staffs concerned.
Results
The Yugoslav Partisans were given full Allied support, and Allied support to the Yugoslav Chetniks was halted as they were believed to be cooperating with the occupying Germans rather than fighting them. The Communist Partisans under Tito took power in Yugoslavia as the Germans retreated from the Balkans.
Turkey’s president conferred with Roosevelt and Churchill at the Cairo Conference in November 1943 and promised to enter the war when it was fully armed. By August 1944 Turkey broke off relations with Germany. In February 1945, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan, which may have been a symbolic move that allowed Turkey to join the future United Nations.
The invasion of France on June 6, 1944 took place about as planned, and the supporting invasion of southern France also occurred (Operation Dragoon). The Soviets launched a major offensive against the Germans on June 22, 1944 (Operation Bagration).
Tehran Conference 1943
The “Big Three.” From left to right: Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill on the portico of the Russian Embassy during the Tehran Conference to discuss the European Theatre in 1943. Churchill is shown in the uniform of a Royal Air Force air commodore.
A photo of the “Big Three,” Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, on the portico of the Russian Embassy during the Tehran Conference to discuss the European Theatre in 1943.
31.7: The End of the War
31.7.1: The Invasion of Normandy
The Western Allies of World War II launched the largest amphibious invasion in history when they assaulted Normandy, located on the northern coast of France, on June 6, 1944. They were able to establish a beachhead after a successful “D-Day,” the first day of the invasion.
Learning Objective
Outline the events of the Invasion of Normandy
Key Points
The Normandy invasion began with overnight parachute and glider landings, massive air attacks, and naval bombardments.
In the early morning, amphibious landings on five beaches code named Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha, and Utah began. During the evening, the remaining elements of the airborne divisions landed.
In the months leading up to the invasion, the Allies conducted a substantial military deception, code named Operation Bodyguard, that successfully misled the Germans as to the date and location of the main Allied landings.
The invasion was costly in terms of men for the Allies, but the defeat inflicted on the Germans was one of the largest of the war and led to the loss of the German position in most of France.
Key Terms
Operation Overlord
The code name for the Invasion of Normandy, the Allied operation that launched the successful invasion of German-occupied Western Europe during World War II.
D-Day
The landing operations on Tuesday, June 6, 1944, the first day of the Allied invasion of Normandy in Operation Overlord during World War II.
Overview
The Western Allies of World War II launched the largest amphibious invasion in history when they assaulted Normandy, located on the northern coast of France, on June 6, 1944. The invaders were able to establish a beachhead as part of Operation Overlord after a successful “D-Day,” the first day of the invasion.
Allied land forces came from the United States, Britain, Canada, and Free France. In the weeks following the invasion, Polish forces and contingents from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, and the Netherlands participated in the ground campaign; most also provided air and naval support alongside elements of the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the Royal Norwegian Navy.
The Normandy invasion began with overnight parachute and glider landings, massive air attacks, and naval bombardments. In the early morning, amphibious landings on five beaches code named Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha, and Utah began. During the evening the remaining elements of the airborne divisions landed. Land forces used on D-Day sailed from bases along the south coast of England, most importantly Portsmouth.
The Allies failed to reach their goals for the first day, but gained a tenuous foothold that they gradually expanded when they captured the port at Cherbourg on June 26 and the city of Caen on July 21. A failed counterattack by German forces on August 8 led to 50,000 soldiers of the 7th Army being trapped in the Falaise pocket. The Allies launched an invasion of southern France (code-named Operation Dragoon) on August 15, and the Liberation of Paris followed on August 25. German forces retreated across the Seine on August 30, 1944, marking the close of Operation Overlord.
Invasion of Normandy
Landing supplies at Normandy
A photo of the Normany landings, with about a dozen landing boats deplying soldiers and trucks, hundreds of battle ships further out into the water, the beaches covered in military trucks and equipment.
D-Day: The Normandy Landings
The Normandy landings (code named Operation Neptune) on Tuesday, June 6, 1944, (termed D-Day) were the Allied invasion of Normandy in Operation Overlord during World War II. The largest seaborne invasion in history, the operation began the liberation of German-occupied northwestern Europe from Nazi control and contributed to the Allied victory on the Western Front.
Planning for the operation began in 1943. In the months leading up to the invasion, the Allies conducted a substantial military deception, code named Operation Bodyguard, to mislead the Germans as to the date and location of the main Allied landings. The weather on D-Day was far from ideal, but postponing would have meant a delay of at least two weeks as the invasion planners had requirements for the phase of the moon, the tides, and the time of day that meant only a few days in each month were suitable. Adolf Hitler placed German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in command of German forces and of developing fortifications along the Atlantic Wall in anticipation of an Allied invasion.
The amphibious landings were preceded by extensive aerial and naval bombardment and an airborne assault—the landing of 24,000 American, British, and Canadian airborne troops shortly after midnight. Allied infantry and armored divisions began landing on the coast of France at 06:30. The target 50-mile stretch of the Normandy coast was divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. Strong winds blew the landing craft east of their intended positions, particularly at Utah and Omaha. The men landed under heavy fire from gun emplacements overlooking the beaches, and the shore was mined and covered with obstacles such as wooden stakes, metal tripods, and barbed wire, making the work of the beach-clearing teams difficult and dangerous. Casualties were heaviest at Omaha, with its high cliffs. At Gold, Juno, and Sword, several fortified towns were cleared in house-to-house fighting, and two major gun emplacements at Gold were disabled using specialized tanks.
The Allies failed to achieve any of their goals on the first day. Carentan, St. Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until July 21. Only two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, and all five beachheads were not connected until June 12; however, the operation gained a foothold which the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months. German casualties on D-Day have been estimated at 4,000 to 9,000 men. Allied casualties were at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead. Museums, memorials, and war cemeteries in the area now host many visitors each year.
Into the Jaws of Death: Landing on Normandy
Into the Jaws of Death by Robert F. Sargent. Assault craft land one of the first waves at Omaha Beach. During the initial landing two-thirds of the Company E became casualties.
Photo from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase showing soldiers disembarking on the Normandy shores.
Assessment and Significance
The Normandy landings were the first successful opposed landings across the English Channel in over eight centuries. They were costly in terms of men, but the defeat inflicted on the Germans was one of the largest of the war. Strategically, the campaign led to the loss of the German position in most of France and the secure establishment of a new major front. In larger context, the Normandy landings helped the Soviets on the Eastern Front, who were facing the bulk of the German forces and to a certain extent contributed to the shortening of the conflict there.
Although there was a shortage of artillery ammunition, at no time were the Allies critically short of any necessity. This was a remarkable achievement considering they did not hold a port until Cherbourg fell. By the time of the breakout the Allies also enjoyed considerable superiority in numbers of troops (approximately 7:2) and armored vehicles (approximately 4:1), which helped overcome the natural advantages the terrain gave to the German defenders.
Allied intelligence and counterintelligence efforts were successful beyond expectations. The Operation Fortitude deception before the invasion kept German attention focused on the Pas de Calais, and high-quality German forces were kept in this area, away from Normandy, until July. Prior to the invasion, few German reconnaissance flights took place over Britain, and those that did saw only the dummy staging areas. Ultra decrypts of German communications were helpful as well, exposing German dispositions and revealing their plans such as the Mortain counterattack.
Allied air operations also contributed significantly to the invasion via close tactical support, interdiction of German lines of communication (preventing timely movement of supplies and reinforcements—particularly the critical Panzer units), and rendering the Luftwaffe ineffective in Normandy. Although the impact upon armored vehicles was less than expected, air activity intimidated these units and cut their supplies.
Despite initial heavy losses in the assault phase, Allied morale remained high. Casualty rates among all the armies were tremendous, and the Commonwealth forces had to use a recently created category—Double Intense—to describe them.
31.7.2: The Yalta Conference
The Yalta Conference, held from February 4 to 11, 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union to discuss Europe’s post-war reorganization.
Learning Objective
Compare the Yalta Conference to the Tehran Conference
Key Points
The meeting was intended mainly to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe, especially focusing on German reparations and post-war occupation as well as Poland.
Yalta was the second of three wartime conferences among the Big Three, preceded by the Tehran Conference in 1943 and followed by the Potsdam Conference in July 1945.
Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan and Soviet participation in the UN; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin demanded a Soviet sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe.
Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, “because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland.”
It was decided that Germany would undergo demilitarization and denazification and be split into four occupied zones: Soviet, British, French, and American zones.
Key Terms
reparations
Payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war.
denazification
An Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of any remnants of the National Socialist ideology (Nazism). It was carried out by removing from positions of power and influence those who had been Nazi Party members and disbanding or rendering impotent the organizations associated with Nazism.
Declaration of Liberated Europe
A declaration as created by Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin during the Yalta Conference. It was a promise that allowed the people of Europe “to create democratic institutions of their own choice.”
Overview
The Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea Conference and code named the Argonaut Conference, was held from February 4 to 11, 1945. This World War II meeting comprised the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively, to discuss Europe’s post-war reorganization. The conference convened in the Livadia Palace near Yalta in Crimea.
The meeting was intended mainly to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe. Within a few years, with the Cold War dividing the continent, Yalta had become a subject of intense controversy. To a degree, it has remained controversial.
Yalta was the second of three wartime conferences among the Big Three, preceded by the Tehran Conference in 1943 and followed by the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, attended by Stalin, Churchill (who was replaced halfway through by the newly elected British Prime Minister Clement Attlee), and Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor. The Yalta conference was a crucial turning point in the Cold War.
The Conference
All three leaders attempted to establish an agenda for governing post-war Europe and keep peace between post-war countries. On the Eastern Front, the front line at the end of December 1943 remained in the Soviet Union but by August 1944, Soviet forces were inside Poland and Romania as part of their drive west. By the time of the Conference, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s forces were 40 miles from Berlin. Stalin’s felt his position at the conference was so strong that he could dictate terms. According to U.S. delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, “[i]t was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what we could get the Russians to do.” Moreover, Roosevelt hoped for a commitment from Stalin to participate in the United Nations.
Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically for the planned invasion of Japan (Operation August Storm), as well as Soviet participation in the UN; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin demanded a Soviet sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe, an essential aspect of the USSR’s national security strategy.
Poland was the first item on the Soviet agenda. Stalin stated that “For the Soviet government, the question of Poland was one of honor” and security because Poland had served as a historical corridor for forces attempting to invade Russia. In addition, Stalin stated that “because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland,” “the Soviet government was trying to atone for those sins.” Stalin concluded that “Poland must be strong” and that “the Soviet Union is interested in the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland.” Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had already annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compensated by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet-sponsored provisional government recently installed in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army.
The Declaration of Liberated Europe t was created by Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin during the Yalta Conference. It was a promise that allowed the people of Europe “to create democratic institutions of their own choice.” The declaration pledged, “the earliest possible establishment through free elections governments responsive to the will of the people.” This is similar to the statements of the Atlantic Charter, which says, “the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live.” Stalin broke the pledge by encouraging Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and many more countries to construct a Communist government instead of letting the people construct their own. These countries later became known as Stalin’s Satellite Nations.
Key Points
The key points from the meeting are as follows:
Agreement to the priority of the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After the war, Germany and Berlin would be split into four occupied zones.
Stalin agreed that France would have a fourth occupation zone in Germany that would be formed out of the American and British zones.
Germany would undergo demilitarization and denazification.
German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor to repair damage that Germany had inflicted on its victims.
Creation of a reparation council located in the Soviet Union.
The Polish eastern border would follow the Curzon Line, and Poland would receive territorial compensation in the west from Germany.
Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland.
Citizens of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were to be handed over to their respective countries, regardless of their consent.
Roosevelt obtained a commitment by Stalin to participate in the UN.
Stalin requested that all of the 16 Soviet Socialist Republics would be granted UN membership. This was taken into consideration, but 14 republics were denied.
Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan.
Nazi war criminals were to be found and put on trial.
A “Committee on Dismemberment of Germany” was to be set up to decide whether Germany would be divided into six nations.
Yalta Conference
Yalta Conference in February 1945 with (from left to right) Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.
Photo of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at the Yalta Conference, surrounded by other government officials.
31.7.3: The Allied Push to Berlin
The war in Europe concluded with an invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, culminating in the capture of Berlin by Soviet and Polish troops and the subsequent German unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945.
Learning Objective
Summarize the last weeks of the war and the final days of the Nazi Regime
Key Points
By the time the Allied forces launched an invasion of Germany from the Western and Eastern front, Allied victory in Europe was inevitable.
Having gambled his future ability to defend Germany on the Ardennes offensive and lost, Hitler had no strength left to stop the powerful Allied armies.
In early April, the Western Allies finally pushed forward in Italy and swept across western Germany, while Soviet and Polish forces stormed Berlin in late April.
On April 30, 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of Nazi Germany.
On that same day, Hitler committed suicide and was succeeded by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz.
As the Allies advanced on Germany, they began to discover the extent of the Holocaust and liberated many concentration camps along their route.
Key Terms
Joseph Goebbels
A German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945; one of Adolf Hitler’s close associates and most devoted followers, he was known for his skills in public speaking and his deep and virulent antisemitism, which led to his support of the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust.
Eva Braun
The longtime companion of Adolf Hitler and for less than 40 hours, his wife.
Battle of Berlin
The final major offensive of the European theatre of World War II when the Soviet Red Army invaded Berlin, Germany.
Overview
On December 16, 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops, and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement. By January, the offensive was repulsed with no strategic objectives fulfilled. In Italy, the Western Allies remained stalemated at the German defensive line. In mid-January 1945, the Soviets and Poles attacked in Poland, pushing from the Vistula to the Oder river in Germany, and overran East Prussia. On February 4, U.S., British, and Soviet leaders met for the Yalta Conference. They agreed on the occupation of post-war Germany and when the Soviet Union would join the war against Japan.
In February, the Soviets entered Silesia and Pomerania, while Western Allies entered western Germany and closed to the Rhine river. By March, the Western Allies crossed the Rhine north and south of the Ruhr, encircling the German Army Group B, while the Soviets advanced to Vienna. In early April, the Western Allies finally pushed forward in Italy and swept across western Germany, while Soviet and Polish forces stormed Berlin in late April. American and Soviet forces joined on Elbe river on April 25. On April 30, 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of Nazi Germany.
Several changes in leadership occurred during this period. On April 12, President Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Benito Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans on April 28. Two days later, as the Battle of Berlin raged above him, realizing that all was lost and not wishing to suffer Mussolini’s fate, German dictator Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his Führerbunker along with Eva Braun, his long-term partner whom he married less than 40 hours before their joint suicide. In his will, Hitler dismissed Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, his second-in-command, and Interior minister Heinrich Himmler after each of them separately tried to seize control of the crumbling Third Reich. Hitler appointed his successors as follows; Großadmiral Karl Dönitz as the new Reichspräsident (“President of Germany”) and Joseph Goebbels as the new Reichskanzler (Chancellor of Germany). However, Goebbels committed suicide the following day, leaving Dönitz as the sole leader of Germany.
German forces surrendered in Italy on April 29. Total and unconditional surrender was signed on May 7 to be effective by the end of May 8. German Army Group Centre resisted in Prague until May 11.
At the end of the war, millions of people were homeless, the European economy had collapsed, and much of the European industrial infrastructure had been destroyed.
The Western Allied Invasion of Germany
The Western Allied invasion of Germany was coordinated by the Western Allies during the final months of hostilities in the European theater of World War II. The Allied invasion of Germany started with the Western Allies crossing the River Rhine in March 1945 before overrunning all of western Germany from the Baltic in the north to Austria in the south before the Germans surrendered on May 8, 1945. This is known as the “Central Europe Campaign” in United States military histories and is often considered the end of the second World War in Europe.
By the beginning of the Central Europe Campaign, Allied victory in Europe was inevitable. Having gambled his future ability to defend Germany on the Ardennes offensive and lost, Hitler had no strength left to stop the powerful Allied armies. The Western Allies still had to fight, often bitterly, for victory. Even when the hopelessness of the German situation became obvious to his most loyal subordinates, Hitler refused to admit defeat. Only when Soviet artillery was falling around his Berlin headquarters bunker did he begin to perceive the final outcome.
The crossing of the Rhine, the encirclement and reduction of the Ruhr, and the sweep to the Elbe-Mulde line and the Alps all established the final campaign on the Western Front as a showcase for Allied superiority in maneuver warfare. Drawing on the experience gained during the campaign in Normandy and the Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine, the Western Allies demonstrated in Central Europe their capability to absorb the lessons of the past. By attaching mechanized infantry units to armored divisions, they created a hybrid of strength and mobility that served them well in the pursuit warfare through Germany. Key to the effort was the logistical support that kept these forces fueled and the determination to maintain the forward momentum at all costs. These mobile forces made great thrusts to isolate pockets of German troops, which were mopped up by additional infantry following close behind. The Allies rapidly eroded any remaining ability to resist.
The Battle of Berlin
The Battle of Berlin, designated the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation by the Soviet Union, was the final major offensive of the European theater of World War II.
Following the Vistula–Oder Offensive of January–February 1945, the Red Army temporarily halted on a line 37 miles east of Berlin. When the offensive resumed on April 16, two Soviet army groups attacked Berlin from the east and south, while a third overran German forces positioned north of Berlin.
The first defensive preparations at the outskirts of Berlin were made on March 20 under the newly appointed commander of Army Group Vistula, General Gotthard Heinrici. Before the main battle in Berlin commenced, the Red Army encircled the city after successful battles of the Seelow Heights and Halbe. On April 20, 1945, the 1st Belorussian Front led by Marshal Georgy Zhukov started shelling Berlin’s city center, while Marshal Ivan Konev’s 1st Ukrainian Front pushed from the south through the last formations of Army Group Centre. Defenses in Berlin’s city center were mainly led by General Helmuth Weidling. These units consisted of several depleted and disorganized Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS divisions, along with poorly trained Volkssturm and Hitler Youth members. Within the next few days, the Red Army reached the city center, where close-quarters combat raged.
The city’s garrison surrendered to Soviet forces on May 2, but fighting continued to the northwest, west, and southwest of the city until the end of the war in Europe on May 8 as German units fought westward so that they could surrender to the Western Allies rather than to the Soviets.
Battle of Berlin
After the battle, Soviet soldiers hoist the Soviet flag on the balcony of the Hotel Adlon in Berlin
After the battle of Berlin, Soviet soldiers hoist the Soviet flag on the balcony of the Hotel Adlon in Berlin overlooking the street
Liberation of Concentration Camps
As the Allies advanced on Germany, they began to discover the extent of the Holocaust. The first major camp to be encountered by Allied troops, Majdanek, was discovered by the advancing Soviets on July 23, 1944. Chełmno was liberated by the Soviets on January 20, 1945. Auschwitz was liberated, also by the Soviets, on January 27, 1945; Buchenwald by the Americans on April 11; Bergen-Belsen by the British on April 15; Dachau by the Americans on April 29; Ravensbrück by the Soviets on the same day; Mauthausen by the Americans on May 5; and Theresienstadt by the Soviets on May 8. Treblinka, Sobibór, and Bełżec were never liberated, but were destroyed by the Nazis in 1943. Colonel William W. Quinn of the US Seventh Army said of Dachau: “There our troops found sights, sounds, and stenches horrible beyond belief, cruelties so enormous as to be incomprehensible to the normal mind.”
In most of the camps discovered by the Soviets, almost all the prisoners had already been removed, leaving only a few thousand alive—7,600 inmates were found in Auschwitz, including 180 children who had been experimented on by doctors. Some 60,000 prisoners were discovered at Bergen-Belsen by the British 11th Armoured Division, 13,000 corpses lay unburied, and another 10,000 died from typhus or malnutrition over the following weeks. The British forced the remaining SS guards to gather up the corpses and place them in mass graves.
The BBC’s Richard Dimbleby described the scenes that greeted him and the British Army at Belsen:
Here over an acre of ground lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which… The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them… Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live… A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms… He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days. This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life.
Liberation
Starving prisoners in Mauthausen camp liberated on May 5, 1945.
A photo of emaciated male prisoners recently liberated from a concentration camp.
31.7.4: Okinawa and Iwo Jima
Hard-fought battles on the Japanese home islands of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and others resulted in horrific casualties on both sides but finally produced a Japanese defeat.
Learning Objective
Connect the battles for Okinawa and Iwo Jima with the greater American “island hopping” strategy
Key Points
The Battle of Iwo Jima (February 19 – March 26, 1945) was a major battle in which the U.S. Marines landed on and eventually captured the island of Iwo Jima from the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II.
After the heavy losses incurred in the battle, the strategic value of the island became controversial; it was useless to the U.S. Army as a staging base and useless to the U.S. Navy as a fleet base.
The largest and bloodiest American battle of the Pacific theater came at Okinawa, as the U.S. sought airbases for 3,000 B-29 bombers and 240 squadrons of B-17 bombers for the intense bombardment of Japan’s home islands in preparation for a full-scale invasion in late 1945.
At Okinawa, the Americans suffered 75,000 casualties on the ground; 94% of the Japanese soldiers died along with many civilians.
Many military historians believe that the Okinawa campaign led directly to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a means of avoiding the planned ground invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Key Terms
island hopping
A military strategy employed by the Allies in the Pacific War against Japan to bypass heavily fortified Japanese positions and instead concentrate the limited Allied resources on strategically important islands that were not well-defended but were capable of supporting the drive to the main islands of Japan.
“typhoon of steel”
American nickname for the battle of Okinawa, named for the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of Japanese kamikaze attacks, and the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island.
Iwo Jima
The battle of Iwo Jima (“Operation Detachment”) in February 1945 was one of the bloodiest battles fought by the Americans in the Pacific War. Iwo Jima was an eight-square-mile island situated halfway between Tokyo and the Mariana Islands. Holland Smith, the commander of the invasion force, aimed to capture the island and use its three airfields as bases to carry out air attacks against the Home Islands. Lt. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the commander of the island’s defense, knew that he could not win the battle but hoped to make the Americans suffer far more than they could endure.
From early 1944 until the days leading up to the invasion, Kuribayashi transformed the island into a massive network of bunkers, hidden guns, and 11 miles of underground tunnels. The heavy American naval and air bombardment did little but drive the Japanese further underground, making their positions impervious to enemy fire. Their pillboxes and bunkers were all connected so that if one was knocked out it could be reoccupied again. The network of bunkers and pillboxes greatly favored the defender.
Starting in mid-June 1944, Iwo Jima came under sustained aerial bombardment and naval artillery fire. However, Kuribayashi’s hidden guns and defenses survived the constant bombardment virtually unscathed. On February 19, 1945, some 30,000 men of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions landed on the southeast coast of Iwo, just under Mount Suribachi, where most of the island’s defenses were concentrated. For some time, they did not come under fire. This was part of Kuribayashi’s plan to hold fire until the landing beaches were full. As soon as the Marines pushed inland to a line of enemy bunkers, they came under devastating machine gun and artillery fire which cut down many of the men. By the end of the day, the Marines reached the west coast of the island, but their losses were appalling: almost 2,000 men killed or wounded.
On February 23, the 28th Marine Regiment reached the summit of Suribachi, prompting the now famous Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima picture. Navy Secretary James Forrestal, upon seeing the flag, remarked “there will be a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.” The flag raising is often cited as the most reproduced photograph of all time and became the archetypal representation not only of that battle, but of the entire Pacific War. For the rest of February, the Americans pushed north, and by March 1 had taken two-thirds of the island, but it was not until March 26 that the island was finally secured. The Japanese fought to the last man, killing 6,800 Marines and wounding nearly 20,000 more. The Japanese losses totaled well over 20,000 men killed, and only 1,083 prisoners were taken. Historians debate whether it was strategically worth the casualties sustained.
Iwo Jima
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal, became the only photograph to win the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in the same year as its publication, and came to be regarded in the United States as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war.
Iconic photo of several soldiers raising the American flag atop a hill on Iwo Jima.
Okinawa
The Battle of Okinawa, code named Operation Iceberg, was a series of battles fought in the Japanese Ryukyu Islands, centered on the island of Okinawa. It included the largest amphibious assault in the Pacific War during World War II, the April 1, 1945 invasion of Okinawa itself. The 82-day-long battle lasted from April 1 until June 22, 1945. After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 miles away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations for the planned invasion of Honshu, the Japanese mainland. Four divisions of the U.S. 10th Army (the 7th, 27th, 77th, and 96th) and two Marine Divisions (the 1st and 6th) fought on the island, supported by naval, amphibious, and tactical air forces.
The battle has been referred to as the “typhoon of steel” in English, and tetsu no ame (“rain of steel”) in Japanese. The nicknames refer to the ferocity of the fighting, the intensity of Japanese kamikaze attacks, and the sheer numbers of Allied ships and armored vehicles that assaulted the island. The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with more than 82,000 direct casualties on both sides: 14,009 Allied deaths (over 12,500 Americans killed or missing) and 77,166 Japanese soldiers, excluding those who died from their injuries later. Some islands that saw major battles, such as Iwo Jima, were uninhabited or previously evacuated. Okinawa, by contrast, had a large indigenous civilian population. 42,000 to 150,000 local civilians were killed, committed suicide, or went missing, a significant proportion of the estimated prewar local population of 300,000.
As part of the naval operations surrounding the battle, the Japanese super-battleship Yamato was sunk and both sides lost considerable numbers of ships and aircraft. The military value of Okinawa “exceeded all hope.” After the battle, Okinawa provided a fleet anchorage, troop staging areas, and airfields in proximity to Japan in preparation for the planned invasion of Japan.
Many military historians believe that the Okinawa campaign led directly to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a means of avoiding the planned ground invasion of the Japanese mainland. This view is explained by Victor Davis Hanson in his book Ripples of Battle:
…because the Japanese on Okinawa… were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace [unconditionally], without American casualties.
Island Hopping
Leapfrogging, also known as island hopping, was a military strategy employed by the Allies in the Pacific War against Japan and the Axis powers during World War II. The idea was to bypass heavily fortified Japanese positions and instead concentrate the limited Allied resources on strategically important islands that were not well-defended but were capable of supporting the drive to the main islands of Japan.
This strategy was possible in part because the Allies used submarine and air attacks to blockade and isolate Japanese bases, weakening their garrisons and reducing the Japanese ability to resupply and reinforce them. Thus troops on islands which had been bypassed, such as the major base at Rabaul, were useless to the Japanese war effort and left to “wither on the vine.” General Douglas MacArthur supported this strategy in his effort to regain the Philippines and it was implemented in late 1943 in Operation Cartwheel. While MacArthur claimed to have invented the strategy, it initially came out of the Navy.
Leapfrogging had a number of advantages. It would allow the United States forces to reach Japan quickly and not expend the time, manpower, and supplies to capture every Japanese-held island on the way. It would give the Allies the advantage of surprise and keep the Japanese off balance. The overall leapfrogging strategy would involve two prongs. A force led by Admiral Chester Nimitz, with a smaller land force and larger fleet, would advance north towards the island and capture the Gilbert and Marshall Islands and the Marianas, going in the direction of the Bonin Islands. The southern prong, led by General MacArthur and with larger land forces, would take the Solomons, New Guinea, and the Bismarck Archipelago, advancing toward the Philippines.
31.7.5: The Potsdam Conference
In July 1945, Allied leaders met in Potsdam, Germany, confirmed earlier agreements about post-war Germany, and reiterated the demand for unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces , specifically stating that “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
Learning Objective
Analyze the relations between the Allied nations at the Potsdam Conference
Key Points
A few months after the surrender of Germany and the end of the war in Europe, te Allied leaders from the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom met in Potsdam, Germany to confirm the agreements decided at the Yalta Conference and discuss other post-war issues.
America had won decisive battles against Japan, but the Pacific war still continued.
Since the Yalta Conference, Harry S. Truman succeeded Roosevelt after his death and Clement Attlee succeeded Churchill after the 1945 general election in the UK, shifting some of the existing dynamics among the nations.
The Potsdam Agreements resulted in the military occupation and reconstruction of Germany and the entire European theater of War territory. It also included Germany’s demilitarization, reparations, and prosecution of war criminals.
Truman mentioned an unspecified “powerful new weapon” to Stalin during the conference, a reference to the nuclear bombs just developed by the U.S.
Towards the end of the conference, Japan was given an ultimatum to surrender or meet “prompt and utter destruction,” but Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki did not respond.
Key Terms
Clement Attlee
A British politician who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, taking over from Winston Churchill at the end of World War II.
Yalta Conference
A meeting in February 1945 between the three heads of the main Allied forces in WWII, intended mainly to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe.
Manhattan Project
A research and development project that produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II.
Overview
The Potsdam Conference was held at Cecilienhof, the home of Crown Prince Wilhelm in Potsdam, occupied Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. Participants were the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The powers were represented by Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin, Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and, later, Clement Attlee, and President Harry S. Truman.
Stalin, Churchill, and Truman—as well as Attlee, who participated alongside Churchill while awaiting the outcome of the 1945 general election and then became prime minister after the Labour Party’s defeat of the Conservatives—gathered to decide how to administer defeated Nazi Germany, which had agreed to unconditional surrender nine weeks earlier on May 8 (V-E Day). The goals of the conference included the establishment of post-war order, peace treaty issues, and countering the effects of the war.
After the war, the Soviet Union converted the other countries of eastern Europe into Soviet Satellite states within the Eastern Bloc, such as the People’s Republic of Poland, the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, the People’s Republic of Hungary, the Czechoslovak Republic, the People’s Republic of Romania, and the People’s Republic of Albania. The Soviets later formed the puppet state of East Germany from the Soviet zone of German occupation.
Relationships Among the Leaders
In the five months since the Yalta Conference, a number of changes had taken place that greatly affected the relationships between the leaders. By July, the Red Army effectively controlled the Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, and fearing a Stalinist take-over, refugees were fleeing from these countries. Stalin had set up a communist government in Poland. He insisted that his control of Eastern Europe was a defensive measure against possible future attacks and claimed that it was a legitimate sphere of Soviet influence.
President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, and Vice President Harry Truman assumed the presidency; his succession saw VE Day (Victory in Europe) within a month and VJ Day (Victory in Japan) on the horizon. During the war and in the name of Allied unity, Roosevelt had brushed off warnings of a potential domination by a Stalin dictatorship in part of Europe. While inexperienced in foreign affairs, Truman had closely followed the Allied progress during the war. George Lenczowski notes “despite the contrast between his relatively modest background and the international glamour of his aristocratic predecessor, [Truman] had the courage and resolution to reverse the policy that appeared to him naive and dangerous,” which was “in contrast to the immediate, often ad hoc moves and solutions dictated by the demands of the war.” With the end of the war, the priority of Allied unity was replaced with a new challenge, the nature of the relationship between the two emerging superpowers.
Truman was much more suspicious of communist moves than Roosevelt had been, and became increasingly suspicious of Soviet intentions under Stalin. Truman and his advisers saw Soviet actions in Eastern Europe as aggressive expansionism, which was incompatible with the agreements Stalin committed to at Yalta the previous February. In addition, at the Potsdam Conference Truman became aware of possible complications elsewhere when Stalin objected to Churchill’s proposal for an early Allied withdrawal from Iran ahead of the schedule agreed at the Tehran Conference. The Potsdam Conference marks the first and only time Truman would ever meet Stalin in person.
Potsdam Conference
The “Big Three”: Clement Attlee, Harry S. Truman and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, circa 28 July – 1 August 1945
A photo of Joseph Stalin, Clement Attlee, Harry S. Truman at the Potsdam Conference.
Potsdam Agreements
At the end of the conference, the three heads of government agreed on the following actions. All other issues would to be answered by the final peace conference to be called as soon as possible.
Allied Chiefs of Staff at the Potsdam Conference would temporarily partition Vietnam at the 16th parallel (just North of Da Nang) for operational convenience.
It was agreed that British forces would take the surrender of Japanese forces in Saigon for the southern half of Indochina, whilst Japanese troops in the northern half would surrender to the Chinese.
Issuance of a statement of aims of the occupation of Germany by the Allies: demilitarization, denazification, democratization, decentralization, and decartelization.
Division of Germany and Austria respectively into four occupation zones (earlier agreed in principle at Yalta), and the similar division of each capital, Berlin and Vienna, into four zones.
Agreement on the prosecution of Nazi war criminals.
Reversion of all German annexations in Europe, including Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, and the westernmost parts of Poland
Germany’s eastern border was to be shifted westwards to the Oder–Neisse line, effectively reducing Germany in size by approximately 25% compared to its 1937 borders. The territories east of the new border comprised East Prussia, Silesia, West Prussia, and two thirds of Pomerania. These areas were mainly agricultural, with the exception of Upper Silesia which was the second largest centre of German heavy industry.
“Orderly and humane” expulsions of the German populations remaining beyond the new eastern borders of Germany from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, but not Yugoslavia.
Agreement on war reparations to the Soviet Union from their zone of occupation in Germany.
Ensuring that German standards of living did not exceed the European average.
Destruction of German industrial war-potential through the destruction or control of all industry with military potential.
A Provisional Government of National Unity recognized by all three powers should be created in Poland.
Poles who were serving in the British Army should be free to return to Poland, with no security upon their return to the communist country guaranteed.
The provisional western border of Poland should be the Oder–Neisse line, defined by the Oder and Neisse rivers.
The Soviet Union declared it would settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of the overall reparation payments.
Truman’s Secret Weapon
Truman mentioned an unspecified “powerful new weapon” to Stalin during the conference. Towards the end of the meeting, Japan was given an ultimatum to surrender or meet “prompt and utter destruction,” which did not mention the new bomb. Prime minister Kantarō Suzuki did not respond. Therefore, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The justification was that both cities were legitimate military targets to end the war swiftly and preserve American lives. However, to some the timing has suggested that Truman did not want Stalin involved in the terms of Japan’s surrender. It is important to note that Truman delayed the Potsdam Conference in order to be sure of the functionality of this “powerful new weapon.” Notably, when Truman informed Stalin of the atomic bomb, he did not explicitly mention its atomic nature. Stalin, though, had full knowledge of the atomic bomb’s development due to Soviet spy networks inside the Manhattan Project, and told Truman at the conference to “make good use of this new addition to the Allied arsenal.”
31.7.6: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in the first nuclear attack in history. Three days later, on August 9, the U.S. dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the last nuclear attack in history.
Learning Objective
Analyze the decision to drop the atomic bombs
Key Points
In the final year of the war, the Allies prepared for what was anticipated to be a very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland, with estimates of half a million casualties on both sides.
At the Potsdam Conference, the Allies called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces, with the alternative being “prompt and utter destruction.” The Japanese ignored this ultimatum, prompting the American government to plan a nuclear attack.
On August 6, the U.S. dropped a uranium gun-type atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima.
American President Harry S. Truman called for Japan’s surrender 16 hours later, warning them to “expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth,” an ultimatum that was again ignored by the Japanese, who planned to continue fighting.
Three days later, on August 9, the U.S. dropped a plutonium implosion-type bomb (Fat Man) on Nagasaki.
Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000-146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000-80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day.
On August 15, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet Union’s declaration of war, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies.
The bombings’ role in Japan’s surrender and their ethical justification are still debated by historians and other scholars.
Key Terms
Manhattan Project
A research and development project that produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II.
atomic bomb
A nuclear weapon that derives its explosive energy from nuclear fission reactions.
Operation Downfall
The code name for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II.
Overview
The United States, with the consent of the United Kingdom as laid down in the Quebec Agreement, dropped nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, during the final stage of World War II. The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history.
In the final year of the war, the Allies prepared for what was anticipated to be a very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. This was preceded by a U.S. firebombing campaign that destroyed 67 Japanese cities. The war in Europe concluded when Nazi Germany signed its instrument of surrender on May 8, 1945. The Japanese, facing the same fate, refused to accept the Allies’ demands for unconditional surrender and the Pacific War continued. Together with the United Kingdom and China, the United States called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945—the alternative being “prompt and utter destruction.” The Japanese responded to this ultimatum by ignoring it.
On July 16, 1945, the Allied Manhattan Project successfully detonated an atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert and by August had produced atomic weapons based on two alternate designs. The 509th Composite Group of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) was equipped with the specialized Silverplate version of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, that could deliver them from Tinian in the Mariana Islands.
On August 6, the U.S. dropped a uranium gun-type atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima. Six planes of the 509th Composite Group participated in this mission: one to carry the bomb (Enola Gay), one to take scientific measurements of the blast (The Great Artiste), the third to take photographs (Necessary Evil), while the others flew approximately an hour ahead to act as weather scouts. Bad weather would disqualify a target as the scientists insisted on visual delivery. American President Harry S. Truman called for Japan’s surrender 16 hours later, warning them to “expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” Three days later, on August 9, the U.S. dropped a plutonium implosion-type bomb (Fat Man) on Nagasaki. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable military garrison.
On August 15, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet Union’s declaration of war, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies. On September 2, it signed the instrument of surrender, effectively ending World War II. The bombings’ role in Japan’s surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.
Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Left picture : At the time this photo was taken, smoke billowed 20,000 feet above Hiroshima while smoke from the burst of the first atomic bomb spread over 10,000 feet on the target at the base of the rising column. Right picture: Atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, taken by Charles Levy.
Images of the mushroom clouds from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
Background
In 1945, the Pacific War between the Empire of Japan and the Allies entered its fourth year. The Japanese fought fiercely, ensuring that U.S. victory would come at an enormous cost. Of the 1.25 million battle casualties incurred by the United States in World War II, including both military personnel killed in action and wounded in action, nearly one million occurred from June 1944 to June 1945.
Even before the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945, plans were underway for the largest operation of the Pacific War, Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Olympic involved a series of landings by the U.S. Sixth Army intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū. Operation Olympic was to be followed in March 1946 by Operation Coronet, the capture of the Kantō Plain near Tokyo on the main Japanese island of Honshū by the U.S. First, Eighth, and Tenth Armies, as well as a Commonwealth Corps made up of Australian, British, and Canadian divisions.
Japan’s geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and adjust their defensive plan, Operation Ketsugō, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Four veteran divisions were withdrawn from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in March 1945 to strengthen the forces in Japan, and 45 new divisions were activated between February and May 1945.
The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese buildup, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk and examined casualty forecasts by Michael E. DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese fatalities would have been around 5 to 10 million.
Manhattan Project
The discovery of nuclear fission by German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938, and its theoretical explanation by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch, made the development of an atomic bomb a theoretical possibility. Fears that a German atomic bomb project would develop atomic weapons first, especially among scientists who were refugees from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries, were expressed in the Einstein-Szilard letter. This prompted preliminary research in the United States in late 1939, supported by President Roosevelt. Progress was slow until the arrival of the British MAUD Committee report in late 1941, which indicated that only 5–10 kilograms of isotopically enriched uranium-235 was needed for a bomb instead of tons of unenriched uranium and a neutron moderator (e.g. heavy water).
Working in collaboration with the United Kingdom and Canada, with their respective projects Tube Alloys and Chalk River Laboratories, the Manhattan Project, under the direction of Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, designed and built the first atomic bombs. Groves appointed J. Robert Oppenheimer to organize and head the project’s Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, where bomb design work was carried out. Two types of bombs were eventually developed. Little Boy was a gun-type fission weapon that used uranium-235, a rare isotope of uranium separated at the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The other, known as a Fat Man, was a more powerful and efficient, but more complicated, implosion-type nuclear weapon that used plutonium created in nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington. A test implosion weapon, the gadget, was detonated at Trinity Site, on July 16, 1945, near Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Decision to Drop the Second Bomb
After the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon. He stated, “We may be grateful to Providence” that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had “spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won.” Truman then warned Japan: “If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”
The Japanese government did not react. On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city and carefully examined the damage. They returned to Tokyo and told the cabinet that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging “there would be more destruction but the war would go on.” American Magic codebreakers intercepted the cabinet’s messages.
Purnell, Parsons, Tibbets, Spaatz, and LeMay met on Guam that same day to discuss what should be done next. Since there was no indication of Japan surrendering, they decided to proceed with dropping another bomb. Parsons said that Project Alberta would have it ready by August 11, but Tibbets pointed to weather reports indicating poor flying conditions on that day due to a storm, and asked if the bomb could be readied by August 9. Parsons agreed to try to do so.
Debate Over Bombings
The role of the bombings in Japan’s surrender and the U.S.’s ethical justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker wrote in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, “the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue.” He wrote that “the fundamental issue that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States.”
Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing casualties on both sides during Operation Downfall. One figure of speech, “One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation,” served as a unifying slogan. In Truman’s 1955 Memoirs, “he states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million U.S. lives—anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million U.S. casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives.” Scholars have pointed out various alternatives that could have ended the war without an invasion, but these could have resulted in the deaths of many more Japanese. Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW camp was in the combat zone.
Those who oppose the bombings cite a number of reasons, including the belief that atomic bombing is fundamentally immoral, that the bombings counted as war crimes, that they were militarily unnecessary, that they constituted state terrorism, and that they involved racism against and the dehumanization of the Japanese people. Another popular view among critics of the bombings, originating with Gar Alperovitz in 1965 and becoming the default position in Japanese school history textbooks, is the idea of atomic diplomacy: that the United States used nuclear weapons r to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War. The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. “The Soviet entry into the war,” argued Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, “played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow’s mediation.”
Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki
Nagasaki, before and after the atomic bomb detonation
Images of Nagasaki before and after the atomic bomb explosion. The first image shows a populated city, full of buildings, and the second a stretch of land with only a few buildings.
31.8: Impact of War World II
31.8.1: Terms of Surrender
The unconditional surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945, and Japan on September 2, 1945, brought World War II to an end. Various documents and treaties placed stringent terms on Axis powers to prevent future hostilities.
Learning Objective
Describe the terms under which Germany, Japan, and Italy surrendered
Key Points
The German Instrument of Surrender ended World War II in Europe on the night of May 8, 1945.
The terms of Germany’s unconditional surrender had been discussed since January 1944 and further clarified at the Yalta conference. They established, among other things, that the Allied Representatives “will take such steps, including the complete disarmament, demilitarisation and dismemberment of Germany as they deem requisite for future peace and security.”
The surrender of Japan was announced by Imperial Japan on August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945, bringing the hostilities of World War II to a close.
Their terms of surrender included disarmament and occupation by Allied forces.
The terms of Italy’s defeat were determined during the Paris Peace Conference in 1947, and included limits on their military and a ban on all fascist organizations.
Key Terms
Paris Peace Treaties
A series of document wherein victorious wartime Allied powers negotiated the details of peace treaties with minor Axis powers, namely Italy (though it was considered a major Axis Power), Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland, following the end of World War II in 1945.
German Instrument of Surrender
The legal document that established the unconditional surrender of Germany in World War II.
unconditional surrender
A surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.
Potsdam Declaration
A statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II.
Surrender of Germany
The German Instrument of Surrender ended World War II in Europe. The definitive text was signed in Karlshorst, Berlin on the night of May 8, 1945 by representatives of the three armed services of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht(OKW) and the Allied Expeditionary Force together with the Supreme High Command of the Red Army, with further French and U.S. representatives signing as witnesses. An earlier version of the text was signed in a ceremony in Reims in the early hours of May 7, 1945, but the Soviets rejected that version as it underplayed their role in the defeat of Germany in Berlin. In the West, May 8 is known as Victory in Europe Day, whereas in post-Soviet states the Victory Day is celebrated on May 9 since the definitive signing occurred after midnight Moscow time.
Preparations of the text of the instrument of surrender began by representatives of the then three Allied Powers, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, at the European Advisory Commission (EAC) throughout 1944. By January 3, 1944, the Working Security Committee in the EAC proposed, “that the capitulation of Germany should be recorded in a single document of unconditional surrender.”
The agreed text was in three parts. The first consisted of a brief preamble “The German Government and German High Command, recognizing and acknowledging the complete defeat of the German armed forces on land, at sea and in the air, hereby announce Germany’s unconditional surrender.”
The instrument of surrender itself followed in fourteen articles. The second part, articles 1-5, related to the military surrender by the German High Command of all forces on land, at sea, and in the air, to the surrender of their weapons, to their evacuation from any territory outside German boundaries by December 31, 1937, and to their liability to captivity as prisoners of war. The third part, articles 6 to 12, related to the surrender by the German Government to Allied Representatives of almost all its powers and authority, the release and repatriation of prisoners and forced laborers, the cessation of radio broadcasts, the provision of intelligence and information, the non-destruction of weapons and infrastructure, the yielding of Nazi leaders for war-crime trials, and the power of Allied Representatives to issue proclamations, orders, ordinances, and instructions covering “additional political, administrative, economic, financial, military and other requirements arising from the complete defeat of Germany.” The key article in the third part was article 12, providing that the German Government and German High command would comply fully with any proclamations, orders, ordinances, and instructions of the accredited Allied Representatives; this was understood by the Allies as allowing unlimited scope to impose arrangements for the restitution and reparation of war damages. Articles 13 and 14 specified the date of surrender and the languages of the definitive texts.
The Yalta Conference in February 1945 led to a further development of the terms of surrender, as it was agreed that administration of post-war Germany would be split into four occupation zones for Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union respectively. In addition, but separately, it was agreed at Yalta that an additional clause 12a would be added to the July 1944 surrender text: that the Allied Representatives “will take such steps, including the complete disarmament, demilitarisation and dismemberment of Germany as they deem requisite for future peace and security.”
In the event of the German signings of Instruments of Surrender at Reims and Berlin, the EAC text was not used; a simplified, military-only version, based largely on the wording of the partial surrender instrument of German forces in Italy signed at Caserta, was applied instead. The reasons for the change are disputed, but it may reflect awareness of reservations as to the capability of the German signatories to agree the provisions of the full text.
With the Potsdam Agreement, signed on August 12, 1945, the Allied leaders planned the new post-war German government, resettled war territory boundaries, de facto annexed a quarter of prewar Germany situated east of the Oder-Neisse line, and mandated and organized the expulsion of the millions of Germans who remained in the annexed territories and elsewhere in the east. They also ordered German demilitarization, denazification, industrial disarmament, and settlements of war reparations.
German Instrument of Surrender
The first instrument of surrender signed at Reims on May 7, 1945.
Photo of the text of the German Instrument of Surrender
Surrender of Japan
The surrender of Japan was announced by Imperial Japan on August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945, bringing the hostilities of World War II to a close. By the end of July 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy was incapable of conducting major operations, and an Allied invasion of Japan was imminent. Together with the United Kingdom and China, the United States called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945—the alternative being “prompt and utter destruction.”
On August 6, 1945, at 8:15 a.m. local time, the U.S. detonated an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Sixteen hours later, American President Harry S. Truman called again for Japan’s surrender, warning them to “expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” Late in the evening of August 8, 1945, in accordance with the Yalta agreements but in violation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, 1945, invaded the Imperial Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later in the day, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Following these events, Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d’état, Emperor Hirohito gave a recorded radio address across the Empire on August 15. In the radio address, called the Jewel Voice Broadcast, he announced the surrender of Japan to the Allies.
The term for Japan’s surrender were decided at the Potsdam Conference. On July 26 1945, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan’s surrender, with the warning, “We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.” For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:
the elimination “for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest”
the occupation of “points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies”
that the “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her prewar empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
that “[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.”
that “[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners.”
“The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.”
“We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”
On August 28, the occupation of Japan by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers began. The surrender ceremony was held on September 2 aboard the United States Navy battleship USS Missouri, at which officials from the Japanese government signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, thereby ending the hostilities.
Terms of Peace with Italy
The Treaty of Peace with Italy (one of the Paris Peace Treaties) was signed on February 10, 1947 between Italy and the victorious powers of World War II, formally ending hostilities. It came into general effect on September 15, 1947.
Articles 47 and 48 called for the demolition of all permanent fortifications along the Franco-Italian and Yugoslav-Italian frontier. Italy was banned from possessing, building, or experimenting with atomic weapons, guided missiles, guns with a range of over 30 km, non-contact naval mines and torpedoes as well as manned torpedoes (article 51).
The military of Italy was limited in size. Italy was allowed a maximum of 200 heavy and medium tanks (article 54). Former officers and non-commissioned officers of the Blackshirts and the National Republican Army were barred from becoming officers or non-commissioned officers in the Italian military (except those exonerated by the Italian courts, article 55).
The Italian navy was reduced. Some warships were awarded to the governments of the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and France (articles 56 and 57). Italy was ordered to scuttle all its submarines (article 58) and banned from acquiring new battleships, submarines, and aircraft carriers (article 59). The navy was limited to a maximum force of 25,000 personnel (article 60). The Italian army was limited to a size of 185,000 personnel plus 65,000 Carabinieri for a maximum total of 250,000 personnel (article 61). The Italian air force was limited to 200 fighters and reconnaissance aircraft plus 150 transport, air-rescue, training, and liaison aircraft, and was banned from owning and operating bomber aircraft (article 64). The number of air force personnel was limited to 25,000 (article 65).
Article 17 of the treaty banned Fascist organizations (“whether political, military, or semi-military”) in Italy.
31.8.2: Casualties of World War II
Some 75 million people died in World War II, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians, many of whom died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass-bombings, disease, and starvation.
Learning Objective
Assess the losses and damages of World War II
Key Points
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history in terms of total dead, with some 75 million people casualties including military and civilians, or around 3% of the world’s population at the time.
Many civilians died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass-bombings, disease, and starvation.
The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, including 8.7 million military and 19 million civilians. This represents the most military deaths of any nation by a large margin.
Germany sustained 5.3 million military losses, mostly on the Eastern Front and during the final battles in Germany.
Of the total number of deaths in World War II, approximately 85 percent were on the Allied side and 15 percent were on the Axis side, with many of these deaths caused by war crimes committed by German and Japanese forces in occupied territories.
Nazi Germany, as part of a deliberate program of extermination, systematically killed over 11 million people including 6 million Jews.
In addition to Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet gulags (labor camps) led to the deaths of 3.6 million civilians.
Key Terms
“unworthy of life”
In German, “Lebensunwertes Leben,” this term was a Nazi designation for the segments of the populace which, according to the Nazi regime of the time, had no right to live.
Executive Order 9066
A United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans and Italian-Americans to internment camps.
gulag
The government agency that administered the main Soviet forced labour camp systems during the Stalin era, from the 1930s until the 1950s.
Casualties and War Crimes
Estimates for the total number of casualties in the war vary because many deaths went unrecorded. Most suggest that some 75 million people died in the war, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians. Many civilians died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass-bombings, disease, and starvation.
The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, including 8.7 million military and 19 million civilian deaths. The largest portion of military dead were 5.7 million ethnic Russians, followed by 1.3 million ethnic Ukrainians. A quarter of the people in the Soviet Union were wounded or killed. Germany sustained 5.3 million military losses, mostly on the Eastern Front and during the final battles in Germany.
Of the total number of deaths in World War II, approximately 85 percent—mostly Soviet and Chinese—were on the Allied side and 15 percent on the Axis side. Many deaths were caused by war crimes committed by German and Japanese forces in occupied territories. An estimated 11 to 17 million civilians died either as a direct or as an indirect result of Nazi ideological policies, including the systematic genocide of around 6 million Jews during the Holocaust and an additional 5 to 6 million ethnic Poles and other Slavs (including Ukrainians and Belarusians), Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs, along with gypsies and Jews, were murdered by the Axis-aligned Croatian Ustaše in Yugoslavia, and retribution-related killings were committed just after the war ended.
In Asia and the Pacific, between 3 million and more than 10 million civilians, mostly Chinese (estimated at 7.5 million), were killed by the Japanese occupation forces. The best-known Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which 50 to 300 thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered. Mitsuyoshi Himeta reported that 2.7 million casualties occurred during the Sankō Sakusen. General Yasuji Okamura implemented the policy in Heipei and Shantung.
Axis forces employed biological and chemical weapons. The Imperial Japanese Army used a variety of such weapons during its invasion and occupation of China and in early conflicts against the Soviets. Both the Germans and Japanese tested such weapons against civilians and sometimes on prisoners of war.
The Soviet Union was responsible for the Katyn massacre of 22,000 Polish officers and the imprisonment or execution of thousands of political prisoners by the NKVD in the Baltic states and eastern Poland annexed by the Red Army.
The mass-bombing of civilian areas, notably the cities of Warsaw, Rotterdam and London, included the aerial targeting of hospitals and fleeing refugees by the German Luftwaffe, along with the bombings of Tokyo and the German cities of Dresden, Hamburg, and Cologne by the Western Allies. These bombings may be considered war crimes. The latter resulted in the destruction of more than 160 cities and the death of more than 600,000 German civilians. However, no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law with respect to aerial warfare existed before or during World War II.
World War II Casualties
Estimates suggest that some 75 million people died in World War II, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians.
A chart depicting the number of casualties from every country involved in WWII.
Concentration Camps, Slave Labor, and Genocide
The German government led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party was responsible for the Holocaust, the killing of approximately 6 million Jews, 2.7 million ethnic Poles, and 4 million others who were deemed “unworthy of life” (including the disabled and mentally ill, Soviet prisoners of war, homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Romani) as part of a program of deliberate extermination. About 12 million, mostly Eastern Europeans, were employed in the German war economy as forced laborers.
In addition to Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet gulags (labor camps) led to the death of citizens of occupied countries such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as German prisoners of war (POWs) and Soviet citizens who were thought to be Nazi supporters. Of the 5.7 million Soviet POWs of the Germans, 57 percent died or were killed during the war, a total of 3.6 million. Soviet ex-POWs and repatriated civilians were treated with great suspicion as potential Nazi collaborators, and some owere sent to the Gulag upon being checked by the NKVD.
Japanese POW camps, many of which were used as labor camps, also had high death rates. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East found the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1 percent (for American POWs, 37 percent), seven times that of POWs under the Germans and Italians. While 37,583 prisoners from the UK, 28,500 from the Netherlands, and 14,473 from the United States were released after the surrender of Japan, the number of Chinese released was only 56.
According to historian Zhifen Ju, at least five million Chinese civilians from northern China and Manchukuo were enslaved between 1935 and 1941 by the East Asia Development Board, or Kōain, for work in mines and war industries. After 1942, the number reached 10 million. The US Library of Congress estimates that in Java, between 4 and 10 million rōmusha (Japanese: “manual laborers”), were forced to work by the Japanese military. About 270,000 of these Javanese laborers were sent to other Japanese-held areas in South East Asia, and only 52,000 were repatriated to Java.
On February 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, interning about 100,000 Japanese living on the West Coast. Canada had a similar program. In addition, 14,000 German and Italian citizens who had been assessed as being security risks were also interned.
In accordance with the Allied agreement made at the Yalta Conference, millions of POWs and civilians were used as forced labor by the Soviet Union. Hungarians were forced to work for the Soviet Union until 1955.
The Liberation of Bergen-Belsen Concentration
SS female camp guards remove prisoners’ bodies from lorries and carry them to a mass grave, inside the German Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, 1945
Photo of female German camp guards removing prisoners’ bodies from lorries and carry them to a mass grave, inside the German Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, 1945
31.8.3: The Atlantic Charter
The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter, most notably the United Nations.
Learning Objective
Explain what the Atlantic Charter promised and who committed to it
Key Points
The Atlantic Charter was a pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-war world, including self-determination for nations and economic and social cooperation among nations.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted the Atlantic Charter at the Atlantic Conference in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland in 1941.
Adherents of the Atlantic Charter signed the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942; it became the basis for the modern United Nations.
In a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation and not to people who formed part of the British Empire, a statement which became controversial and resulted in strong pushback from figures such as Gandhi.
Key Terms
self-determination
A cardinal principle in modern international law that states that nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
United Nations
An intergovernmental organization to promote international cooperation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on October 24, 1945 after World War II to prevent another such conflict.
Overview
The Atlantic Charter was a pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-war world. The leaders of the United Kingdom and the United States drafted the work and all the Allies of World War II later confirmed it. The Charter stated the ideal goals of the war with eight principal points :
No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;
Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned;
All people had a right to self-determination;
Trade barriers were to be lowered;
There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare;
The participants would work for a world free of want and fear;
The participants would work for freedom of the seas;
There was to be disarmament of aggressor nations, and a post-war common disarmament.
Adherents of the Atlantic Charter signed the Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942; it became the basis for the modern United Nations.
The Atlantic Charter made it clear that America was supporting Britain in the war. Both America and Britain wanted to present their unity, mutual principles, and hopes for the post-war world and the policies they agreed to follow once the Nazis had been defeated. A fundamental aim was to focus on the peace that would follow and not specific American involvement and war strategy, although U.S. involvement appeared increasingly likely.
The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the post-war independence of European colonies, and many other key policies are derived from the Atlantic Charter.
Impact and Response
The public of Britain and the Commonwealth was delighted with the principles of the meetings but disappointed that the U.S. was not entering the war. Churchill admitted that he had hoped the U.S. would finally decide to commit itself. Regardless, the acknowledgement that all people had a right to self-determination gave hope to independence leaders in British colonies.
The Americans were insistent that the charter was to acknowledge that the war was being fought to ensure self-determination. The British were forced to agree to these aims, but in a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the peoples who formed part of the British Empire.
Churchill rejected its universal applicability when it came to the self-determination of subject nations such as British India. Mohandas Gandhi in 1942 wrote to President Roosevelt: “I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for the freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and for that matter Africa are exploited by Great Britain…” Roosevelt repeatedly brought the need for Indian independence to Churchill’s attention, but was rebuffed. However Gandhi refused to help either the British or the American war effort against Germany and Japan in any way, and Roosevelt chose to back Churchill. India was already contributing significantly to the war effort, sending over 2.5 million men (the largest volunteer force in the world at the time) to fight for the Allies, mostly in West Asia and North Africa.
The Axis powers interpreted these diplomatic agreements as a potential alliance against them. In Tokyo, the Atlantic Charter rallied support for the militarists in the Japanese government, who pushed for a more aggressive approach against the U.S. and Britain.
The British dropped millions of flysheets over Germany to allay fears of a punitive peace that would destroy the German state. The text cited the Charter as the authoritative statement of the joint commitment of Great Britain and the U.S. “not to admit any economical discrimination of those defeated” and promised that “Germany and the other states can again achieve enduring peace and prosperity.”
The most striking feature of the discussion was that an agreement had been made between a range of countries that held diverse opinions, who were accepting that internal policies were relevant to the international problem. The agreement proved to be one of the first steps towards the formation of the United Nations.
Atlantic Charter
Winston Churchill’s edited copy of the final draft of the Atlantic Charter.
Image of Winston Churchill’s edited copy of the final draft of the Atlantic Charter.
31.8.4: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the barbarism of World War II.
Learning Objective
Understand the purpose and legal effect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Key Points
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many believe are the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947.
The Declaration consists of thirty articles which, although not legally binding, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws, thereby making many of their principles legally binding in various nations.
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international cooperation established in 1945 after the end of WWII to replace the ineffectual League of Nations.
Key Terms
United Nations Charter
The foundational treaty of the United Nations, signed October 24, 1945.
International Bill of Human Rights
The name given to UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) and two international treaties established by the United Nations. It consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
A declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, the first global expression of what many believe are the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.
Overview
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many believe are the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic, and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” It aims to recognize, “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights and whether or how it should be enforced.
The Declaration consists of 30 articles which, although not legally binding, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966, the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights. In 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill became an international law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Image of Eleanor Roosevelt holding the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Spanish
Precursors to the Declaration
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international cooperation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established after World War II to prevent another such conflict. The United Nations Charter was drafted at a conference in April–June 1945; this charter took effect October 24, 1945, and the UN began operation.
During World War II, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims. The United Nations Charter “reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person” and committed all member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the war, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights to which it referred. A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.
Legal Effect
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. In addition, many international lawyers believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles.
The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration “constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community” to all persons. The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, as well as by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognized human rights.
Even though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as regional, subnational, and national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
The victorious Allies of WWI imposed harsh reparations on Germany, which were both economically and psychologically damaging. Historians have long argued over the extent to which the reparations led to Germany’s severe economic depression in the interwar period.
Learning Objective
Defend and critique the decision to demand high reparations from Germany after the war
Key Points
One of the most contentious decisions at the Paris Peace Conference was the question of war reparations, payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war.
Most of the war’s major battles occurred in France, and the French countryside was heavily damaged in the fighting, leading French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau to push for harsh reparations from Germany to rebuild France.
Both the British and American representatives at the Conference (David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson) opposed these harsh reparations, believing they would create economic instability in Europe overall, but in the end the Conference decided that Germany was to pay 132 billion gold marks (USD $33 billion) in reparations, a decision that angered the Germans and was a source of resentment for decades to come.
Because of the lack of reparation payments by Germany, France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 to enforce payments, causing an international crisis that resulted in the implementation of the Dawes Plan in 1924. This raised money from other nations to help Germany pay and shifted the payment plan.
Again, Germany was unable to pay and the plan was revised again with a reduced sum and more lenient plan.
With the collapse of the German economy in 1931, reparations were suspended for a year and in 1932 during the Lausanne Conference they were cancelled altogether.
Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid fewer than 21 billion marks in reparations.
Key Terms
Young Plan
A program for settling German reparations debts after World War I, written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. After the Dawes Plan was put into operation in 1924, it became apparent that Germany would not willingly meet the annual payments over an indefinite period of time. This new plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent.
indemnities
An obligation by a person to provide compensation for a particular loss suffered by another person.
reparations
Payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war. Generally, the term refers to money or goods changing hands, but not to the annexation of land.
World War I reparations were imposed upon the Central Powers during the Paris Peace Conference following their defeat in the First World War by the Allied and Associate Powers. Each defeated power was required to make payments in either cash or kind. Because of the financial situation Austria, Hungary, and Turkey found themselves in after the war, few to no reparations were paid and the requirements were cancelled. Bulgaria paid only a fraction of what was required before its reparations were reduced and then cancelled. Historian Ruth Henig argues that the German requirement to pay reparations was the “chief battleground of the post-war era” and “the focus of the power struggle between France and Germany over whether the Versailles Treaty was to be enforced or revised.”
The Treaty of Versailles and the 1921 London Schedule of Payments required Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks (USD $33 billion) in reparations to cover civilian damage caused during the war. This figure was divided into three categories of bonds: A, B, and C. Of these, Germany was only required to pay towards ‘A’ and ‘B’ bonds totaling 50 billion marks (USD $12.5 billion). The remaining ‘C’ bonds, which Germany did not have to pay, were designed to deceive the Anglo-French public into believing Germany was being heavily fined and punished for the war.
Because of the lack of reparation payments by Germany, France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 to enforce payments, causing an international crisis that resulted in the implementation of the Dawes Plan in 1924. This plan outlined a new payment method and raised international loans to help Germany to meet her reparation commitments. In the first year following the implementation of the plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. This would rise to 2.5 billion marks per year by the fifth year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established with Allied representatives to organize the payment of reparations. Despite this, by 1928 Germany called for a new payment plan, resulting in the Young Plan that established the German reparation requirements at 112 billion marks (USD $26.3 billion) and created a schedule of payments that would see Germany complete payments by 1988. With the collapse of the German economy in 1931, reparations were suspended for a year and in 1932 during the Lausanne Conference they were cancelled altogether. Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid fewer than 21 billion marks in reparations.
The German people saw reparations as a national humiliation; the German Government worked to undermine the validity of the Treaty of Versailles and the requirement to pay. British economist John Maynard Keynes called the treaty a Carthaginian peace that would economically destroy Germany. His arguments had a profound effect on historians, politicians, and the public. Despite Keynes’ arguments and those by later historians supporting or reinforcing Keynes’ views, the consensus of contemporary historians is that reparations were not as intolerable as the Germans or Keynes had suggested and were within Germany’s capacity to pay had there been the political will to do so.
Background
Most of the war’s major battles occurred in France, substantially damaging the French countryside. Furthermore, in 1918 during the German retreat, German troops devastated France’s most industrialized region in the north-east (Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin). Extensive looting took place as German forces removed whatever material they could use and destroyed the rest. Hundreds of mines were destroyed along with railways, bridges, and entire villages. Prime Minister of France Georges Clemenceau was determined, for these reasons, that any just peace required Germany to pay reparations for the damage it had caused. Clemenceau viewed reparations as a way of weakening Germany to ensure it could never threaten France again. Reparations would also go towards the reconstruction costs in other countries, including Belgium, which was also directly affected by the war.
Reparations
Avocourt, 1918, one of the many destroyed French villages where reconstruction would be funded by reparations.
A photo of Avocourt, 1918, a village almost completed razed to the ground by World War I.
British Prime Minister David Lloyd George opposed harsh reparations, arguing for a smaller sum that was less damaging to the German economy so that Germany could remain a viable economic power and trading partner. He also argued that reparations should include war pensions for disabled veterans and allowances for war widows, which would reserve a larger share of the reparations for the British Empire. Woodrow Wilson opposed these positions and was adamant that no indemnity should be imposed upon Germany.
The Paris Peace Conference opened on January 18, 1919, aiming to establish a lasting peace between the Allied and Central Powers. Demanding compensation from the defeated party was a common feature of peace treaties. However, the financial terms of treaties signed during the peace conference were labelled reparations to distinguish them from punitive settlements usually known as indemnities, intended for reconstruction and compensating families bereaved by the war. The opening article of the reparation section of the Treaty of Versailles, Article 231, served as a legal basis for the following articles, which obliged Germany to pay compensation and limited German responsibility to civilian damages. The same article, with the signatory’s name changed, was also included in the treaties signed by Germany’s allies.
Did Reparations Ruin the German Economy?
Erik Goldstein wrote that in 1921, the payment of reparations caused a crisis and that the occupation of the Ruhr had a disastrous effect on the German economy, resulting in the German Government printing more money as the currency collapsed. Hyperinflation began and printing presses worked overtime to print Reichsbank notes; by November 1923 one U.S. dollar was worth 4.2 trillion marks. Geoff Harcourt writes that Keynes’ arguments that reparations would lead to German economic collapse have been adopted “by historians of almost all political persuasions” and have influenced the way historians and the public “see the unfolding events in Germany and the decades between Versailles and the outbreak of the Second World War.”
But not all historians agree. According to Detlev Peukert, the financial problems that arose in the early 1920s were a result of post-war loans and the way Germany funded its war effort, not reparations. During World War I, Germany did not raise taxes or create new ones to pay for wartime expenses. Rather, loans were taken out, placing Germany in an economically precarious position as more money entered circulation, destroying the link between paper money and the gold reserve maintained before the war. With its defeat, Germany could not impose reparations and pay off war debts, which were now colossal.
Niall Ferguson partially supports this analysis. He says that had reparations not been imposed, Germany would still have had significant problems caused by the need to pay war debts and the demands of voters for more social services. Ferguson also says that these problems were aggravated by a trade deficit and a weak exchange rate for the mark during 1920. Afterwards, as the value of the mark rose, inflation became a problem. None of these effects, he says, were the result of reparations.
Several historians take the middle ground between condemning reparations and supporting the argument that they were not a complete burden upon Germany. Detlev Peukert states, “Reparations did not, in fact, bleed the German economy” as had been feared; however, the “psychological effects of reparations were extremely serious, as was the strain that the vicious circle of credits and reparations placed the international financial system.”
30.1.2: The Weimar Republic
In its 14 years in existence, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremism, and contentious relationships with the victors of the First World War, leading to its collapse during the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Learning Objective
Describe the Weimar Republic and the challenges it faced
Key Points
The Weimar Republic came into existence during the final stages of World War I, during the German Revolution of 1918–19.
From its beginnings and throughout its 14 years of existence, the Weimar Republic experienced numerous problems, most notably hyperinflation and unemployment.
In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.
With its currency and economy in ruin, Germany failed to pay its heavy war reparations, which were resented by Germans to begin with.
Many people in Germany blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, a belief that came to be known as the “stab-in-the-back myth,” which was heavily propagated during the rise of the Nazi party.
The passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 is widely considered to mark the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Nazi era.
Key Terms
Stab-in-the-back myth
The notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the “November Criminals.” When the Nazis came to power in 1933, they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the “November Criminals” who seized power while betraying the nation.
Enabling Act of 1933
A 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.
hyperinflation
This occurs when a country experiences very high and usually accelerating rates of inflation, rapidly eroding the real value of the local currency and causing the population to minimize their holdings of local money by switching to relatively stable foreign currencies. Under such conditions, the general price level within an economy increases rapidly as the official currency loses real value.
Weimar Republic is an unofficial historical designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. The name derives from the city of Weimar, where its constitutional assembly first took place. The official name of the state was still Deutsches Reich; it had remained unchanged since 1871. In English the country was usually known simply as Germany. A national assembly was convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the Deutsches Reich was written and adopted on August 11, 1919. In its 14 years, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremism (with paramilitaries – both left- and right-wing); and contentious relationships with the victors of the First World War. The people of Germany blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Weimar Republic government successfully reformed the currency, unified tax policies, and organized the railway system. Weimar Germany eliminated most of the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles; it never completely met its disarmament requirements and eventually paid only a small portion of the war reparations (by twice restructuring its debt through the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan). Under the Locarno Treaties, Germany accepted the western borders of the republic, but continued to dispute the Eastern border.
From 1930 onward, President Hindenburg used emergency powers to back Chancellors Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, and General Kurt von Schleicher. The Great Depression, exacerbated by Brüning’s policy of deflation, led to a surge in unemployment. In 1933, Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor with the Nazi Party as part of a coalition government. The Nazis held two out of the remaining 10 cabinet seats. Von Papen as Vice Chancellor was intended to work behind the scenes to keep Hitler under control, using his close personal connection to Hindenburg. Within months the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act of 1933 brought about a state of emergency: it wiped out constitutional governance and civil liberties. Hitler’s seizure of power (Machtergreifung) brought the republic to an end. As democracy collapsed, a single-party state founded the Nazi era.
Challenges and Reasons for Failure
The reasons for the Weimar Republic’s collapse are the subject of continuing debate. It may have been doomed from the beginning since even moderates disliked it and extremists on both the left and right loathed it, a situation referred to by some historians, such as Igor Primoratz, as a “democracy without democrats.” Germany had limited democratic traditions, and Weimar democracy was widely seen as chaotic. Weimar politicians had been blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I through a widely believed theory called the “Stab-in-the-back myth,” which contended that Germany’s surrender in World War I had been the unnecessary act of traitors, and thus the popular legitimacy of the government was on shaky ground. As normal parliamentary lawmaking broke down and was replaced around 1930 by a series of emergency decrees, the decreasing popular legitimacy of the government further drove voters to extremist parties.
The Republic in its early years was already under attack from both left- and right-wing sources. The radical left accused the ruling Social Democrats of betraying the ideals of the workers’ movement by preventing a communist revolution, and sought to overthrow the Republic and do so themselves. Various right-wing sources opposed any democratic system, preferring an authoritarian, autocratic state like the 1871 Empire. To further undermine the Republic’s credibility, some right-wingers (especially certain members of the former officer corps) also blamed an alleged conspiracy of Socialists and Jews for Germany’s defeat in World War I.
The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history. Rampant hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and a large drop in living standards were primary factors.
In the first half of 1922, the mark stabilized at about 320 marks per dollar. By fall 1922, Germany found itself unable to make reparations payments since the price of gold was now well beyond what it could afford. Also, the mark was by now practically worthless, making it impossible for Germany to buy foreign exchange or gold using paper marks. Instead, reparations were to be paid in goods such as coal. In January 1923, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr, the industrial region of Germany in the Ruhr valley, to ensure reparations payments. Inflation was exacerbated when workers in the Ruhr went on a general strike and the German government printed more money to continue paying for their passive resistance. By November 1923, the US dollar was worth 4,2 trillion German marks. In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.
Hyperinflation in Weimar Republic
One-million mark notes used as notepaper, October 1923. In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.
Photo shows a hand writing on the back of one-million mark notes being used as notepaper.
From 1923 to 1929, there was a short period of economic recovery, but the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a worldwide recession. Germany was particularly affected because it depended heavily on American loans. In 1926, about 2 million Germans were unemployed, which rose to around 6 million in 1932. Many blamed the Weimar Republic. That was made apparent when political parties on both right and left wanting to disband the Republic altogether made any democratic majority in Parliament impossible.
The reparations damaged Germany’s economy by discouraging market loans, which forced the Weimar government to finance its deficit by printing more currency, causing rampant hyperinflation. In addition, the rapid disintegration of Germany in 1919 by the return of a disillusioned army, the rapid change from possible victory in 1918 to defeat in 1919, and the political chaos may have caused a psychological imprint on Germans that could lead to extreme nationalism, later epitomised and exploited by Hitler.
It is also widely believed that the 1919 constitution had several weaknesses, making the eventual establishment of a dictatorship likely, but it is unknown whether a different constitution could have prevented the rise of the Nazi party.
30.1.3: Self-Determination and New States
The dissolution of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires created a number of new countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East, often with large ethnic minorities. This caused numerous conflicts and hostilities.
Learning Objective
Give examples of self-determination in the interwar period
Key Points
The self-determination of states, the principle that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference, developed throughout the modern period alongside nationalism.
During and especially after World War I, there was a renewed commitment to self-determination and a major influx of new states formed out of the collapsed empires of Europe: the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
Many new states formed in Eastern Europe, some out of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Russia renounced claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania, and some from the various treaties that came out of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
These new countries tended to have substantial ethnic minorities who wished to unite with neighboring states where their ethnicity dominated (for example, example, Czechoslovakia had Germans, Poles, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Hungarians), which led to political instability and conflict.
The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire became a pivotal milestone in the creation of the modern Middle East, the result of which bore witness to the creation of new conflicts and hostilities in the region.
Key Terms
Nansen passport
Internationally recognized refugee travel documents, first issued by the League of Nations to stateless refugees.
self-determination
A principle of international law that states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
A peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire), that ended Russia’s participation in World War I. Part of its terms was the renouncement of Russia’s claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
Geopolitical Consequences of World War I
The years 1919-24 were marked by turmoil as Europe struggled to recover from the devastation of the First World War and the destabilizing effects of the loss of four large historic empires: the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. There were numerous new nations in Eastern Europe, most of them small.
Internally these new countries tended to have substantial ethnic minorities who wished to unite with neighboring states where their ethnicity dominated. For example, Czechoslovakia had Germans, Poles, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Hungarians. Millions of Germans found themselves in the newly created countries as minorities. More than two million ethnic Hungarians found themselves living outside of Hungary in Slovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Many of these national minorities found themselves in bad situations because the modern governments were intent on defining the national character of the countries, often at the expense of the minorities. The League of Nations sponsored various Minority Treaties in an attempt to deal with the problem, but with the decline of the League in the 1930s, these treaties became increasingly unenforceable. One consequence of the massive redrawing of borders and the political changes in the aftermath of World War I was the large number of European refugees. These and the refugees of the Russian Civil War led to the creation of the Nansen passport.
Ethnic minorities made the location of the frontiers generally unstable. Where the frontiers have remained unchanged since 1918, there has often been the expulsion of an ethnic group, such as the Sudeten Germans. Economic and military cooperation among these small states was minimal, ensuring that the defeated powers of Germany and the Soviet Union retained a latent capacity to dominate the region. In the immediate aftermath of the war, defeat drove cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union but ultimately these two powers would compete to dominate eastern Europe.
At the end of the war, the Allies occupied Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Ottoman government collapsed. The Treaty of Sèvres, a plan designed by the Allies to dismember the remaining Ottoman territories, was signed on August 10, 1920, although it was never ratified by the Sultan.
The occupation of Smyrna by Greece on May 18, 1919, triggered a nationalist movement to rescind the terms of the treaty. Turkish revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a successful Ottoman commander, rejected the terms enforced at Sèvres and under the guise of General Inspector of the Ottoman Army, left Istanbul for Samsun to organize the remaining Ottoman forces to resist the terms of the treaty.
After Turkish resistance gained control over Anatolia and Istanbul, the Sèvres treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne, which formally ended all hostilities and led to the creation of the modern Turkish Republic. As a result, Turkey became the only power of World War I to overturn the terms of its defeat and negotiate with the Allies as an equal.
Europe in 1923
The dissolution of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires created a number of new countries in eastern Europe, such as Poland, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Turkey.
Map of Europe in 1923, showing the many new states created after the end of World War I.
Self-Determination
The right of peoples to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. The explicit terms of this principle can be traced to the Atlantic Charter, signed on August 14, 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It also is derived from principles espoused by United States President Woodrow Wilson following World War I, after which some new nation states were formed or previous states revived after the dissolution of empires. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy, or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.
The employment of imperialism through the expansion of empires and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self-determination during the modern era. During and after the Industrial Revolution, many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states; in this situation, self-determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved.
The revolt of New World British colonists in North America during the mid-1770s has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, and the consent of and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke’s enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the United States Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century. Leading up to World War I, in Europe there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence.
Woodrow Wilson revived America’s commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in November 1917, they called for Russia’s immediate withdrawal as a member of the Allies of World War I. They also supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination. The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.
This presented a challenge to Wilson’s more limited demands. In January 1918 Wilson issued his Fourteen Points that among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims insofar as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led to Russia’s exit from the war and the independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, and Poland.
The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation by the Allies of Czechoslovakia and the union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia as new states. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially Poles, Czechs, and Serbs and Romanians) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them eventually helped lead to World War II. Also Germany lost land after WWI: Northern Slesvig voted to return to Denmark after a referendum. The defeated Ottoman empire was dissolved into the Republic of Turkey and several smaller nations, including Yemen, plus the new Middle East Allied “mandates” of Syria and Lebanon (future Syria, Lebanon and Hatay State), Palestine (future Transjordan and Israel), Mesopotamia (future Iraq). The League of Nations was proposed as much as a means of consolidating these new states, as a path to peace.
During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. Italy, Japan, and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control, leading to World War II.
30.1.4: The Kellogg-Briand Pact
The Kellogg-Briand Pact intended to establish “the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy,” but was largely ineffective in preventing conflict or war.
Learning Objective
Identify why the Kellogg-Briand Pact was concieved and signed
Key Points
After World War I, seeing the devastating consequences of total war, many politicians and diplomats strove to created measures that would prevent further armed conflict.
This effort resulted in numerous international institutions and treaties, such as the creation of the League of Nations and in 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact was written by United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.
It went into effect on July 24, 1929, and before long had a total of 62 signatories.
Practically, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war or stopping the rise of militarism, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come.
Nevertheless, the pact has served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.
It inspired and influenced future international agreements, including the United Nations Charter.
Key Terms
annexation
The political transition of land from the control of one entity to another. It is also the incorporation of unclaimed land into a state’s sovereignty, which is in most cases legitimate. In international law it is the forcible transition of one state’s territory by another state or the legal process by which a city acquires land. Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size.
multilateral treaty
A treaty to which three or more sovereign states are parties. Each party owes the same obligations to all other parties, except to the extent that they have stated reservations.
Kellogg–Briand Pact
A 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”
The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.” Parties failing to abide by this promise “should be denied of the benefits furnished by this treaty.” It was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy. It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.
The texts of the treaty reads:
Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between
their peoples may be perpetuated; Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by
pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the
benefits furnished by this Treaty;
Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this
humane endeavour and by adhering to the present Treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their
peoples within the scope of its beneficient provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the
world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;
Have decided to conclude a Treaty…
After negotiations, the pact was signed in Paris at the French Foreign Ministry by the representatives from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, British India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It was provided that it would come into effect on July 24, 1929. By that date, the following nations had deposited instruments of definitive adherence to the pact: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. Eight further states joined after that date (Persia, Greece, Honduras, Chile, Luxembourg, Danzig, Costa Rica and Venezuela) for a total of 62 signatories.
In the United States, the Senate approved the treaty overwhelmingly, 85–1, with only Wisconsin Republican John J. Blaine voting against. While the U.S. Senate did not add any reservation to the treaty, it did pass a measure which interpreted the treaty as not infringing upon the United States’ right of self-defense and not obliging the nation to enforce it by taking action against those who violated it.
Kellogg–Briand Pact
A photo of the actual signed Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928).
Effect and Legacy
As a practical matter, the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war or stopping the rise of militarism, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come. Moreover, the pact erased the legal distinction between war and peace because the signatories, having renounced the use of war, began to wage wars without declaring them as in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939, and the German and Soviet Union invasions of Poland. Nevertheless, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.
Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace. It was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal tried and sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II.
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. However, neither this nor the original treaty has prevented the subsequent use of annexation. More broadly, there is a strong presumption against the legality of using or threatening military force against another country. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of collective defense.
30.2: The Russian Revolution
30.2.1: The Russian Revolution of 1905
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire, which included worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies.
Learning Objective
Outline the events of the 1905 Revolution, along with its successes and failures
Key Points
In January 1905, an incident known as “Bloody Sunday” occurred when Father Gapon led an enormous crowd to the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg to present a petition to the tsar.
When the procession reached the palace, Cossacks opened fire on the crowd, killing hundreds.
The Russian masses were so aroused over the massacre that a general strike was declared demanding a democratic republic, which marked the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1905.
Soviets (councils of workers) appeared in most cities to direct revolutionary activity.
In October 1905, Tsar Nicholas reluctantly issued the famous October Manifesto, which conceded the creation of a national Duma (legislature), as well as the right to vote, and affirmed that no law was to go into force without confirmation by the Duma.
The moderate groups were satisfied, but the socialists rejected the concessions as insufficient and tried to organize new strikes.
By the end of 1905, there was disunity among the reformers, and the tsar’s position was strengthened for the time being.
Key Terms
Russification
A form of cultural assimilation during which non-Russian communities, voluntarily or not, give up their culture and language in favor of the Russian one. In a historical sense, the term refers to both official and unofficial policies of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union with respect to their national constituents and to national minorities in Russia, aimed at Russian domination.
State Duma
The Lower House of the legislative assembly in the late Russian Empire, which held its meetings in the Taurida Palace in St. Petersburg. It convened four times between April 1906 and the collapse of the Empire in February 1917. It was founded during the Russian Revolution of 1905 as the Tsar’s response to rebellion.
Russian Constitution of 1906
A major revision of the 1832 Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, which transformed the formerly absolutist state into one in which the emperor agreed for the first time to share his autocratic power with a parliament. It was enacted on May 6, 1906, on the eve of the opening of the first State Duma.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire, some of which was directed at the government. It included worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies and led to constitutional reform, including the establishment of the State Duma, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906.
Causes of Unrest
According to Sidney Harcave, author of The Russian Revolution of 1905, four problems in Russian society contributed to the revolution. First, newly emancipated peasants earned too little and were not allowed to sell or mortgage their allotted land. Second, ethnic minorities resented the government because of its “Russification,” discrimination, and repression, both social and formal, such as banning them from voting and serving in the Guard or Navy and limiting attendance in schools. Third, a nascent industrial working class resented the government for doing too little to protect them, by banning strikes and labor unions. Finally, the educated class fomented and spread radical ideas after a relaxing of discipline in universities allowed a new consciousness to grow among students.
Taken individually, these issues might not have affected the course of Russian history, but together they created the conditions for a potential revolution. Historian James Defronzo writes, “At the turn of the century, discontent with the Tsar’s dictatorship was manifested not only through the growth of political parties dedicated to the overthrow of the monarchy but also through industrial strikes for better wages and working conditions, protests and riots among peasants, university demonstrations, and the assassination of government officials, often done by Socialist Revolutionaries.”
Start of the Revolution
In December 1904, a strike occurred at the Putilov plant (a railway and artillery supplier) in St. Petersburg. Sympathy strikes in other parts of the city raised the number of strikers to 150,000 workers in 382 factories. By January 21, 1905, the city had no electricity and newspaper distribution was halted. All public areas were declared closed.
Controversial Orthodox priest Georgy Gapon, who headed a police-sponsored workers’ association, led a huge workers’ procession to the Winter Palace to deliver a petition to the Tsar on Sunday, January 22, 1905. The troops guarding the palace were ordered to tell the demonstrators not to pass a certain point, according to Sergei Witte, and at some point, troops opened fire on the demonstrators, causing between 200 and 1,000 deaths. The event became known as Bloody Sunday and is considered by many scholars as the start of the active phase of the revolution.
The events in St. Petersburg provoked public indignation and a series of massive strikes that spread quickly throughout the industrial centers of the Russian Empire. Polish socialists called for a general strike. By the end of January 1905, over 400,000 workers in Russian Poland were on strike. Half of European Russia’s industrial workers went on strike in 1905, and 93.2% in Poland. There were also strikes in Finland and the Baltic coast.
Nationalist groups were angered by the Russification undertaken since Alexander II. The Poles, Finns, and Baltic provinces all sought autonomy and freedom to use their national languages and promote their own cultures. Muslim groups were also active — the First Congress of the Muslim Union took place in August 1905. Certain groups took the opportunity to settle differences with each other rather than the government. Some nationalists undertook anti-Jewish pogroms, possibly with government aid, and in total over 3,000 Jews were killed.
Height of the Revolution
Tsar Nicholas II agreed on February 18 to the creation of a State Duma of the Russian Empire with consultative powers only. When its slight powers and limits on the electorate were revealed, unrest redoubled. The Saint Petersburg Soviet was formed and called for a general strike in October, refusal to pay taxes, and the withdrawal of bank deposits.
In June and July 1905, there were many peasant uprisings in which peasants seized land and tools. Disturbances in the Russian-controlled Congress Poland culminated in June 1905 in the Łódź insurrection. Surprisingly, only one landlord was recorded as killed. Far more violence was inflicted on peasants outside the commune with 50 deaths recorded.
The October Manifesto, written by Sergei Witte and Alexis Obolenskii, was presented to the Tsar on October 14. It closely followed the demands of the Zemstvo Congress in September, granting basic civil rights, allowing the formation of political parties, extending the franchise towards universal suffrage, and establishing the Duma as the central legislative body. The Tsar waited and argued for three days, but finally signed the manifesto on October 30, 1905, citing his desire to avoid a massacre and his realization that insufficient military force was available to pursue alternate options. He regretted signing the document, saying that he felt “sick with shame at this betrayal of the dynasty … the betrayal was complete.”
When the manifesto was proclaimed, there were spontaneous demonstrations of support in all the major cities. The strikes in St. Petersburg and elsewhere officially ended or quickly collapsed. A political amnesty was also offered. The concessions came hand-in-hand with renewed, brutal action against the unrest. There was also a backlash from the conservative elements of society, with right-wing attacks on strikers, left-wingers, and Jews.
While the Russian liberals were satisfied by the October Manifesto and prepared for upcoming Duma elections, radical socialists and revolutionaries denounced the elections and called for an armed uprising to destroy the Empire.
Some of the November uprising of 1905 in Sevastopol, headed by retired naval Lieutenant Pyotr Schmidt, was directed against the government, while some was undirected. It included terrorism, worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies, and was only suppressed after a fierce battle. The Trans-Baikal railroad fell into the hands of striker committees and demobilized soldiers returning from Manchuria after the Russo–Japanese War. The Tsar had to send a special detachment of loyal troops along the Trans-Siberian Railway to restore order.
Between December 5 and 7, there was another general strike by Russian workers. The government sent troops on December 7, and a bitter street-by-street fight began. A week later, the Semyonovsky Regiment was deployed and used artillery to break up demonstrations and shell workers’ districts. On December 18, with around a thousand people dead and parts of the city in ruins, the workers surrendered. After a final spasm in Moscow, the uprisings ended.
Russian Revolution of 1905
A locomotive overturned by striking workers at the main railway depot in Tiflis in 1905.
A locomotive overturned by striking workers at the main railway depot in Tiflis in 1905
Results
According to figures presented in the Duma by Professor Maksim Kovalevsky, by April 1906, more than 14,000 people had been executed and 75,000 imprisoned.
Following the Revolution of 1905, the Tsar made last attempts to save his regime and offered reforms similar to those of most rulers pressured by a revolutionary movement. The military remained loyal throughout the Revolution of 1905, as shown by their shooting of revolutionaries when ordered by the Tsar, making overthrow difficult. These reforms were outlined in a precursor to the Constitution of 1906 known as the October Manifesto which created the Imperial Duma. The Russian Constitution of 1906, also known as the Fundamental Laws, set up a multiparty system and a limited constitutional monarchy. The revolutionaries were quelled and satisfied with the reforms, but it was not enough to prevent the 1917 revolution that would later topple the Tsar’s regime.
30.2.2: Rising Discontent in Russia
Under Tsar Nicholas II (reigned 1894–1917), the Russian Empire slowly industrialized amidst increased discontent and dissent among the lower classes. This only increased during World War I, leading to the utter collapse of the Tsarist régime in 1917 and an era of civil war.
Learning Objective
Name a few reasons the Russian populace was discontented with its leadership
Key Points
During the 1890s, Russia’s industrial development led to a large increase in the size of the urban middle-class and working class, which gave rise to a more dynamic political atmosphere and the development of radical parties.
During the 1890s and early 1900s, bad living and working conditions, high taxes, and land hunger gave rise to more frequent strikes and agrarian disorders.
Russia’s backwards systems for agricultural production, the worst in Europe at the time, influenced the attitudes of peasants and other social groups to reform against the government and promote social changes.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a major factor of the February Revolutions of 1917, unleashing a steady current of worker unrest and increased political agitation.
The onset of World War I exposed the weakness of Nicholas II’s government.
A show of national unity had accompanied Russia’s entrance into the war, with defense of the Slavic Serbs the main battle cry, but by 1915, the strain of the war began to cause popular unrest, with high food prices and fuel shortages causing strikes in some cities.
Key Terms
Tsar Nicholas II
The last Emperor of Russia, ruling from November 1894 until his forced abdication on March 15, 1917. His reign saw the fall of the Russian Empire from one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Due to the Khodynka Tragedy, anti-Semitic pogroms, Bloody Sunday, the violent suppression of the 1905 Revolution, the execution of political opponents, and his perceived responsibility for the Russo-Japanese War, he was given the nickname Nicholas the Bloody by his political adversaries.
St. Petersburg Soviet
A workers’ council or soviet circa 1905. The idea of a soviet as an organ to coordinate workers’ strike activities arose during the January–February 1905 meetings of workers at the apartment of Voline (later a famous anarchist) during the abortive revolution of 1905. However, its activities were quickly repressed by the government. The model would later become central to the communists during the Revolution of 1917.
Bolshevik party
Literally meaning “one of the majority,” this party was a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split from the Menshevik faction at the Second Party Congress in 1903. They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Under Tsar Nicholas II (reigned 1894–1917), the Russian Empire slowly industrialized while repressing political opposition in the center and on the far left. It recklessly entered wars with Japan (1904) and with Germany and Austria (1914) for which it was very poorly prepared, leading to the utter collapse of the old régime in 1917 and an era of civil war.
During the 1890s, Russia’s industrial development led to a large increase in the size of the urban middle-class and orking class, which gave rise to a more dynamic political atmosphere and the development of radical parties. Because the state and foreigners owned much of Russia’s industry, the Russian working class was comparatively stronger and the Russian bourgeoisie comparatively weaker than in the West. The working class and peasants became the first to establish political parties in Russia because the nobility and the wealthy bourgeoisie were politically timid. During the 1890s and early 1900s, bad living and working conditions, high taxes, and land hunger gave rise to more frequent strikes and agrarian disorders. These activities prompted the bourgeoisie of various nationalities in the Russian Empire to develop a host of parties, both liberal and conservative.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a major factor in the February Revolutions of 1917. The events of Bloody Sunday triggered a line of protests. A council of workers called the St. Petersburg Soviet was created in all this chaos, beginning the era of communist political protest.
Agrarian Backwardness
Russia’s systems for agricultural production influenced peasants and other social groups to reform against the government and promote social changes. Historians George Jackson and Robert Devlin write, “At the beginning of the twentieth century, agriculture constituted the single largest sector of the Russian economy, producing approximately one-half of the national income and employing two-thirds of Russia’s population.” This illustrates the tremendous role peasants played economically, making them detrimental to the revolutionary ideology of the populist and social democrats. At the end of the 19th century, Russian agriculture as a whole was the worst in Europe. The Russian system of agriculture lacked capital investment and technological advancement. Livestock productivity was notoriously backwards and the lack of grazing land such as meadows forced livestock to graze in fallow uncultivated land. Both the crop and livestock system failed to withstand the Russian winters. During the Tsarist rule, the agricultural economy diverged from subsistence production to production directly for the market. Along with the agricultural failures, Russia had rapid population growth, railroads expanded across farmland, and inflation attacked the price of commodities. Restrictions were placed on the distribution of food and ultimately led to famines. Agricultural difficulties in Russia limited the economy, influencing social reforms and assisting the rise of the Bolshevik party.
Worker Discontent
The social causes of the Russian Revolution mainly came from centuries of oppression of the lower classes by the Tsarist regime and Nicholas’s failures in World War I. While rural agrarian peasants had been emancipated from serfdom in 1861, they still resented paying redemption payments to the state, and demanded communal tender of the land they worked. The problem was further compounded by the failure of Sergei Witte’s land reforms of the early 20th century. Increasing peasant disturbances and sometimes actual revolts occurred, with the goal of securing ownership of the land they worked. Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land.
Workers had good reasons for discontent: overcrowded housing with often deplorable sanitary conditions; long hours at work (on the eve of the war, a 10-hour workday six days a week was the average and many were working 11–12 hours a day by 1916); constant risk of injury and death from poor safety and sanitary conditions; harsh discipline (not only rules and fines, but foremen’s fists); and inadequate wages (made worse after 1914 by steep wartime increases in the cost of living). At the same time, urban industrial life was full of benefits, though these could be just as dangerous, from the point of view of social and political stability, as the hardships. There were many encouragements to expect more from life. Acquiring new skills gave many workers a sense of self-respect and confidence, heightening expectations and desires. Living in cities, workers encountered material goods they had never seen in villages. Most importantly, they were exposed to new ideas about the social and political order.
The rapid industrialization of Russia also resulted in urban overcrowding. Between 1890 and 1910, the population of the capital, Saint Petersburg, swelled from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. This created a new proletariat that due to being crowded together in the cities was much more likely to protest and go on strike than the peasantry had been in previous eras. In one 1904 survey, it was found that an average of sixteen people shared each apartment in Saint Petersburg with six people per room. There was no running water, and piles of human waste were a threat to the health of the workers. The poor conditions only aggravated the situation, with the number of strikes and incidents of public disorder rapidly increasing in the years shortly before World War I. Because of late industrialization, Russia’s workers were highly concentrated.
World War I
Tsar Nicholas II and his subjects entered World War I with enthusiasm and patriotism, with the defense of Russia’s fellow Orthodox Slavs, the Serbs, as the main battle cry. In August 1914, the Russian army invaded Germany’s province of East Prussia and occupied a significant portion of Austrian-controlled Galicia in support of the Serbs and their allies – the French and British. Military reversals and shortages among the civilian population, however, soon soured much of the population. German control of the Baltic Sea and German-Ottoman control of the Black Sea severed Russia from most of its foreign supplies and potential markets.
By the middle of 1915, the impact of the war was demoralizing. Food and fuel were in short supply, casualties were increasing, and inflation was mounting. Strikes rose among low-paid factory workers, and there were reports that peasants, who wanted reforms of land ownership, were restless. The tsar eventually decided to take personal command of the army and moved to the front, leaving Alexandra in charge in the capital.
By its end, World War I prompted a Russian outcry directed at Tsar Nicholas II. It was another major factor contributing to the retaliation of the Russian Communists against their royal opponents. After the entry of the Ottoman Empire on the side of the Central Powers in October 1914, Russia was deprived of a major trade route through Ottoman Empire, which followed with a minor economic crisis in which Russia became incapable of providing munitions to its army in the years leading to 1917. However, the problems were merely administrative and not industrial, as Germany was producing great amounts of munitions whilst constantly fighting on two major battlefronts.
The war also developed a weariness in the city, owing to a lack of food in response to the disruption of agriculture. Food scarcity had become a considerable problem in Russia, but the cause did not lie in any failure of the harvests, which had not been significantly altered during wartime. The indirect reason was that the government, in order to finance the war, had been printing millions of ruble notes, and by 1917 inflation increased prices up to four times what they had been in 1914. The peasantry were consequently faced with the higher cost of purchases, but made no corresponding gain in the sale of their own produce, since this was largely taken by the middlemen on whom they depended. As a result, they tended to hoard their grain and to revert to subsistence farming, so the cities were constantly short of food. At the same time rising prices led to demands for higher wages in the factories, and in January and February 1916 revolutionary propaganda aided by German funds led to widespread strikes. Heavy losses during the war also strengthened thoughts that Tsar Nicholas II was unfit to rule.
Discontent Leading up the Russian Revolution
Russian soldiers marching in Petrograd in February 1917.
Photo of a large number of Russian soldiers marching in the street of Petrograd in February 1917
30.2.3: The Provisional Government
The Russian Empire collapsed with the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II during the February Revolution. The old regime was replaced by a politically moderate provisional government that struggled for power with the socialist-led worker councils (soviets).
Learning Objective
Detail the workings of Russia’s provisional government
Key Points
The February Revolution of 1917 was focused around Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg), then capital of Russia.
The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution, resulting in Tsar Nicholas’s abdication and soon after, the end of the Tsarist regime altogether.
To fill the vacuum of authority, the Duma (legislature) declared a provisional government headed by Prince Lvov, collectively known as the Russian Republic.
Meanwhile, the socialists in Petrograd organized elections among workers and soldiers to form a soviet (council) of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies as an organ of popular power that could pressure the “bourgeois” provisional government.
The Soviets initially permitted the provisional government to rule, but insisted on a prerogative to influence decisions and control various militias.
A period of dual power ensued during which the provisional government held state power while the national network of soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower classes and the political left.
During this chaotic period there were frequent mutinies, protests, and strikes, such as the July Days.
The period of competition for authority ended in late October 1917 when Bolsheviks routed the ministers of the Provisional Government in the events known as the October Revolution and placed power in the hands of the soviets, which had given their support to the Bolsheviks.
Key Terms
July Days
Events in 1917 that took place in Petrograd, Russia, between July 3 and 7 when soldiers and industrial workers engaged in spontaneous armed demonstrations against the Russian Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks initially attempted to prevent the demonstrations and then decided to support them.
Soviet
Political organizations and governmental bodies, essentially workers’ councils, primarily associated with the Russian Revolutions and the history of the Soviet Union, that gave the name to the latter state.
February Revolution
The first of two Russian revolutions in 1917. It involved mass demonstrations and armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On March 12, mutinous Russian Army forces sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later, the result was the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the end of the Romanov dynasty, and the end of the Russian Empire.
Russian Provisional Government
A provisional government of the Russian Republic established immediately following the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire on 2 March.
Background: February Revolution
At the beginning of February 1917, Petrograd (Saint Petersburg) workers began several strikes and demonstrations. On March 7, workers at Putilov, Petrograd’s largest industrial plant, announced a strike.
The next day, a series of meetings and rallies were held for International Women’s Day, which gradually turned into economic and political gatherings. Demonstrations were organized to demand bread, supported by the industrial working force who considered them a reason to continue the strikes. The women workers marched to nearby factories, bringing out over 50,000 workers on strike. By March 10, virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down along with many commercial and service enterprises. Students, white-collar workers, and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings.
To quell the riots, the Tsar looked to the army. At least 180,000 troops were available in the capital, but most were either untrained or injured. Historian Ian Beckett suggests around 12,000 could be regarded as reliable, but even these proved reluctant to move in on the crowd since it included so many women. For this reason, on March 11 when the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioting by force, troops began to mutiny. Although few actively joined the rioting, many officers were either shot or went into hiding; the ability of the garrison to hold back the protests was all but nullified, symbols of the Tsarist regime were rapidly torn down, and governmental authority in the capital collapsed – not helped by the fact that Nicholas had suspended the Duma (legislature) that morning, leaving it with no legal authority to act. The response of the Duma, urged on by the liberal bloc, was to establish a temporary committee to restore law and order; meanwhile, the socialist parties established the Petrograd Soviet to represent workers and soldiers. The remaining loyal units switched allegiance the next day.
The Tsar directed the royal train, stopped on March 14 by a group of revolutionaries at Malaya Vishera, back to Petrograd. When the Tsar finally arrived at in Pskov, the Army Chief Ruzsky and the Duma deputees Guchkov and Shulgin suggested in unison that he abdicate the throne. He did so on March on behalf of both himself and his son, the Tsarevich. Nicholas nominated his brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, to succeed him, but the Grand Duke realized that he would have little support as ruler. He declined the crown on March 16, stating that he would take it only as the consensus of democratic action.
The immediate effect of the February Revolution was a widespread atmosphere of elation and excitement in Petrograd. On March 16, the provisional government was announced. The center-left was well represented, and the government was initially chaired by a liberal aristocrat, Prince Georgy Yevgenievich Lvov, a member of the Constitutional Democratic party (KD). The socialists had formed their rival body, the Petrograd Soviet (or workers’ council) four days earlier. The Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government competed for power over Russia.
Reign of the Provisional Government
The Russian Provisional Government was a provisional government of the Russian Republic established immediately following the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire on March 2, 1917. It was intended to organize elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly and its convention.
Despite its short reign of power and implementation shortcomings, the provisional government passed very progressive legislation. The policies enacted by this moderate government (by 1917 Russian standards) represented arguably the most liberal legislation in Europe at the time. It abolished capital punishment, declared the independence of Poland, redistributed wealth in the countryside, restored the constitution of Finland, established local government on a universal suffrage basis, separated church and state, conceded language rights to all the nationalities, and confirmed liberty of speech, liberty of the Press, and liberty of assembly.
The provisional government lasted approximately eight months, ceasing when the Bolsheviks seized power after the October Revolution in October 1917. According to Harold Whitmore Williams, the eight months during which Russia was ruled by the provisional government was characterized by the steady and systematic disorganization of the army.
The provisional government was unable to make decisive policy decisions due to political factionalism and a breakdown of state structures. This weakness left the government open to strong challenges from both the right and the left. Its chief adversary on the left was the Petrograd Soviet, which tentatively cooperated with the government at first but then gradually gained control of the army, factories, and railways. While the Provisional Government retained the formal authority to rule over Russia, the Petrograd Soviet maintained actual power. With its control over the army and the railroads, the Petrograd Soviet had the means to enforce policies. The provisional government lacked the ability to administer its policies. In fact, local soviets, political organizations mostly of socialists, often maintained discretion when deciding whether or not to implement the provisional government’s laws.
A period of dual power ensued during which the provisional government held state power while the national network of soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower classes and the political left. During this chaotic period there were frequent mutinies, protests, and strikes. When the provisional government chose to continue fighting the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions campaigned for stopping the conflict. The Bolsheviks turned workers’ militias under their control into the Red Guards (later the Red Army), over which they exerted substantial control.
In July, following a series of crises known as the July Days (strikes by soldiers and industrial workers) that undermined its authority with the public, the head of the provisional government resigned and was succeeded by Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky was more progressive than his predecessor but not radical enough for the Bolsheviks or many Russians discontented with the deepening economic crisis and the continuation of the war. While Kerensky’s government marked time, the socialist-led soviet in Petrograd joined with soviets (workers’ councils) that formed throughout the country to create a national movement.
The period of competition for authority ended in late October 1917 when Bolsheviks routed the ministers of the provisional government in the events known as the October Revolution and placed power in the hands of the soviets, which had given their support to the Bolsheviks.
July Days
Street demonstration on Nevsky Prospekt in Petrograd just after troops of the Provisional Government opened fire in the July Days.
Photo shows people strewn across a large open street, some running, some injured or dead.
30.2.4: The October Revolution
On October 25, 1917, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a successful revolt against the ineffective provisional government, an event known as the October Revolution.
Learning Objective
Explain the events of the October Revolution
Key Points
In the October Revolution (November in the Gregorian calendar), the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, and the workers’ soviets overthrew the Russian Provisional Government in Petrograd.
The Bolsheviks appointed themselves as leaders of various government ministries and seized control of the countryside, establishing the Cheka to quash dissent.
The October Revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia’s short-lived provisional parliamentary government with government by soviets, local councils elected by bodies of workers and peasants.
To end Russia’s participation in the First World War, the Bolshevik leaders signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918.
Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, anarchists, and other leftists created opposition to the Bolsheviks through the soviets themselves.
When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets.
The new government soon passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land, the latter of which redistributed land and wealth to peasants throughout Russia.
A coalition of anti-Bolshevik groups attempted to unseat the new government in the Russian Civil War from 1918 to 1922.
Key Terms
Decree on Land
Written by Vladimir Lenin, this law was passed by the Second Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies on October 26, 1917, following the success of the October Revolution. It decreed an abolition of private property and the redistribution of the landed estates among the peasantry.
Marxism–Leninism
A political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of Classical Marxism and Leninism that seeks to establish socialist states and develop them further. They espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of Marxism and Leninism, but generally support the idea of a vanguard party, one-party state, proletarian state-dominance over the economy, internationalism, opposition to bourgeois democracy, and opposition to capitalism. It remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, a number of Indian states, and certain governed Russian oblasts such as Irkutsk. It was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the other ruling parties that made up the Eastern Bloc.
Vladimir Lenin
A Russian communist revolutionary, politician, and political theorist. He served as head of government of the Russian Republic from 1917 to 1918, of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1918 to 1924, and of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924. Under his administration, Russia and then the wider Soviet Union became a one-party socialist state governed by the Russian Communist Party. Ideologically a Marxist, he developed political theories known as Leninism.
October Revolution
A seizure of state power by the Bolshevik Party instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on October 25, 1917. It followed and capitalized on the February Revolution of the same year.
The October Revolution, commonly referred to as Red October, the October Uprising, or the Bolshevik Revolution, was a seizure of state power instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on October 25, 1917.
It followed and capitalized on the February Revolution of the same year, which overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and resulted in a provisional government after a transfer of power proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, brother of Tsar Nicolas II, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (Russian: Soviet) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. The October Revolution in Petrograd overthrew the provisional government and gave the power to the local soviets. The Bolshevik party was heavily supported by the soviets. After the Congress of Soviets, now the governing body, had its second session, it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other leftist groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to key positions within the new state of affairs. This immediately initiated the establishment of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, the world’s first self-proclaimed socialist state.
The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military Revolutionary Committee began the takeover of government buildings on October 24, 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia), was captured.
The long-awaited Constituent Assembly elections were held on November 12, 1917. The Bolsheviks only won 175 seats in the 715-seat legislative body, coming in second behind the Socialist Revolutionary party, which won 370 seats. The Constituent Assembly was to first meet on November 28, 1917, but its convocation was delayed until January 5, 1918, by the Bolsheviks. On its first and only day in session, the body rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land, and was dissolved the next day by order of the Congress of Soviets.
As the revolution was not universally recognized, there followed the struggles of the Russian Civil War (1917–22) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.
Leadership and Ideology
The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin’s writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. Marxist-Leninists espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of Marxism and Leninism, but generally support the idea of a vanguard party, one-party state, proletarian state-dominance over the economy, internationalism, opposition to bourgeois democracy, and opposition to capitalism. The October Revolution marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the 20th century. It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end.
Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that since Lenin was not present during the actual takeover of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky’s organization and direction that led the revolution, merely spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party. Critics on the right have long argued that the financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via agent Alexander Parvus was a key component as well, though historians are divided since there is little evidence supporting that claim.
Results
The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 670 elected delegates; 300 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Alexander Kerensky Government. When the fall of the Winter Palace was announced, the Congress adopted a decree transferring power to the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, thus ratifying the Revolution.
The transfer of power was not without disagreement. The center and right wings of the Socialist Revolutionaries as well as the Mensheviks believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power and walked out before the resolution was passed. As they exited, they were taunted by Leon Trotsky who told them “You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!”
The following day, October 26, the Congress elected a Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom) with Lenin as leader as the basis of a new Soviet Government, pending the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, and passed the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land. This new government was also officially called “provisional” until the Assembly was dissolved. The Council of People’s Commissars now began to arrest the leaders of opposition parties. Dozens of Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadet) leaders and members of the Constituent Assembly were imprisoned in The Peter and Paul Fortress. These would be followed by the arrests of Socialist Revolutionary Party and Menshevik leaders. Posters were pinned on walls and fences by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, describing the takeover as a “crime against the motherland and revolution.” There was also strong anti-Bolshevik opposition within Petrograd. All in all, the transfer of power was complex and replete with conflict within the revolutionaries.
The Decree on Land ratified the actions of the peasants who throughout Russia seized private land and redistributed it among themselves. The Bolsheviks viewed themselves as representing an alliance of workers and peasants and memorialized that understanding with the hammer and sickle on the flag and coat of arms of the Soviet Union. Other decrees:
All private property was seized by the state.
All Russian banks were nationalized.
Private bank accounts were confiscated.
The Church’s properties (including bank accounts) were seized.
All foreign debts were repudiated.
Control of the factories was given to the soviets.
Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.
The success of the October Revolution transformed the Russian state into a soviet republic. A coalition of anti-Bolshevik groups attempted to unseat the new government in the Russian Civil War from 1918 to 1922.
Lenin and Trotsky, Russian Revolutionaries
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks, speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square in Moscow, with Leon Trotsky and Lev Kamenev adjacent to the right of the podium.
Photo of Vladimir Lenin speaking at a raised podium to a crowd of people.
30.2.5: The Russian Civil War
The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the October Revolution, was fought mainly between the “Reds,” led by the Bolsheviks, and the “Whites,” a politically-diverse coalition of anti-Bolsheviks.
Learning Objective
Describe the various parties that participated in the Russian Civil War
Key Points
The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of their political orientation.
The war was fought mainly between the “Reds,” consisting of the uprising majority led by the Bolshevik minority, and the “Whites,” army officers and cossacks, the “bourgeoisie,” and political groups ranging from the far right to the Socialist revolutionaries who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks following the collapse of the Russian Provisional Government to the soviets (under clear Bolshevik dominance).
The Whites had backing from Great Britain, France, the U.S., and Japan, while the Reds possessed internal support which proved to be much more effective.
Though the Allied nations, using external interference, provided substantial military aid to the loosely knit anti-Bolshevik forces, they were ultimately defeated.
By 1921, the Reds defeated their internal enemies and brought most of the newly independent states under their control, with the exception of Finland, the Baltic States, the Moldavian Democratic Republic (which joined Romania), and Poland (with whom they had fought the Polish–Soviet War).
Key Terms
Cheka
The first of a succession of Soviet state security organizations. It was created on December 20, 1917, after a decree issued by Vladimir Lenin, and was subsequently led by Felix Dzerzhinsky, a Polish aristocrat turned communist. These troops policed labor camps; ran the Gulag system; conducted requisitions of food; subjected political opponents to secret arrest, detention, torture, and summary execution; and put down rebellions and riots by workers or peasants, and mutinies in the desertion-plagued Red Army.
White Army
A loose confederation of Anti-Communist forces that fought the Bolsheviks, also known as the Reds, in the Russian Civil War (1917–1923) and, to a lesser extent, continued operating as militarized associations both outside and within Russian borders until roughly World War II.
Red Army
The army and the air force of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and after 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The army was established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution.
The Russian Civil War (November 1917 – October 1922) was a multi-party war in the former Russian Empire immediately after the Russian Revolutions of 1917, as many factions vied to determine Russia’s political future. The two largest combatant groups were the Red Army, fighting for the Bolshevik form of socialism, and the loosely allied forces known as the White Army, which included diverse interests respectively favoring monarchism, capitalism, and alternative forms of socialism, each with democratic and antidemocratic variants. In addition, rival militant socialists and non-ideological Green armies fought against both the Bolsheviks and the Whites. The Whites had backing from Great Britain, France, the U.S., and Japan, while the Reds possessed internal support which proved much more effective.
The Red Army defeated the White Armed Forces of South Russia in Ukraine and the army led by Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak in Siberia in 1919. The remains of the White forces commanded by Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel were beaten in Crimea and evacuated in late 1920. Lesser battles of the war continued on the periphery for two more years, and minor skirmishes with the remnants of the White forces in the Far East continued well into 1923. Armed national resistance in Central Asia was not completely crushed until 1934. There were an estimated 7-12 million casualties during the war, mostly civilians. The Russian Civil War has been described by some as the greatest national catastrophe that Europe had yet seen.
Many pro-independence movements emerged after the break-up of the Russian Empire and fought in the war. Several parts of the former Russian Empire—Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—were established as sovereign states, with their own civil wars and wars of independence. The rest of the former Russian Empire was consolidated into the Soviet Union shortly afterwards.
British historian Orlando Figes has contended that the root of the Whites’ defeat was their inability to dispel the popular image that they were associated with Tsarist Russia and supportive of a Tsarist restoration.
Russian Civil War
Clockwise from top: Soldiers of the Don Army in 1919; a White Russian infantry division in March 1920; soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Army; Leon Trotsky in 1918; hanging of workers in Yekaterinoslav by Austro-Hungarian troups, April 1918.
Clockwise from top: Soldiers of the Don Army in 1919; a White Russian infantry division in March 1920; soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Army; Leon Trotsky in 1918; hanging of workers in Yekaterinoslav by Austro-Hungarian troups, April 1918.
The Red Army
In the wake of the October Revolution, the old Russian Imperial Army had been demobilized; the volunteer-based Red Guard was the Bolsheviks’ main military force, augmented by an armed military component of the Cheka, the Bolshevik state security apparatus. In January, after significant reverses in combat, War Commissar Leon Trotsky headed the reorganization of the Red Guard into a Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army to create a more professional fighting force. Political commissars were appointed to each unit of the army to maintain morale and ensure loyalty.
In June 1918, when it became apparent that a revolutionary army composed solely of workers would be far too small, Trotsky instituted mandatory conscription of the rural peasantry into the Red Army. Opposition of rural Russians to Red Army conscription units was overcome by taking hostages and shooting them when necessary in order to force compliance, the same practices used by the White Army officers. Former Tsarist officers were utilized as “military specialists,” and sometimes their families were taken hostage in order to ensure their loyalty.
The White Army
While resistance to the Red Guard began on the day after the Bolshevik uprising, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the political ban became a catalyst for the formation of anti-Bolshevik groups both inside and outside Russia, pushing them into action against the new regime.
A loose confederation of anti-Bolshevik forces aligned against the Communist government, including landowners, republicans, conservatives, middle-class citizens, reactionaries, pro-monarchists, liberals, army generals, non-Bolshevik socialists who still had grievances, and democratic reformists voluntarily united only in their opposition to Bolshevik rule. Their military forces, bolstered by forced conscriptions and terror and by foreign influence and led by Gen. Yudenich, Adm. Kolchak, and Gen. Denikin, became known as the White movement (sometimes referred to as the “White Army”) and controlled significant parts of the former Russian Empire for most of the war.
The Western Allies armed and supported opponents of the Bolsheviks. They were worried about (1) a possible Russo-German alliance, (2) the prospect of the Bolsheviks making good on their threats to default on Imperial Russia’s massive foreign loans and (3) that the Communist revolutionary ideas would spread (a concern shared by many Central Powers). Hence, many of these countries expressed their support for the Whites, including the provision of troops and supplies. Winston Churchill declared that Bolshevism must be “strangled in its cradle.” The British and French had supported Russia during World War I on a massive scale with war materials. After the treaty, it looked like much of that material would fall into the hands of the Germans. Under this pretext, the Allies intervened in the Russian Civil War, with the United Kingdom and France sending troops into Russian ports. There were violent clashes with troops loyal to the Bolsheviks.
Aftermath
The results of the civil war were momentous. Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis estimated the total number of men killed in action in the Civil War and Polish-Soviet War at 300,000 (125,000 in the Red Army, 175,500 White armies and Poles) and the total number of military personnel dead from disease (on both sides) as 450,000. During the Red Terror the Cheka carried out at least 250,000 summary executions of “enemies of the people” with estimates reaching above a million.
At the end of the Civil War the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was exhausted and near ruin. The droughts of 1920 and 1921, as well as the 1921 famine, worsened the disaster still further. Disease had reached pandemic proportions, with 3 million dying of typhus alone in 1920. Millions more also died of widespread starvation, wholesale massacres by both sides, and pogroms against Jews in Ukraine and southern Russia. By 1922 there were at least 7 million street children in Russia as a result of nearly ten years of devastation from the Great War and the civil war.
Another one to two million people, known as the White émigrés, fled Russia, many with Gen. Wrangel—some through the Far East, others west into the newly independent Baltic countries. These émigrés included a large percentage of the educated and skilled population of Russia.
The Russian economy was devastated by the war, with factories and bridges destroyed, cattle and raw materials pillaged, mines flooded, and machines damaged. The industrial production value descended to one-seventh of the value of 1913 and agriculture to one-third.
War Communism saved the Soviet government during the Civil War, but much of the Russian economy had ground to a standstill. The peasants responded to requisitions by refusing to till the land. By 1921 cultivated land had shrunk to 62% of the pre-war area, and the harvest yield was only about 37% of normal.
30.2.6: Formation of the Soviet Union
The government of the Soviet Union, formed in 1922 with the unification of the Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian republics, was based on the one-party rule of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks), who increasingly developed a totalitarian regime, especially during the reign of Joseph Stalin.
Learning Objective
Assess the reasons for creating the Soviet Union
Key Points
The Soviet Union had its roots in the October Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Provisional Government that had replaced Tsar Nicholas II. However, it only officially consolidated as the new government of Russia after the defeat of the White Army during the Russian Civil War in 1922.
At that time, the new nation included four constituent republics: the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Belarusian SSR, and the Transcaucasian SFSR.
The period from the consolidation of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 until 1921 is known as the period of war communism, in which land, all industry, and small businesses were nationalized and the economy was restricted.
The constitution, adopted in 1924, established a federal system of government based on a succession of soviets set up in villages, factories, and cities in larger regions, which culminated in the All-Union Congress of Soviets.
However, while it appeared that the congress exercised sovereign power, this body was actually governed by the Communist Party, which in turn was controlled by the Politburo from Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union.
Following Lenin’s death in 1924, a collective leadership (troika), and a brief power struggle, Joseph Stalin came to power in the mid-1920s and established a repressive totalitarian regime.
Key Terms
Karl Marx
A German-born scientist, philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. His theories about society, economics, and politics—collectively understood as Marxism—hold that human societies develop through class struggle; in capitalism, this manifests itself in the conflict between the ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that control the means of production and working classes (known as the proletariat) that enable these means by selling their labor for wages. Through his theories of alienation, value, commodity fetishism, and surplus value, he argued that capitalism facilitated social relations and ideology through commodification, inequality, and the exploitation of labor.
Great Purge
A campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1938. It involved a large-scale purge of the Communist Party and government officials, repression of peasants and the Red Army leadership, and widespread police surveillance, suspicion of “saboteurs,” imprisonment, and arbitrary executions.
First Five-Year Plan
A list of economic goals created by General Secretary Joseph Stalin and based on his policy of Socialism in One Country, implemented between 1928 and 1932. In 1929, Stalin edited the plan to include the creation of collective farming systems that stretched over thousands of acres of land and had hundreds of peasants working on them.
Joseph Stalin
The leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. Holding the post of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he was effectively the dictator of the state.
The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was a socialist state in Eurasia that existed from 1922 to 1991. It was nominally a supranational union of national republics, but its government and economy were highly centralized in a state that was unitary in most respects. The Union’s capital was Moscow.
The Soviet Union had its roots in the October Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian Provisional Government that had replaced Tsar Nicholas II. This established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Russian SFSR) and started the Russian Civil War between the revolutionary “Reds” and the counter-revolutionary “Whites.” The Red Army entered several territories of the former Russian Empire and helped local communists take power through workers’ councils called “soviets,” which nominally acted on behalf of workers and peasants.
In 1922, the communists (Reds) were victorious, forming the Soviet Union with the unification of the Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian republics. Under the control of the party, all politics and attitudes that were not strictly of the Russian Communist Party (RCP) were suppressed, under the premise that the RCP represented the proletariat and all activities contrary to the party’s beliefs were “counterrevolutionary” or “anti-socialist.” Eventually crushing all opponents, the RCP spread soviet-style rule quickly and established itself through all of Russia.
The original ideology of the state was primarily based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In its essence, Marx’s theory stated that economic and political systems went through an inevitable evolution in form by which the current capitalist system would be replaced by a Socialist state before achieving international cooperation and peace in a “Workers’ Paradise,” creating a system directed by, what Marx called, “Pure Communism.”
Following Lenin’s death in 1924, a collective leadership (troika), and a brief power struggle, Joseph Stalin came to power in the mid-1920s. Stalin suppressed all political opposition to his rule, committed the state ideology to Marxism–Leninism (which he created), and initiated a centrally planned command economy. As a result, the country underwent a period of rapid industrialization and collectivization which laid the foundation for its victory in World War II and postwar dominance of Eastern Europe. Stalin also fomented political paranoia and conducted the Great Purge to remove opponents of his from the Communist Party through the mass arbitrary arrest of many people (military leaders, Communist Party members, and ordinary citizens alike) who were then sent to correctional labor camps (gulags) or sentenced to death.
Creation of the USSR and Early Years
On December 29, 1922, a conference of plenipotentiary delegations from the Russian SFSR, the Transcaucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR, forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These documents were confirmed by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR and signed by heads of delegations.
On February 1, 1924, the USSR was recognized by the British Empire. The same year, a Soviet Constitution was approved, legitimizing the December 1922 union.
An intensive restructuring of the economy, industry and politics of the country began in the early days of Soviet power in 1917. A large part of this was done according to the Bolshevik Initial Decrees, government documents signed by Vladimir Lenin. One of the most prominent breakthroughs was the GOELRO plan, which envisioned a major restructuring of the Soviet economy based on total electrification of the country. The plan was developed in 1920 and covered a 10- to 15-year period. It included construction of a network of 30 regional power stations, including ten large hydroelectric power plants and numerous electric-powered large industrial enterprises. The plan became the prototype for subsequent Five-Year Plans and was fulfilled by 1931.
During the Civil War (1917–21), the Bolsheviks adopted war communism, which entailed the breakup of the landed estates and the forcible seizure of agricultural surpluses. In the cities there were intense food shortages and a breakdown in the money system (at the time many Bolsheviks argued that ending money’s role as a transmitter of “value” was a sign of the rapidly approaching communist epoch). Many city dwellers fled to the countryside, often to tend the land that the Bolshevik breakup of the landed estates had transferred to the peasants. Even small-scale “capitalist” production was suppressed.
Strong opposition soon developed. The peasants wanted cash payments for their products and resented having to surrender their surplus grain to the government as a part of its civil war policies. Confronted with peasant opposition, Lenin began a strategic retreat from war communism known as the New Economic Policy (NEP). The peasants were freed from wholesale levies of grain and allowed to sell their surplus produce in the open market. Commerce was stimulated by permitting private retail trading. The state continued to be responsible for banking, transportation, heavy industry, and public utilities.
Although the left opposition among the Communists criticized the rich peasants, or kulaks, who benefited from the NEP, the program proved highly beneficial and the economy revived. The NEP would later come under increasing opposition from within the party following Lenin’s death in early 1924.
The Death of Lenin and the Rise of Stalin
Following Lenin’s third stroke, a troika made up of Grigory Zinoviev of the Ukrainian SSR, Lev Kamenev of the Russian SFSR, and Joseph Stalin of the Transcaucasian SFSR emerged to take day-to-day leadership of the party and the country and block Trotsky from taking power. Lenin, however, became increasingly anxious about Stalin and following his December 1922 stroke, dictated a letter (known as Lenin’s Testament) to the party criticizing him and urging his removal as general secretary, a position which was becoming the most powerful in the party. Stalin was aware of Lenin’s Testament and acted to keep Lenin in isolation for health reasons and increase his control over the party apparatus.
Lenin and Stalin (1922)
Toward the end of his life, Lenin became increasingly anxious about Stalin and began criticizing him and urging his removal as general secretary. Despite these misgivings, Stalin eventually replaced Lenin as the leader of the USSR.
Photo of Lenin and Stalin seated outdoors.
Zinoviev and Bukharin became concerned about Stalin’s increasing power and proposed that the Orgburo which Stalin headed be abolished and Zinoviev and Trotsky be added to the party secretariat, thus diminishing Stalin’s role as general secretary. Stalin reacted furiously and the Orgburo was retained, but Bukharin, Trotsky, and Zinoviev were added to the body.
On April 3, 1922, Stalin was named the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Lenin had appointed Stalin the head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, which gave Stalin considerable power. By gradually consolidating his influence and isolating and outmaneuvering his rivals within the party, Stalin became the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union and, by the end of the 1920s, established totalitarian rule.
Lenin died in January 1924 and in May his Testament was read aloud at the Central Committee, but Zinoviev and Kamenev argued that Lenin’s objections had proven groundless and that Stalin should remain General Secretary. The Central Committee decided not to publish the testament.
In October 1927, Grigory Zinoviev and Leon Trotsky were expelled from the Central Committee and forced into exile.
In 1928, Stalin introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In place of the internationalism expressed by Lenin throughout the Revolution, it aimed to build Socialism in One Country. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization. In agriculture, rather than adhering to the “lead by example” policy advocated by Lenin, forced collectivization of farms was implemented all over the country.
Famines ensued, causing millions of deaths; surviving kulaks were persecuted and many sent to Gulags to do forced labor. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s. Stalin’s Great Purge resulted in the execution or detainment of many “Old Bolsheviks” who had participated in the October Revolution with Lenin. According to declassified Soviet archives, in 1937 and 1938 the NKVD arrested more than 1.5 million people, of whom 681,692 were shot. Over two years, that averages to over one thousand executions a day. According to historian Geoffrey Hosking, “…excess deaths during the 1930s as a whole were in the range of 10–11 million.” Yet despite the turmoil of the mid-to-late 1930s, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.
30.3: The Great Depression
30.3.1: The Financial Crisis of the 1930s
The Great Depression was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century, put into motion after the devastating stock market crash in 1929 in the United States known as Black Tuesday.
Learning Objective
Compose a list of factors that contributed to the global depression of the early 1930s
Key Points
The Great Depression was a global economic depression, the worst by far in the 20th century.
It began in October 1929 after a decade of massive spending and increased production throughout much of the world after the end of World War I. The American stock market crashed on October 29, which became known as “Black Tuesday.”
The market lost over $30 billion in two days.
When stocks plummeted on Black Tuesday, the world noticed immediately, creating a ripple effect on the global economy.
The gold standard was the primary transmission mechanism of the Great Depression, driving down the currency of even nations with no banking crisis.
The sooner nations got off the gold standard, the sooner they recovered from the depression.
In many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the beginning of World War II.
Key Terms
speculation
The purchase of an asset (a commodity, goods, or real estate) with the hope that it will become more valuable at a future date. In finance, it is the practice of engaging in risky financial transactions to profit from short-term fluctuations in the market value of a trade-able financial instrument rather than from its underlying financial attributes such as capital gains, dividends, or interest.
Black Tuesday
The most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, when taking into consideration the full extent and duration of its aftereffects. The crash, which followed the London Stock Exchange’s crash of September, signaled the beginning of the 10-year Great Depression that affected all Western industrialized countries.
gold standard
A monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is based on a fixed quantity of gold.
The Great Depression
The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression during the 1930s. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; in most countries it started in 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s. It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century. In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world’s economy can decline.
The depression originated in the United States after a major fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929, and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday). Between 1929 and 1932, worldwide GDP fell by an estimated 15%. By comparison, worldwide GDP fell by less than 1% from 2008 to 2009 during the Great Recession. Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930s. However, in many countries the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the beginning of World War II.
The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries both rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits, and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and in some countries as high as 33%.
Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming communities and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by about 60%. Facing plummeting demand with few alternative sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as mining and logging suffered the most.
Black Tuesday
Economic historians usually attribute the start of the Great Depression to the sudden devastating collapse of U.S. stock market prices on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday. However, some dispute this conclusion and see the stock crash as a symptom rather than a cause of the Great Depression.
The Roaring Twenties, the decade that followed World War I and led to the crash, was a time of wealth and excess. Building on post-war optimism, rural Americans migrated to the cities in vast numbers throughout the decade with the hopes of finding a more prosperous life in the ever-growing expansion of America’s industrial sector. While the American cities prospered, the overproduction of agricultural produce created widespread financial despair among American farmers throughout the decade. This would later be blamed as one of the key factors that led to the 1929 stock market crash.
Despite the dangers of speculation, many believed that the stock market would continue to rise forever. On March 25, 1929, after the Federal Reserve warned of excessive speculation, a mini-crash occurred as investors started to sell stocks at a rapid pace, exposing the market’s shaky foundation.
Selling intensified in mid-October. On October 24 (“Black Thursday”), the market lost 11 percent of its value at the opening bell on very heavy trading. The huge volume meant that the report of prices on the ticker tape in brokerage offices around the nation was hours late, so investors had no idea what most stocks were actually trading for at that moment, increasing panic.
Over the weekend, these events were covered by the newspapers across the United States. On October 28, “Black Monday,” more investors facing margin calls decided to get out of the market, and the slide continued with a record loss in the Dow for the day of 38.33 points, or 13%.
The next day, “Black Tuesday,” October 29, 1929, about 16 million shares traded as the panic selling reached its peak. Some stocks actually had no buyers at any price that day (“air pockets”). The Dow lost an additional 30 points, or 12 percent. The volume of stocks traded on October 29, 1929, was a record that was not broken for nearly 40 years.
On October 29, William C. Durant joined with members of the Rockefeller family and other financial giants to buy large quantities of stocks to demonstrate to the public their confidence in the market, but their efforts failed to stop the large decline in prices. Due to the massive volume of stocks traded that day, the ticker did not stop running until about 7:45 p.m. that evening. The market had lost over $30 billion in the space of two days.
Great Depression
Crowd at New York’s American Union Bank during a bank run early in the Great Depression. The widespread panic after the Stock Market Crash of 1929 resulted in a bank crisis with massive bank runs, which occur when a large number of customers withdraw cash from deposit accounts with a financial institution at the same time because they believe that the institution is or might become insolvent.
A large crowd gathered at New York’s American Union Bank during a bank run early in the Great Depression.
Causes
The two classical competing theories of the Great Depression are the Keynesian (demand-driven) and the monetarist explanations. There are also various heterodox theories that downplay or reject these explanations. The consensus among demand-driven theorists is that a large-scale loss of confidence led to a sudden reduction in consumption and investment spending. Once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money became profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand. Monetarists believe that the Great Depression started as an ordinary recession, but the shrinking of the money supply greatly exacerbated the economic situation, causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression.
Global Spread: Gold Standard
The stock market crash of October 1929 led directly to the Great Depression in Europe. When stocks plummeted on the New York Stock Exchange, the world noticed immediately. Although financial leaders in England, as in the United States, vastly underestimated the extent of the crisis that would ensue, it soon became clear that the world’s economies were more interconnected than ever. The effects of the disruption to the global system of financing, trade, and production and the subsequent meltdown of the American economy were soon felt throughout Europe.
The gold standard was the primary transmission mechanism of the Great Depression. Even countries that did not face bank failures and a monetary contraction first-hand were forced to join the deflationary policy, since higher interest rates in countries that did so led to a gold outflow in countries with lower interest rates. Under the gold standard, countries that lost gold but nevertheless wanted to maintain the gold standard had to permit their money supply to decrease and the domestic price level to decline (deflation).
The Great Depression hit Germany hard. The impact of the Wall Street Crash forced American banks to end the new loans that had been funding the repayments under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. The financial crisis escalated out of control and mid-1931, starting with the collapse of the Credit Anstalt in Vienna in May. This put heavy pressure on Germany, which was already in political turmoil.
Some economic studies have indicated that just as the downturn was spread worldwide by the rigidities of the Gold Standard, it was suspending gold convertibility (or devaluing the currency in gold terms) that did the most to make recovery possible.
Every major currency left the gold standard during the Great Depression. Great Britain was the first to do so. Facing speculative attacks on the pound and depleting gold reserves, in September 1931 the Bank of England ceased exchanging pound notes for gold and the pound was floated on foreign exchange markets.
Great Britain, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries left the gold standard in 1931. Other countries, such as Italy and the U.S., remained on the gold standard into 1932 or 1933, while a few countries in the so-called “gold bloc,” led by France and including Poland, Belgium, and Switzerland, stayed on the standard until 1935–36.
According to later analysis, how soon a country left the gold standard reliably predicted its economic recovery. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which remained on gold much longer.
30.3.2: Decline in International Trade
Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 helped to worsen the Great Depression, and many historians partly blame this on the American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (enacted June 17, 1930) for reducing international trade and causing retaliatory tariffs in other countries.
Learning Objective
Describe the effect the Great Depression had on international trade
Key Points
The Great Depression and international trade are deeply linked, with the decline in the stock markets affecting consumption and production in various countries. This slowed international trade, which in turn exacerbated the depression.
The situation was made worse by the rise of protectionism throughout the globe, which is the economic policy of restraining trade between countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and other government regulations.
Protectionist policies protect the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in a country from foreign competitors.
This attitude was put into effect most forcibly by the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, passed by the U.S. Congress.
The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act aimed to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition by encouraging the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods.
Other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade and worsening the Depression.
Key Terms
autarky
The quality of being self-sufficient, usually applied to political states or their economic systems that can survive without external assistance or international trade. If a self-sufficient economy also refuses all trade with the outside world then it is called a closed economy.
protectionism
The economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and other government regulations.
tariff
A tax on imports or exports.
International Trade During the Great Depression
Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 worsen the depression, especially for countries significantly dependent on foreign trade. Most historians and economists partly blame the American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act for worsening the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory tariffs in other countries.
While foreign trade was a small part of overall economic activity in the U.S. concentrated in a few businesses like farming, it was a much larger factor in many other countries. The average rate of duties on dutiable imports for 1921–25 was 25.9%, but under the new tariff it jumped to 50% during 1931–35.
In dollar terms, American exports declined over the next four years from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1933; not only did the physical volume of exports fall, but the prices fell by about 1/3 as written. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber.
Economist Paul Krugman argues against the notion that protectionism caused the Great Depression or made the decline in production worse. He cites a report by Barry Eichengreen and Douglas Irwin and argues that increased tariffs prevented trade from rebounding even after production recovered. Figure 1 in that report shows trade and production dropping together from 1929 to 1932, but production increasing faster than trade from 1932 to 1937. The authors argue that adherence to the gold standard forced many countries to resort to tariffs, when instead they should have devalued their currencies.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, was an act sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley and signed into law on June 17, 1930. The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. Other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade and worsening the Depression.
The tariffs under the act were the second-highest in the U.S. in 100 years, exceeded by a small margin by the Tariff of 1828. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America’s trading partners helped reduce American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression, but economists disagree on the exact amount.
As the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929, the U.S.’s main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition. Reed Smoot championed another tariff increase within the U.S. in 1929, which became the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill. In his memoirs, Smoot made it abundantly clear:
The world is paying for its ruthless destruction of life and property in the World War and for its failure to adjust purchasing power to productive capacity during the industrial revolution of the decade following the war.
Threats of retaliation by other countries began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.
In May 1930, Canada, the country’s most loyal trading partner, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Empire via the British Empire Economic Conference of 1932. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky, a self-sufficient, closed-economy with little or no international trade.
In 1932, with the depression having worsened for workers and farmers despite Smoot and Hawley’s promises of prosperity from a high tariff, the two lost their seats in the elections that year.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot in April 1929, shortly before the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed the House of Representatives. Many historians contend that the Act worsened the worldwide economic depression.
A photo of Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot in April 1929, standing together outside a building. It is a close-up photo.
Protectionism
In economics, protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and other government regulations. Protectionist policies protect the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in a country from foreign competitors. According to proponents, these policies can counteract unfair trade practices by allowing fair competition between imports and goods and services produced domestically. Protectionists may favor the policy to decrease the trade deficit, maintain employment in certain sectors, or promote the growth of certain industries.
There is a broad consensus among economists that the impact of protectionism on economic growth (and on economic welfare in general) is largely negative, although the impact on specific industries and groups of people may be positive. The doctrine of protectionism contrasts with the doctrine of free trade, where governments reduce barriers to trade as much as possible.
30.4: The Rise of Fascism
30.4.1: Mussolini and Fascist Italy
After aligning itself with Italian conservatives, the fascist party rose to prominence using violence and intimidation, eventually seizing power in Rome in 1922 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.
Learning Objective
Evaluate why Mussolini was able to seize power in Italy
Key Points
The rise of fascism in Italy began during World War I, when Benito Mussolini and other radicals formed a political group (called a fasci) supporting the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
The first meeting of Mussolini’s Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held on January 24, 1915.
For the next several years, the small group of fascists took part in political actions, taking advantage of worker strikes to incite violence.
Around 1921, the fascists began to align themselves with mainstream conservatives, increasing membership exponentially.
Beginning in 1922, Fascist paramilitaries escalated their strategy from attacking socialist offices and homes of socialist leadership figures to violent occupation of cities, eventually setting their sites on Rome.
During the so-called “March on Rome,” Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister of Italy.
From 1925 to 1929, Fascism steadily became entrenched in power. Opposition deputies were denied access to parliament, censorship was introduced, and a December 1925 decree made Mussolini solely responsible to the King.
Italian Fascism, also known simply as Fascism, is the original fascist ideology as developed in Italy. The ideology is associated with the Fascist Revolutionary Party (PFR), founded in 1915; the succeeding National Fascist Party (PNF) in 1921, which under Benito Mussolini ruled the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 until 1943; the Republican Fascist Party that ruled the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945; and the post-war Italian Social Movement and subsequent Italian neo-fascist movements.
Italian Fascism was rooted in Italian nationalism and the desire to restore and expand Italian territories, deemed necessary for a nation to assert its superiority and strength and avoid succumbing to decay. Italian Fascists claimed that modern Italy is the heir to ancient Rome and its legacy, and historically supported the creation of an Italian Empire to provide spazio vitale (“living space”) for colonization by Italian settlers and to establish control over the Mediterranean Sea.
Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates were linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation’s economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy. This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes
The Rise of Fascism in Italy
The first meeting of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held on January 24, 1915, led by Benito Mussolini. In the next few years, the relatively small group was various political actions. In 1920, militant strike activity by industrial workers reached its peak in Italy. Mussolini and the Fascists took advantage of the situation by allying with industrial businesses and attacking workers and peasants in the name of preserving order and internal peace in Italy.
Fascists identified their primary opponents as the majority of socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I. The Fascists and the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness, and believed in the rule of elites. Fascism began to accommodate Italian conservatives by making major alterations to its political agenda—abandoning its previous populism, republicanism, and anticlericalism, adopting policies in support of free enterprise, and accepting the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.
To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including policies designed to reduce the number of women in the workforce by limiting the woman’s role to that of a mother. The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state. Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries, the Fascists sought to maintain Fascism’s revolutionary character, with Angelo Oliviero Olivetti saying “Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary.” The Fascists supported revolutionary action and committed to secure law and order to appeal to both conservatives and syndicalists.
Prior to Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, Fascism was a small, urban, northern Italian movement that had about a thousand members. After Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, the Fascist movement’s membership soared to approximately 250,000 by 1921.
Fascists Seize Power
Beginning in 1922, Fascist paramilitaries escalated their strategy from attacking socialist offices and homes of socialist leadership figures to violent occupation of cities. The Fascists met little serious resistance from authorities and proceeded to take over several northern Italian cities. The Fascists attacked the headquarters of socialist and Catholic labor unions in Cremona and imposed forced Italianization upon the German-speaking population of Trent and Bolzano. After seizing these cities, the Fascists made plans to take Rome.
On October 24, 1922, the Fascist party held its annual congress in Naples, where Mussolini ordered Blackshirts to take control of public buildings and trains and converge on three points around Rome. The Fascists managed to seize control of several post offices and trains in northern Italy while the Italian government, led by a left-wing coalition, was internally divided and unable to respond to the Fascist advances. King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy thought the risk of bloodshed in Rome to disperse the Fascists was too high. Victor Emmanuel III decided to appoint Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy, and Mussolini arrived in Rome on October 30 to accept the appointment. Fascist propaganda aggrandized this event, known as “March on Rome,” as a “seizure” of power because of Fascists’ heroic exploits.
March on Rome
Benito Mussolini with three of the four quadrumvirs during the March on Rome: from left to right: unknown, de Bono, Mussolini, Balbo and de Vecchi.
A photo of a crowd of mostly men, with Mussolini and other fascist leaders in the center.
Mussolini in Power
Upon becoming Prime Minister of Italy, Mussolini had to form a coalition government, because the Fascists did not have control over the Italian parliament. Mussolini’s coalition government initially pursued economically liberal policies under the direction of liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani, a member of the Center Party, including balancing the budget through deep cuts to the civil service. Initially, little drastic change in government policy occurred and repressive police actions were limited.
The Fascists began their attempt to entrench Fascism in Italy with the Acerbo Law, which guaranteed a plurality of the seats in parliament to any party or coalition list in an election that received 25% or more of the vote. Through considerable Fascist violence and intimidation, the list won a majority of the vote, allowing many seats to go to the Fascists. In the aftermath of the election, a crisis and political scandal erupted after Socialist Party deputy Giacomo Matteoti was kidnapped and murdered by a Fascist. The liberals and the leftist minority in parliament walked out in protest in what became known as the Aventine Secession.
On January 3, 1925, Mussolini addressed the Fascist-dominated Italian parliament and declared that he was personally responsible for what happened, but insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He proclaimed himself dictator of Italy, assuming full responsibility over the government and announcing the dismissal of parliament. From 1925 to 1929, Fascism steadily became entrenched in power; opposition deputies were denied access to parliament, censorship was introduced, and a December 1925 decree made Mussolini solely responsible to the King.
In the 1920s, Fascist Italy pursued an aggressive foreign policy that included an attack on the Greek island of Corfu, aims to expand Italian territory in the Balkans, plans to wage war against Turkey and Yugoslavia, attempts to bring Yugoslavia into civil war by supporting Croat and Macedonian separatists to legitimize Italian intervention, and making Albania a de facto protectorate of Italy, achieved through diplomatic means by 1927. In response to revolt in the Italian colony of Libya, Fascist Italy abandoned previous liberal-era colonial policy of cooperation with local leaders. Instead, claiming that Italians were superior to African races and thereby had the right to colonize the “inferior” Africans, it sought to settle 10 to 15 million Italians in Libya. This resulted in an aggressive military campaign known as the Pacification of Libya against natives in Libya, including mass killings, the use of concentration camps, and the forced starvation of thousands of people. Italian authorities committed ethnic cleansing by forcibly expelling 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica in Libya, from their settlements, slated to be given to Italian settlers.
30.4.2: Fascism
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, characterized by one-party totalitarian regimes run by charismatic dictators, glorification of violence, and racist ideology.
Learning Objective
Define fascism
Key Points
Fascism is a far-right authoritarian political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century and rose to prominence after World War I in several nations, notably Italy, Germany, and Japan.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state, led by a dictator, as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and respond effectively to economic difficulties.
Fascist regimes are often preoccupied “with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity,” culminating in nationalistic and racist ideologies and practices, such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.
The term originated in Italy and is derived from fascio, meaning a bundle of rods, and is used to symbolize strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
After the end of the World War I, fascism rose out of relative obscurity into international prominence, with fascist regimes forming most notably in Italy, Germany, and Japan, the three of which would be allied in World War II.
Fascist Benito Mussolini seized power in Italy in 1922 and Adolf Hitler had successfully consolidated his power in Germany by 1933.
Key Terms
Social Darwinism
A name given to various ideologies emerging in the second half of the 19th century, trying to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest in human society. It was largely developed by Herbert Spencer, who compared society to a living organism and argued that just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes.
fascism
A form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. It holds that liberal democracy is obsolete and that the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state is necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.
fin-de-siècle
French for end of the century, a term which typically encompasses both the meaning of the similar English idiom turn of the century and also makes reference to the closing of one era and onset of another. The term is typically used to refer to the end of the 19th century. This was widely thought to be a period of degeneration, but at the same time one of hope for a new beginning. It often refers to the cultural hallmarks that were recognized as prominent in the 1880s and 1890s, including ennui, cynicism, pessimism, and “…a widespread belief that civilization leads to decadence.”
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, then spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascist Ideologies
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A “military citizenship” arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy with the principal goal of achieving autarky (self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Historian Robert Paxton says that fascism is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to or rooted in 20th century fascist movements.
The term fascist comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. At first, it was applied mainly to organizations on the political left. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio—a bundle of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
Early History of Fascism
The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin-de-siècle (French for “end of the century”) theme of that time. This ideology was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society, and democracy. The fin-de-siècle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism, and vitalism. The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution. Its intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals. They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.
Social Darwinism, which gained widespread acceptance, made no distinction between physical and social life, and viewed the human condition as being an unceasing struggle to achieve the survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism challenged positivism’s claim of deliberate and rational choice as the determining behavior of humans, focusing on heredity, race, and environment. Its emphasis on biogroup identity and the role of organic relations within societies fostered legitimacy and appeal for nationalism. New theories of social and political psychology also rejected the notion of human behavior being governed by rational choice, and instead claimed that emotion was more influential in political issues than reason.
At the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the Italian political left became severely split over its position on the war. The Italian Socialist Party (PSI) opposed the war but a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists supported war against Germany and Austria-Hungary on the grounds that their reactionary regimes had to be defeated to ensure the success of socialism. Angelo Oliviero Olivetti formed a pro-interventionist fascio called the Fasci of International Action in October 1914. Benito Mussolini, upon expulsion from his position as chief editor of the PSI’s newspaper Avanti! for his anti-German stance, joined the interventionist cause in a separate fascio. The term “Fascism” was first used in 1915 by members of Mussolini’s movement, the Fasci of Revolutionary Action.
The first meeting of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held in January 1915 when Mussolini declared that it was necessary for Europe to resolve its national problems—including national borders—of Italy and elsewhere “for the ideals of justice and liberty for which oppressed peoples must acquire the right to belong to those national communities from which they descended.” Attempts to hold mass meetings were ineffective, and the organization was regularly harassed by government authorities and socialists.
Similar political ideas arose in Germany after the outbreak of the war. German sociologist Johann Plenge spoke of the rise of a “National Socialism” in Germany within what he termed the “ideas of 1914” that were a declaration of war against the “ideas of 1789” (the French Revolution). According to Plenge, the “ideas of 1789” that included rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism were being rejected in favor of “the ideas of 1914” that included “German values” of duty, discipline, law, and order. Plenge believed that racial solidarity (Volksgemeinschaft) would replace class division and that “racial comrades” would unite to create a socialist society in the struggle of “proletarian” Germany against “capitalist” Britain. He believed that the “Spirit of 1914” manifested itself in the concept of the “People’s League of National Socialism.”
After the end of the World War I, fascism rose out of relative obscurity into international prominence, with fascist regimes forming most notably in Italy, Germany, and Japan, the three of which would be allied in World War II. Fascist Benito Mussolini seized power in Italy in 1922 and Adolf Hitler had successfully consolidated his power in Germany by 1933.
Hitler and Mussolini
Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were the two most prominent fascist dictators, rising to power in the decades after World War I.
Photo of Hitler and Mussolini in official military uniforms overlooking a crowd of people.
30.4.3: Fascism in Japan
During the 1930s, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism, culminating in its invasion of China in 1937.
Learning Objective
Examine how fascism manifested itself in Japan
Key Points
Similar to European nations like Italy and Germany, nationalism and aggressive expansionism began to rise to prominence in Japan after World War I.
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I did not recognize the Empire of Japan’s territorial claims, which angered the Japanese and led to a surge in nationalism.
Throughout the 1920s, various nationalistic and xenophobic ideologies emerged among right-wing Japanese intellectuals, but it was not until the early 1930s that these ideas gained full traction in the ruling regime.
During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria.
International criticism of Japan following the invasion led to Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations, which led to political isolation and a redoubling of ultranationalist and expansionist tendencies.
In 1932, a group of right-wing Army and Navy officers succeeded in assassinating the Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi.
The plot fell short of staging a complete coup d’état, but it effectively ended rule by political parties in Japan and consolidated the power of the military elite under the dictatorship of Emperor Hirohito.
Key Terms
Meiji Restoration
An event that restored practical imperial rule to Japan in 1868 under Emperor Meiji, leading to enormous changes in Japan’s political and social structure and spanning both the late Edo period (often called the Late Tokugawa shogunate) and the beginning of the Meiji period. The period spanned from 1868 to 1912 and was responsible for the emergence of Japan as a modernized nation in the early 20th century, and its rapid rise to great power status in the international system.
Shinto
A Japanese ethnic religion that focuses on ritual practices carried out diligently to establish a connection between present-day Japan and its ancient past. Its practices were first recorded and codified in the written historical records of the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki in the 8th century. This term applies to the religion of public shrines devoted to the worship of a multitude of gods (kami), suited to various purposes such as war memorials and harvest festivals.
Shōwa period
The period of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of the Shōwa Emperor, Hirohito, from December 25, 1926, through January 7, 1989. This period was longer than the reign of any previous Japanese emperor. During the pre-1945 period, Japan moved into political totalitarianism, ultranationalism, and fascism culminating in Japan’s invasion of China in 1937. This was part of an overall global period of social upheavals and conflicts, such as the Great Depression and World War II. Defeat in World War II brought radical change to Japan.
statism
The belief that the state should control either economic or social policy or both, sometimes taking the form of totalitarianism, but not necessarily. It is effectively the opposite of anarchism.
Statism in Japan
Statism in Shōwa Japan was a right-wing political ideology developed over a period of time from the Meiji Restoration of the 1860s. It is sometimes also referred to as Shōwa nationalism or Japanese fascism.
This statist movement dominated Japanese politics during the first part of the Shōwa period (reign of Hirohito). It was a mixture of ideas such as Japanese nationalism and militarism and “state capitalism” proposed by contemporary political philosophers and thinkers.
Development of Statist Ideology
The 1919 Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I did not recognize the Empire of Japan’s territorial claims, and international naval treaties between Western powers and the Empire of Japan (Washington Naval Treaty and London Naval Treaty) imposed limitations on naval shipbuilding that limited the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy. These measures were considered by many in Japan as refusal by the Occidental powers to consider Japan an equal partner.
On the basis of national security, these events released a surge of Japanese nationalism and resulted in the end of collaboration diplomacy that supported peaceful economic expansion. The implementation of a military dictatorship and territorial expansionism were considered the best ways to protect Japan.
In the early 1930s, the Ministry of Home Affairs began arresting left-wing political dissidents, generally to exact a confession and renouncement of anti-state leanings. Over 30,000 such arrests were made between 1930 and 1933. In response, a large group of writers founded a Japanese branch of the International Popular Front Against Fascism and published articles in major literary journals warning of the dangers of statism.
Ikki Kita was an early 20th-century political theorist who advocated a hybrid of state socialism with “Asian nationalism,” which blended the early ultranationalist movement with Japanese militarism. Kita proposed a military coup d’état to replace the existing political structure of Japan with a military dictatorship. The new military leadership would rescind the Meiji Constitution, ban political parties, replace the Diet of Japan with an assembly free of corruption, and nationalize major industries. Kita also envisioned strict limits to private ownership of property and land reform to improve the lot of tenant farmers. Thus strengthened internally, Japan could then embark on a crusade to free all of Asia from Western imperialism.
Although his works were banned by the government almost immediately after publication, circulation was widespread, and his thesis proved popular not only with the younger officer class excited at the prospects of military rule and Japanese expansionism, but with the populist movement for its appeal to the agrarian classes and to the left wing of the socialist movement.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the supporters of Japanese statism used the slogan Showa Restoration, which implied that a new resolution was needed to replace the existing political order dominated by corrupt politicians and capitalists, with one which (in their eyes), would fulfill the original goals of the Meiji Restoration of direct Imperial rule via military proxies.
Early Shōwa statism is sometimes given the retrospective label “fascism,” but this was not a self-appellation and it is not entirely clear that the comparison is accurate. When authoritarian tools of the state such as the Kempeitai were put into use in the early Shōwa period, they were employed to protect the rule of law under the Meiji Constitution from perceived enemies on both the left and the right.
Nationalist Politics During the Shōwa Period
Emperor Hirohito’s 63-year reign from 1926 to 1989 is the longest in recorded Japanese history. The first 20 years were characterized by the rise of extreme nationalism and a series of expansionist wars. After suffering defeat in World War II, Japan was occupied by foreign powers for the first time in its history, then re-emerged as a major world economic power.
Left-wing groups had been subject to violent suppression by the end of the Taishō period, and radical right-wing groups, inspired by fascism and Japanese nationalism, rapidly grew in popularity. The extreme right became influential throughout the Japanese government and society, notably within the Kwantung Army, a Japanese army stationed in China along the Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railroad. During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, radical army officers bombed a small portion of the South Manchuria Railroad and, falsely attributing the attack to the Chinese, invaded Manchuria. The Kwantung Army conquered Manchuria and set up the puppet government of Manchukuo there without permission from the Japanese government. International criticism of Japan following the invasion led to Japan withdrawing from the League of Nations.
The withdrawal from the League of Nations meant that Japan was politically isolated. Japan had no strong allies and its actions had been internationally condemned, while internally popular nationalism was booming. Local leaders such as mayors, teachers, and Shinto priests were recruited by the various movements to indoctrinate the populace with ultra-nationalist ideals. They had little time for the pragmatic ideas of the business elite and party politicians. Their loyalty lay to the Emperor and the military. In March 1932 the “League of Blood” assassination plot and the chaos surrounding the trial of its conspirators further eroded the rule of democratic law in Shōwa Japan. In May of the same year, a group of right-wing Army and Navy officers succeeded in assassinating the Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. The plot fell short of staging a complete coup d’état, but effectively ended rule by political parties in Japan.
Japan’s expansionist vision grew increasingly bold. Many of Japan’s political elite aspired to have Japan acquire new territory for resource extraction and settlement of surplus population. These ambitions led to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. After their victory in the Chinese capital, the Japanese military committed the infamous Nanking Massacre. The Japanese military failed to defeat the Chinese government led by Chiang Kai-shek and the war descended into a bloody stalemate that lasted until 1945. Japan’s stated war aim was to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a vast pan-Asian union under Japanese domination. Hirohito’s role in Japan’s foreign wars remains a subject of controversy, with various historians portraying him as either a powerless figurehead or an enabler and supporter of Japanese militarism.
The United States opposed Japan’s invasion of China and responded with increasingly stringent economic sanctions intended to deprive Japan of the resources to continue its war in China. Japan reacted by forging an alliance with Germany and Italy in 1940, known as the Tripartite Pact, which worsened its relations with the U.S. In July 1941, the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands froze all Japanese assets when Japan completed its invasion of French Indochina by occupying the southern half of the country, further increasing tension in the Pacific.
Statism in Japan
Emperor Shōwa riding his stallion Shirayuki during an Army inspection, August 1938. By the 1930’s, Japan had essentially become a military dictatorship with increasingly bold expansionist aims.
Emperor Shōwa riding his stallion Shirayuki alongside other military officers riding horses during an Army inspection, August 1938.
30.4.4: Franco’s Spain
Several historians believe that during the Spanish Civil War, General Francisco Franco’s goal was to turn Spain into a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, which he largely succeeded in doing.
Learning Objective
Summarize the rise of the Franco regime in Spain
Key Points
As in Germany and Italy, fascism gained prominence in Spain during the interwar period, especially from the 1930s through World War II.
Francisco Franco, a Spanish general, rose to prominence in the mid-1930s, but his right-wing party failed to gained power in the 1936 elections.
Franco and other military leaders staged a failed coup that led to the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, which lasted from 1936-1939.
Franco emerged victorious and established a one-party military dictatorship, naming himself the leader under the name El Caudillo, a term similar to Il Duce (Italian) for Benito Mussolini and Der Führer (German) for Adolf Hitler.
Franco’s regime committed a series of violent human rights abuses against the Spanish people, causing an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths.
The consistent points in Franco’s ideology (termed Francoism) included authoritarianism, nationalism, national Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism, and anti-liberalism.
Key Terms
Francisco Franco
A Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a dictator for 36 years from 1939 until his death. He took control of Spain from the government of the Second Spanish Republic after winning the Civil War, and was in power 1978, when the Spanish Constitution of 1978 went into effect.
personality cult
When an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods to create an idealized, heroic, and at times worshipful image, often through unquestioned flattery and praise.
Spanish Civil War
A war from 1936 to 1939 between the Republicans, who were loyal to the democratic, left-leaning and relatively urban Second Spanish Republic in an alliance of convenience with the Anarchists, and the Nationalists, a falangist, Carlist, and a largely aristocratic conservative group led by General Francisco Franco.
Falangism
A Fascist movement founded in Spain in 1933 and the one legal party in Spain under the regime of Franco.
Francisco Franco: El Caudillo
Francisco Franco (December 4, 1892 – November 20, 1975) was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a dictator for 36 years from 1939 until his death.
As a conservative and a monarchist, he opposed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic in 1931. With the 1936 elections, the conservative Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-wing Groups lost by a narrow margin and the leftist Popular Front came to power. Intending to overthrow the republic, Franco followed other generals in attempting a failed coup that precipitated the Spanish Civil War. With the death of the other generals, Franco quickly became his faction’s only leader. In 1947, he declared Spain a monarchy with himself as regent.
Franco gained military support from various regimes and groups, especially Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy, while the Republican side was supported by Spanish communists and anarchists as well as the Soviet Union, Mexico, and the International Brigades. Leaving half a million dead, the war was eventually won by Franco in 1939. He established a military dictatorship, which he defined as a totalitarian state. Franco proclaimed himself Head of State and Government under the title El Caudillo, a term similar to Il Duce (Italian) for Benito Mussolini and Der Führer (German) for Adolf Hitler. Under Franco, Spain became a one-party state, as the various conservative and royalist factions were merged into the fascist party and other political parties were outlawed.
Franco’s regime committed a series of violent human rights abuses against the Spanish people, which included the establishment of concentration camps and the use of forced labor and executions, mostly against political and ideological enemies, causing an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths in more than 190 concentration camps. Spain’s entry into the war on the Axis side was prevented largely by, as was much later revealed, British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) efforts that included up to $200 million in bribes for Spanish officials to keep the regime from getting involved. Franco was also able to take advantage of the resources of the Axis Powers and chose to avoid becoming heavily involved in the Second World War.
Francisco Franco
A photo of Francisco Franco in 1964. Franco strove to establish a fascist dictatorship similar to that of Germany and Italy, but in the end did not join the Axis in WWII.
A close-up photographic portrait of Francisco Franco in a military uniform.
Ideology of Francoist Spain
The consistent points in Francoism included authoritarianism, nationalism, national Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism, and anti-liberalism. The Spanish State was authoritarian: non-government trade unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum were either suppressed or controlled by all means, including police repression. Most country towns and rural areas were patrolled by pairs of Guardia Civil, a military police for civilians, which functioned as a chief means of social control. Larger cities and capitals were mostly under the heavily armed Policía Armada, commonly called grises due to their grey uniforms. Franco was also the focus of a personality cult which taught that he had been sent by Divine Providence to save the country from chaos and poverty.
Franco’s Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain’s cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco were promoted as national traditions, while those traditions not considered Spanish were suppressed. Franco’s view of Spanish tradition was somewhat artificial and arbitrary: while some regional traditions were suppressed, Flamenco, an Andalusian tradition, was considered part of a larger, national identity. All cultural activities were subject to censorship, and many were forbidden entirely, often in an erratic manner.
Francoism professed a strong devotion to militarism, hypermasculinity, and the traditional role of women in society. A woman was to be loving to her parents and brothers and faithful to her husband, and reside with her family. Official propaganda confined women’s roles to family care and motherhood. Most progressive laws passed by the Second Republic were declared void. Women could not become judges, testify in trial, or become university professors.
The Civil War had ravaged the Spanish economy. Infrastructure had been damaged, workers killed, and daily business severely hampered. For more than a decade after Franco’s victory, the economy improved little. Franco initially pursued a policy of autarky, cutting off almost all international trade. The policy had devastating effects, and the economy stagnated. Only black marketeers could enjoy an evident affluence. Up to 200,000 people died of starvation during the early years of Francoism, a period known as Los Años de Hambre (the Years of Hunger).
Falangism: Spanish Fascism
Falangism was the political ideology of the Falange Española de las JONS and, afterwards, of the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (both known simply as the “Falange”), as well as derivatives of it in other countries. Falangism is widely considered a fascist ideology. Under the leadership of Francisco Franco, many of the radical elements of Falangism considered fascist were diluted, and it largely became an authoritarian, conservative ideology connected with Francoist Spain. Opponents of Franco’s changes to the party include former Falange leader Manuel Hedilla. Falangism places a strong emphasis on Catholic religious identity, though it held some secular views on the Church’s direct influence in society as it believed that the state should have the supreme authority over the nation. Falangism emphasized the need for authority, hierarchy, and order in society. Falangism is anti-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, and anti-liberal, although under Franco, the Falange abandoned its original anti-capitalist tendencies, declaring the ideology to be fully compatible with capitalism.
The Falange’s original manifesto, the “Twenty-Seven Points,” declared Falangism to support the unity of Spain and the elimination of regional separatism; established a dictatorship led by the Falange; used violence to regenerate Spain; promoted the revival and development of the Spanish Empire; and championed a social revolution to create a national syndicalist economy to mutually organize and control economic activity, agrarian reform, industrial expansion, and respect for private property with the exception of nationalizing credit facilities to prevent capitalist usury. It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers as illegal acts. Falangism supports the state to have jurisdiction of setting wages. The Franco-era Falange supported the development of cooperatives such as the Mondragon Corporation, because it bolstered the Francoist claim of the nonexistence of social classes in Spain during his rule.
30.4.5: The Decline of European Democracy
The conditions of economic hardship caused by the Great Depression brought about significant social unrest around the world, leading to a major surge of fascism and in many cases, the collapse of democratic governments.
Learning Objective
Formulate an explanation for the decreasing number of democratic governments in Europe during this period
Key Points
Mussolini’s seizure of power in Italy with the March on Rome brought fascism international attention.
One early admirer of the Italian Fascists was Adolf Hitler. Less than a month after the March, he began to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists.
The Nazis, led by Hitler and the German war hero Erich Ludendorff, attempted a “March on Berlin” modeled upon the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in November 1923.
Other early admirers of Italian Fascism were Gyula Gömbös, leader of the Hungarian National Defense Association, and Milan Pribićević of Yugoslavia, who led the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists (ORJUNA).
The Great Depression, which caused significant social unrest throughout the world, led to the major surge of fascism.
Economic depression was one of the major causes of the rise of Nazism in Germany.
Fascism was also popular during the Depression era outside of Europe, in Japan, Brazil, and Argentina among other nations.
Historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte argues that fascism arose as a form of resistance to and a reaction against modernity.
Key Terms
modernity
A term used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both a historical period as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes, and practices that arose in post-medieval Europe and have developed since, in various ways and at various times, around the world. As a historical category, it refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom, and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific, and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization, and secularization; and the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy).
Iron Guard
The name most commonly given to a far-right movement and political party in Romania in the period from 1927 into the early part of World War II. It was ultra-nationalist, antisemitic, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, and promoted the Orthodox Christian faith. Its members were called “Greenshirts” because of the predominantly green uniforms they wore.
Beer Hall Putsch
A failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during November 8-9, 1923. About two thousand men marched to the center of Munich where they confronted the police, resulting in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen.
Initial Surge of Fascism
The March on Rome, through which Mussolini became Prime Minister of Italy, brought Fascism international attention. One early admirer of the Italian Fascists was Adolf Hitler, who, less than a month after the March, had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists. The Nazis, led by Hitler and the German war hero Erich Ludendorff, attempted a “March on Berlin” modeled upon the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in November 1923. The Nazis briefly captured Bavarian Minister President Gustav Ritter von Kahr and announced the creation of a new German government to be led by a triumvirate of von Kahr, Hitler, and Ludendorff. The Beer Hall Putsch was crushed by Bavarian police, and Hitler and other leading Nazis were arrested and detained until 1925.
Another early admirer of Italian Fascism was Gyula Gömbös, leader of the Hungarian National Defence Association (known by its acronym MOVE) and a self-defined “national socialist” who in 1919 spoke of the need for major changes in property and in 1923 stated the need of a “march on Budapest.” Yugoslavia briefly had a significant fascist movement, the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists (ORJUNA), that supported Yugoslavism, supported the creation of a corporatist economy, opposed democracy, and took part in violent attacks on communists, though it was opposed to the Italian government due to Yugoslav border disputes with Italy. ORJUNA was dissolved in 1929 when the King of Yugoslavia banned political parties and created a royal dictatorship, though ORJUNA supported the King’s decision.
Amid a political crisis in Spain involving increased strike activity and rising support for anarchism, Spanish army commander Miguel Primo de Rivera engaged in a successful coup against the Spanish government in 1923 and installed himself as a dictator as head of a conservative military junta that dismantled the established party system of government. Upon achieving power, Primo de Rivera sought to resolve the economic crisis by presenting himself as a compromise arbitrator figure between workers and bosses, and his regime created a corporatist economic system based on the Italian Fascist model. In Lithuania in 1926, Antanas Smetona rose to power and founded a fascist regime under his Lithuanian Nationalist Union.
Beer Hall Putsch
Nazis in Munich during the Beer Hall Putsch, a failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during November 8-9, 1923. About two thousand men marched to the center of Munich where they confronted the police, resulting in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen.
Nazis in Munich during the Beer Hall Putsch. It depicts a crowd of people outside surrounded by tall buildings. Several Nazis in uniforms are up on a platform.
The Great Depression and the Spread of Fascism
The events of the Great Depression resulted in an international surge of fascism and the creation of several fascist regimes and regimes that adopted fascist policies. According to historian Philip Morgan, “the onset of the Great Depression…was the greatest stimulus yet to the diffusion and expansion of fascism outside Italy.” Fascist propaganda blamed the problems of the long depression of the 1930s on minorities and scapegoats: “Judeo-Masonic-bolshevik” conspiracies, left-wing internationalism, and the presence of immigrants.
In Germany, it contributed to the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which resulted in the demise of the Weimar Republic and the establishment of the fascist regime, Nazi Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. With the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to power in 1933, liberal democracy was dissolved in Germany, and the Nazis mobilized the country for war, with expansionist territorial aims against several countries. In the 1930s the Nazis implemented racial laws that deliberately discriminated against, disenfranchised, and persecuted Jews and other racial and minority groups.
Fascist movements grew stronger elsewhere in Europe. Hungarian fascist Gyula Gömbös rose to power as Prime Minister of Hungary in 1932 and attempted to entrench his Party of National Unity throughout the country; he created an eight-hour work day and a 48-hour work week in industry, sought to entrench a corporatist economy, and pursued irredentist claims on Hungary’s neighbors.
The fascist Iron Guard movement in Romania soared in political support after 1933, gaining representation in the Romanian government, and an Iron Guard member assassinated Romanian prime minister Ion Duca. During the February 6, 1934 crisis, France faced the greatest domestic political turmoil since the Dreyfus Affair when the fascist Francist Movement and multiple far-right movements rioted en masse in Paris against the French government resulting in major political violence. A variety of para-fascist governments that borrowed elements from fascism were formed during the Great Depression, including those of Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Yugoslavia.
Fascism Beyond Europe
Fascism also expanded its influence outside Europe, especially in East Asia, the Middle East, and South America. In China, Wang Jingwei’s Kai-tsu p’ai (Reorganization) faction of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party of China) supported Nazism in the late 1930s. In Japan, a Nazi movement called the Tōhōkai was formed by Seigō Nakano. The Al-Muthanna Club of Iraq was a pan-Arab movement that supported Nazism and exercised its influence in the Iraqi government through cabinet minister Saib Shawkat, who formed a paramilitary youth movement.
Several, mostly short-lived fascist governments and prominent fascist movements were formed in South America during this period. Argentine President General José Félix Uriburu proposed that Argentina be reorganized along corporatist and fascist lines. Peruvian president Luis Miguel Sánchez Cerro founded the Revolutionary Union in 1931 as the state party for his dictatorship. It was later taken over by Raúl Ferrero Rebagliati who sought to mobilize mass support for the group’s nationalism in a manner akin to fascism. He even started a paramilitary Blackshirts arm as a copy of the Italian group, although the Union lost heavily in the 1936 elections and faded into obscurity. In Paraguay in 1940, Paraguayan President General Higinio Morínigo began his rule as a dictator with the support of pro-fascist military officers, appealed to the masses, exiled opposition leaders, and only abandoned his pro-fascist policies after the end of World War II. The Brazilian Integralists, led by Plínio Salgado, claimed as many as 200,000 members, although following coup attempts it faced a crackdown from the Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas in 1937. In the 1930s, the National Socialist Movement of Chile gained seats in Chile’s parliament and attempted a coup d’état that resulted in the Seguro Obrero massacre of 1938.
Fascism in its Epoch
Fascism in its Epoch is a 1963 book by historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte, widely regarded as his magnum opus and a seminal work on the history of fascism. The book, translated into English in 1965 as The Three Faces of Fascism, argues that fascism arose as a form of resistance to and a reaction against modernity. Nolte subjected German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and the French Action Française movements to a comparative analysis. Nolte’s conclusion was that fascism was the great anti-movement: it was anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois. In Nolte’s view, fascism was the rejection of everything the modern world had to offer and was an essentially negative phenomenon. Nolte argued that fascism functioned at three levels: in the world of politics as a form of opposition to Marxism, at the sociological level in opposition to bourgeois values, and in the “metapolitical” world as “resistance to transcendence” (“transcendence” in German can be translated as the “spirit of modernity”). In regard to the Holocaust, Nolte contended that because Adolf Hitler identified Jews with modernity, the basic thrust of Nazi policies towards Jews had always aimed at genocide: “Auschwitz was contained in the principles of Nazi racist theory like the seed in the fruit.” Nolte believed that for Hitler, Jews represented “the historical process itself.”
30.5: Hitler and the Third Reich
30.5.1: Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler was born and raised in Austria-Hungary, was decorated during his service in the German Army in World War I, and began to rise to prominence in German politics with his vitriolic speeches promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism.
Learning Objective
Discuss Adolf Hitler’s upbringing and character
Key Points
Hitler was born in 1889 in Austria, then part of Austria-Hungary, and raised near Linz.
He moved to Germany in 1913 and was decorated during his service in the German Army in World War I.
He joined the German Workers’ Party (DAP), the precursor of the Nazi Party, in 1919 and became leader of the Nazi Party in 1921.
In 1923 he attempted a coup in Munich to seize power, called the Beer Hall Putsch.
The failed coup resulted in Hitler’s imprisonment, during which he dictated the first volume of his autobiography and political manifesto Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”).
After his release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting Pan-Germanism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda.
Hitler frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as part of a Jewish conspiracy.
Key Terms
Mein Kampf
A 1925 autobiographical book by Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler. The work outlines Hitler’s political ideology and future plans for Germany. In it, Hitler used the main thesis of “the Jewish peril,” which posits a Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly antisemitic and militaristic, especially during his years in Vienna. He speaks of not having met a Jew until he arrived in Vienna, and that at first his attitude was liberal and tolerant. When he first encountered the anti-semitic press, he says, he dismissed it as unworthy of serious consideration. Later he accepted the same anti-semitic views, which became crucial in his program of national reconstruction of Germany.
Beer Hall Putsch
A failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler — along with Erich Ludendorff and others — to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during November 8-9, 1923. About two thousand men marched to the center of Munich where they confronted the police, which resulted in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen.
National Socialist German Workers Party
A political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practiced the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920. The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist, and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany. The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.
Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer (“Leader”) of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As dictator of the German Reich, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and was central to the Holocaust.
By 1933, the Nazi Party was the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, which led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Following fresh elections won by his coalition, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, which began the process of transforming the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany, a one-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism. Hitler aimed to eliminate Jews from Germany and establish a New Order to counter what he saw as the injustice of the post-World War I international order dominated by Britain and France. His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression, the effective abandonment of restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I, and the annexation of territories that were home to millions of ethnic Germans — actions that gave him significant popular support.
Hitler sought Lebensraum (“living space”) for the German people in Eastern Europe. His aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe. He directed large-scale rearmament and on September 1, 1939, invaded Poland, resulting in British and French declarations of war on Germany. In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941 German forces and the European Axis powers occupied most of Europe and North Africa. Failure to defeat the Soviets and the entry of the United States into the war forced Germany onto the defensive, and it suffered a series of escalating defeats. In the final days of the war, during the Battle of Berlin in 1945, Hitler married his long-time lover, Eva Braun. On April 30, 1945, less than two days later, the two killed themselves to avoid capture by the Red Army, and their corpses were burned.
Childhood and Education
Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889 in Braunau am Inn, a town in Austria-Hungary (in present-day Austria), close to the border with the German Empire. He was one of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl. Three of Hitler’s siblings—Gustav, Ida, and Otto—died in infancy. When Hitler was three, the family moved to Passau, Germany. There he acquired the distinctive lower Bavarian dialect rather than Austrian German, which marked his speech throughout his life. The family returned to Austria and settled in Leonding in 1894, and in June 1895 Alois retired to Hafeld, near Lambach, where he farmed and kept bees. Hitler attended Volksschule (a state-owned school) in nearby Fischlham.
The move to Hafeld coincided with the onset of intense father-son conflicts caused by Hitler’s refusal to conform to the strict discipline of his school. Alois Hitler’s farming efforts at Hafeld ended in failure, and in 1897 the family moved to Lambach. The eight-year-old Hitler took singing lessons, sang in the church choir, and even considered becoming a priest. In 1898 the family returned permanently to Leonding. Hitler was deeply affected by the death of his younger brother Edmund, who died in 1900 from measles. Hitler changed from a confident, outgoing, conscientious student to a morose, detached boy who constantly fought with his father and teachers.
After Alois’s sudden death on January 3, 1903, Hitler’s performance at school deteriorated and his mother allowed him to leave. He enrolled at the Realschule in Steyr in September 1904, where his behavior and performance improved. In 1905, after passing a repeat of the final exam, Hitler left the school without any ambitions for further education or clear plans for a career.
Early Adulthood
From 1905, Hitler lived a bohemian life in Vienna, financed by orphan’s benefits and support from his mother. He worked as a casual laborer and eventually as a painter, selling watercolors of Vienna’s sights. The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna rejected him in 1907 and again in 1908, citing “unfitness for painting.” The director recommended that Hitler study architecture, which was another of his interests, but he lacked academic credentials as he had not finished secondary school. On December 21, 1907, his mother died of breast cancer at the age of 47. Hitler ran out of money and was forced to live in homeless shelters and men’s hostels.
At the time Hitler lived there, Vienna was a hotbed of religious prejudice and racism. Fears of being overrun by immigrants from the East were widespread, and the populist mayor Karl Lueger exploited the rhetoric of virulent anti-Semitism for political effect. German nationalism had a widespread following in the Mariahilf district where Hitler lived. German nationalist Georg Ritter von Schönerer, who advocated Pan-Germanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Slavism, and anti-Catholicism, was one influence on Hitler. Hitler read local newspapers such as the Deutsches Volksblatt that fanned prejudice and played on Christian fears of being swamped by an influx of Eastern European Jews.
World War I
In 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was living in Munich and voluntarily enlisted in the Bavarian Army. Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16, he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time at the regimental headquarters in Fournes-en-Weppes, well behind the front lines. He was present at the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele, and was wounded at the Somme. He was decorated for bravery, receiving the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914.
Hitler in World War I
Hitler (far right, seated) with his army comrades of the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (c. 1914–18)
Hitler (far right, seated) with his army comrades of the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16. Seven men in army uniforms pose for a photo outdoors on a lawn.
Entry into Politics
After World War I, Hitler returned to Munich. With no formal education or career prospects, he remained in the army. In July 1919 he was appointed an intelligence agent, assigned to influence other soldiers and infiltrate the German Workers’ Party (DAP).
At the DAP, Hitler met Dietrich Eckart, one of the party’s founders and a member of the occult Thule Society. Eckart became Hitler’s mentor, exchanging ideas with him and introducing him to a wide range of Munich society. To increase its appeal, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party; NSDAP). Hitler designed the party’s banner of a swastika in a white circle on a red background.
Hitler was discharged from the army on March 31, 1920, and began working full-time for the NSDAP. The party headquarters was in Munich, a hotbed of anti-government German nationalists determined to crush Marxism and undermine the Weimar Republic. In February 1921 — already highly effective at speaking to large audiences — he addressed a crowd of over 6,000. To publicize the meeting, two truckloads of party supporters drove around Munich waving swastika flags and distributing leaflets. Hitler soon gained notoriety for his rowdy polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians, and especially Marxists and Jews.
Hitler’s vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences. He became adept at using populist themes, including the use of scapegoats, who were blamed for his listeners’ economic hardships. Hitler used personal magnetism and an understanding of crowd psychology to his advantage while engaged in public speaking. Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth, later recalled:
We erupted into a frenzy of nationalistic pride that bordered on hysteria. For minutes on end, we shouted at the top of our lungs, with tears streaming down our faces: Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! From that moment on, I belonged to Adolf Hitler body and soul.
Arrest, Imprisonment, and Mein Kampf
In 1923 Hitler enlisted the help of World War I General Erich Ludendorff for an attempted coup known as the “Beer Hall Putsch.” The NSDAP used Italian Fascism as a model for their appearance and policies. Hitler wanted to emulate Benito Mussolini’s “March on Rome” of 1922 by staging his own coup in Bavaria, to be followed by a challenge to the government in Berlin.
On November 8, 1923, Hitler and the SA stormed a public meeting of 3,000 people organized by Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Bavaria’s de facto ruler) in the Bürgerbräukeller, a beer hall in Munich. Interrupting Kahr’s speech, he announced that the national revolution had begun and declared the formation of a new government with Ludendorff.
Hitler’s forces initially succeeded in occupying the local Reichswehr and police headquarters, but Kahr and his cohorts quickly withdrew their support. Neither the army nor the state police joined forces with Hitler. The next day, Hitler and his followers marched from the beer hall to the Bavarian War Ministry to overthrow the Bavarian government, but police dispersed them. Sixteen NSDAP members and four police officers were killed in the failed coup.
Hitler fled to the home of Ernst Hanfstaengl and by some accounts contemplated suicide. He was depressed but calm when arrested on November 11, 1923 for high treason. On April 1, Hitler was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at Landsberg Prison.
While at Landsberg, Hitler dictated most of the first volume of Mein Kampf (My Struggle; originally entitled Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice) to his deputy, Rudolf Hess. The book, dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart, was an autobiography and exposition of his ideology. The book laid out Hitler’s plans for transforming German society into one based on race. Some passages implied genocide. Published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926, it sold 228,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. One million copies were sold in 1933, Hitler’s first year in office.
Beer Hall Putsch
Defendants in the Beer Hall Putsch trial. From left to right: Pernet, Weber, Frick, Kiebel, Ludendorff, Hitler, Bruckner, Röhm, and Wagner.
Photo of the defendants in the Beer Hall Putsch trial standing in front of a brick building.
30.5.2: The Nazi Party
The Nazi Party, which rose to prominence in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, was a right-wing political party that sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics, broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, sacrificed for the good of the state and the “Aryan master race.”
Learning Objective
Analyze the reasons for the success of the Nazi Party
Key Points
The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, was founded in 1920 by Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist.
It evolved out of Drexler’s earlier party, the German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), started in 1919.
Drexler followed the typical views of militant nationalists of the day, such as opposing the Treaty of Versailles, having antisemitic, anti-monarchist and anti-Marxist views, and believing in the superiority of Germans, whom nationalists claimed to be part of the Aryan “master race.”
Adolf Hitler joined the DAP in 1919 and quickly became their main orator and spokesperson.
Around that time, the party only had around 6o members.
During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler’s oratorical skills, partly through the SA’s (party militia) appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany’s economic problems deepened and the weakness of the Weimar regime became apparent.
In 1923, Hitler and other Nazi Party members attempted a coup, which landed Hitler in prison for one year.
Upon his release, Hitler continued to expand the Nazi base and by 1929, the party had 130,000 members.
Despite its growth in popularity, the Nazi Party might never have come to power if not for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany.
Key Terms
Aryan
A racial grouping term used in the period of the late 19th century to the mid-20th century to describe multiple peoples. It has been variously used to describe all Indo-Europeans in general (spanning from India to Europe), the original Aryan people specifically in Persia, and most controversially through Nazi misinterpretation, the Nordic or Germanic peoples. The term derives from the Aryan people from Persia, who spoke a language similar to those found in Europe.
Hitler Youth
The youth organization of the Nazi Party in Germany, which originated in 1922. From 1933 until 1945, it was the sole official youth organization in Germany and was partially a paramilitary organization.
eugenics
A set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.
Nuremberg Rally
The annual rally of the Nazi Party in Germany, held from 1923 to 1938. They were large Nazi propaganda events, especially after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933.
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practiced the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.
The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist, and populist paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany. The party was created to draw workers away from communism and into populist (German: völkisch) nationalism. Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed to gain the support of industrial entities. In the 1930s the party’s focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.
Pseudo-scientific racism theories were central to Nazism. The Nazis propagated the idea of a “people’s community.” Their aim was to unite “racially desirable” Germans as national comrades, while excluding those deemed either to be political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race. The Nazis sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics, broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, sacrificed for the good of the state and the “Aryan master race.” To maintain the supposed purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews, Romani, and the physically and mentally handicapped. They imposed exclusionary segregation on homosexuals, Africans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political opponents. The persecution reached its climax when the party-controlled German state organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews and five million people from the other targeted groups in what has become known as the Holocaust.
The party’s leader since 1921, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich. Following the defeat of the Third Reich at the conclusion of World War II in Europe, the party was “declared to be illegal” by the Allied powers, who carried out denazification in the years after the war.
Origins and Early History
The party grew out of smaller political groups with nationalist orientation that formed in the last years of World War I. In 1918, a league called the Freien Arbeiterausschuss für einen guten Frieden (Free Workers’ Committee for a good Peace) was created in Bremen, Germany. On March 7, 1918, Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of this league in Munich. Drexler was a local locksmith who had been a member of the militarist Fatherland Party during World War I and was bitterly opposed to the armistice of November 1918 and the revolutionary upheavals that followed. Drexler followed the typical views of militant nationalists of the day, such as opposing the Treaty of Versailles, having antisemitic, anti-monarchist and anti-Marxist views, and believing in the superiority of Germans, whom nationalists claimed to be part of the Aryan “master race.” He also accused international capitalism of being a Jewish-dominated movement and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War I. Drexler saw the situation of political violence and instability in Germany as the result of the new Weimar Republic being out-of-touch with the masses, especially the lower classes.
Though very small, Drexler’s movement did receive attention and support from some influential figures. Supporter Dietrich Eckhart brought military figure Count Felix Graf von Bothmer, a prominent supporter of the concept of “national socialism,” to address the movement. On January 5, 1919, Drexler created a new political party, the German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported the middle-class, and that the party’s socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. The DAP was a comparatively small group with fewer than 60 members. Nevertheless, it attracted the attention of the German authorities, who were suspicious of any organization that appeared to have subversive tendencies.
Adolf Hitler joined the DAP in 1919 and quickly became the party’s most active orator, appearing in public as a speaker 31 times within the first year. Hitler’s considerable oratory and propaganda skills were appreciated by the party leadership as crowds began to flock to hear his speeches.
To increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on February 24, 1920, the same day as the biggest Hitler’s speech to date, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party). That year, the Nazi Party officially announced that only persons of “pure Aryan descent” could become party members; if the person had a spouse, the spouse also had to be a “racially pure” Aryan. Party members could not be related either directly or indirectly to a so-called “non-Aryan.”
The SA (“storm troopers”, also known as “Brownshirts”) were founded as a party militia in 1921 and began violent attacks on other parties.
During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler’s oratorical skills, partly through the SA’s appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany’s economic problems deepened and the weakness of the Weimar regime became apparent. The party recruited former World War I soldiers, to whom Hitler as a decorated frontline veteran particularly appealed, as well as small businessmen and disaffected former members of rival parties. Nazi rallies were often held in beer halls, where downtrodden men could get free beer. The Hitler Youth was formed for the children of party members, although it remained small until the late 1920s.
After a failed coup (Beer Hall Putsch) in 1923, Hitler was arrested and the Nazi Party was largely disbanded.
Nazi Party Rises to Prominence
Adolf Hitler was released from prison on December 20, 1924. In the following year he re-founded and reorganized the Nazi Party with himself as its undisputed leader. The new Nazi Party was no longer a paramilitary organization and disavowed any intention of taking power by force. In any case, the economic and political situation had stabilized and the extremist upsurge of 1923 had faded, so there was no prospect of further revolutionary adventures.
In the 1920s the Nazi Party expanded beyond its Bavarian base. The areas of strongest Nazi support were in rural Protestant areas such as Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Depressed working-class areas such as Thuringia also produced a strong Nazi vote, while the workers of the Ruhr and Hamburg largely remained loyal to the Social Democrats, the Communist Party of Germany, or the Catholic Centre Party. Nuremberg remained a Nazi Party stronghold, and the first Nuremberg Rally, a large annual propaganda rally, was held there in 1927. These rallies soon became massive displays of Nazi paramilitary power and attracted many recruits. The Nazis’ strongest appeal was to the lower middle-classes – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and thus feared Bolshevism more than anything else. The small business class was receptive to Hitler’s antisemitism, since it blamed Jewish big business for its economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in the War of 1914–1918 and attracted by the Nazis’ radical rhetoric, also became a strong Nazi constituency. By 1929, the party had 130,000 members.
Despite its growth in popularity, the Nazi Party might never have come to power if not for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The Social Democrats and Communists were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution. This gave the Nazis their opportunity; Hitler’s message, blaming the crisis on the Jewish financiers and the Bolsheviks, resonated with wide sections of the electorate. At the September 1930 Reichstag elections, the Nazis won 18.3% of the votes and became the second-largest party in the Reichstag after the SPD. Hitler proved a highly effective campaigner, pioneering the use of radio and aircraft for this purpose. His dismissal of Strasser and appointment of Goebbels as the party’s propaganda chief were major factors. While Strasser used his position to promote his own leftish version of national socialism, Goebbels was totally loyal to Hitler and worked only to improve Hitler’s image. Over the next several years, Hitler’s Nazi Party would continue to gain power and influence.
Nazi Party
Hitler with Nazi Party members in 1930. By 1929, the party had 130,000 members.
Hitler with a few dozen Nazi Party members in 1930.
30.5.3: Hitler’s Rise to Power
In 1933, the Nazi Party became the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. This began the transformation of the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany, a one-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism.
Learning Objective
Describe the events that led to Hitler becoming chancellor
Key Points
Hitler’s rise to power occurred throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. He first gained prominence in the right-wing German Workers’ Party, which in 1920 changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party.
In the early 1930s, the Nazi Party gained more seats in the German Reichstag (parliament), and by 1933 it was the largest elected party, which led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor on January 30, 1933.
Following fresh elections won by his coalition, the Reichstag passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended key civil liberties of German citizens, and Enabling Act, which gave the Hitler’s Cabinet the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.
With the passing of these two laws, Hitler’s power in government became nearly absolute and he soon used this power to eliminate all political opposition through both legal and violent means.
On August 2, 1934, President Hindenburg died. Based on a law passed by the Reichstag the previous day, Hitler became head of state as well as head of government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor), thereby eliminating the last legal avenue by which he could be removed from office.
Over the next few years, Hitler continued to consolidate his power, taking care to give his dictatorship the appearance of legality, by eliminating many military officials and taking personal command of the armed forces.
Key Terms
Enabling Act
A 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. It passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on March 24, 1933, and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day.
Night of the Long Knives
A purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate Hitler’s absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis’ own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA’s leader and one of Hitler’s longtime supporters and allies.
Reichstag Fire Decree
This decree was issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered an opponent of the Nazis and to suppress publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.
Hitler Runs for President
The Great Depression provided a political opportunity for Hitler. Germans were ambivalent about the parliamentary republic, which faced challenges from right- and left-wing extremists. The moderate political parties were increasingly unable to stem the tide of extremism, and the German referendum of 1929, which almost passed a law formally renouncing the Treaty of Versailles and making it a criminal offence for German officials to cooperate in the collecting of reparations, helped to elevate Nazi ideology. The elections of September 1930 resulted in the break-up of a grand coalition and its replacement with a minority cabinet. Its leader, chancellor Heinrich Brüning of the Centre Party, governed through emergency decrees from President Paul von Hindenburg. Governance by decree became the new norm and paved the way for authoritarian forms of government. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) rose from obscurity to win 18.3 percent of the vote and 107 parliamentary seats in the 1930 election, becoming the second-largest party in parliament.
Brüning’s austerity measures brought little economic improvement and were extremely unpopular. Hitler exploited this by targeting his political messages specifically at people who had been affected by the inflation of the 1920s and the Depression, such as farmers, war veterans, and the middle class.
Hitler ran against Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential elections. A January 1932 speech to the Industry Club in Düsseldorf won him support from many of Germany’s most powerful industrialists. Hindenburg had support from various nationalist, monarchist, Catholic, and republican parties, as well as some social democrats. Hitler used the campaign slogan “Hitler über Deutschland” (“Hitler over Germany”), a reference to his political ambitions and campaigning by aircraft. He was one of the first politicians to use aircraft travel for political purposes and utilized it effectively. Hitler came in second in both rounds of the election, garnering more than 35 percent of the vote in the final election. Although he lost to Hindenburg, this election established Hitler as a strong force in German politics.
Appointment as Chancellor
The absence of an effective government prompted two influential politicians, Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, along with several industrialists and businessmen, to write a letter to Hindenburg. The signers urged Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as leader of a government “independent from parliamentary parties,” which could turn into a movement that would “enrapture millions of people.”
Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—did not result in the formation of a majority government. Hitler headed a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and Hugenberg’s party, the German National People’s Party (DNVP). On January 30, 1933, the new cabinet was sworn in during a brief ceremony in Hindenburg’s office. The NSDAP gained three posts: Hitler was named chancellor, Wilhelm Frick Minister of the Interior, and Hermann Göring Minister of the Interior for Prussia. Hitler had insisted on the ministerial positions to gain control over the police in much of Germany.
Hitler, Chancellor of Germany
Hitler, at the window of the Reich Chancellery, receives an ovation on the evening of his inauguration as chancellor, January 30, 1933.
Hitler, at the window of a large stone building, receives an ovation from a large crowd.
Reichstag Fire and March Elections
As chancellor, Hitler worked against attempts by the NSDAP’s opponents to build a majority government. Because of the political stalemate, he asked Hindenburg to again dissolve the Reichstag, and elections were scheduled for early March. On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. Göring blamed a communist plot, because Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe was found in incriminating circumstances inside the burning building. According to the British historian Sir Ian Kershaw, the consensus of nearly all historians is that van der Lubbe actually set the fire. Others, including William L. Shirer and Alan Bullock, are of the opinion that the NSDAP itself was responsible. At Hitler’s urging, Hindenburg responded with the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February, which suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. The decree was permitted under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which gave the president the power to take emergency measures to protect public safety and order. Activities of the German Communist Party (KPD) were suppressed, and some 4,000 KPD members were arrested.
In addition to political campaigning, the NSDAP engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, March 6, 1933, the NSDAP’s share of the vote increased to 43.9 percent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. Hitler’s party failed to secure an absolute majority, necessitating another coalition with the DNVP.
The Enabling Act
To achieve full political control despite not having an absolute majority in parliament, Hitler’s government brought the Enabling Act to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. The Act—officially titled the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (“Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich”)—gave Hitler’s cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag for four years. These laws could (with certain exceptions) deviate from the constitution. Since it would affect the constitution, the Enabling Act required a two-thirds majority to pass. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to arrest all 81 Communist deputies (in spite of their virulent campaign against the party, the Nazis allowed the KPD to contest the election) and prevent several Social Democrats from attending.
On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag assembled at the Kroll Opera House under turbulent circumstances. Ranks of SA (Nazi paramilitary) men served as guards inside the building, while large groups outside opposing the proposed legislation shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving members of parliament. The position of the Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, was decisive. After Hitler verbally promised party leader Ludwig Kaas that Hindenburg would retain his power of veto, Kaas announced the Centre Party would support the Enabling Act. The Act passed by a vote of 441–84, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favor. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler’s government into a de facto legal dictatorship.
Dictatorship
Having achieved full control over the legislative and executive branches of government, Hitler and his allies began to suppress the remaining opposition. The Social Democratic Party was banned and its assets seized. While many trade union delegates were in Berlin for May Day activities, SA stormtroopers demolished union offices around the country. On May 2, 1933, all trade unions were forced to dissolve and their leaders were arrested. Some were sent to concentration camps.
By the end of June, the other parties had been intimidated into disbanding. This included the Nazis’ nominal coalition partner, the DNVP; with the SA’s help, Hitler forced its leader, Hugenberg, to resign on June 29. On July 14, the NSDAP was declared the only legal political party in Germany. The demands of the SA for more political and military power caused anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders. In response, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from June 30 to July 2, 1934. Hitler targeted Ernst Röhm and other SA leaders who, along with a number of Hitler’s political adversaries (such as Gregor Strasser and former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher), were rounded up, arrested, and shot. While the international community and some Germans were shocked by the murders, many in Germany believed Hitler was restoring order.
On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the “Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich.” This law stated that upon Hindenburg’s death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). With this action, Hitler eliminated the last legal avenue by which he could be removed from office.
As head of state, Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces. The traditional loyalty oath of servicemen was altered to affirm loyalty to Hitler personally, by name, rather than to the office of supreme commander or the state. On August 19, the merger of the presidency with the chancellorship was approved by 90 percent of the electorate voting in a plebiscite.
In early 1938, Hitler used blackmail to consolidate his hold over the military by instigating the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair. Hitler forced his War Minister, Field Marshal Werner von Blomberg, to resign by using a police dossier that showed that Blomberg’s new wife had a record for prostitution. Army commander Colonel-General Werner von Fritsch was removed after the Schutzstaffel (SS paramilitary) produced allegations that he had engaged in a homosexual relationship. Both men fell into disfavor because they objected to Hitler’s demand to make the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) ready for war as early as 1938. Hitler assumed Blomberg’s title of Commander-in-Chief, thus taking personal command of the armed forces. On the same day, sixteen generals were stripped of their commands and 44 more were transferred; all were suspected of not being sufficiently pro-Nazi. By early February 1938, 12 more generals had been removed.
Hitler took care to give his dictatorship the appearance of legality. Many of his decrees were explicitly based on the Reichstag Fire Decree and hence on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag renewed the Enabling Act twice, each time for a four-year period. While elections to the Reichstag were still held (in 1933, 1936, and 1938), voters were presented with a single list of Nazis and pro-Nazi “guests” which carried with well over 90 percent of the vote. These elections were held in far-from-secret conditions; the Nazis threatened severe reprisals against anyone who didn’t vote or dared to vote no.
30.5.4: Antisemitism in Nazi Germany
Racism, especially antisemitism, was a central feature of the Nazi regime, based on a pseudo-scientific doctrine asserting the superiority of the Aryan “master race.”
Learning Objective
Give examples of antisemitism in Germany before the outbreak of World War II
Key Points
One of the central tenets of the Nazi regime was a pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy placing the Nordic or Aryan races at the top and Slavs, Romani, and especially Jews at the bottom.
Antisemitism in the Nazi regime was manifested in propaganda that scapegoated all of Germany’s problems on the Jews, various discriminating laws, and finally mass-scale violence and murder culminating in the Holocaust, or in Nazi terms, the “Final Solution.”
In April 1933, Hitler declared a national boycott of Jewish businesses and passed the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which forced all non-Aryan civil servants to retire from the legal profession and civil service.
On September 15, 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed, which included the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour. This forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans. The Reich Citizenship Law declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens.
In November 1938, persecution of the Jews became violent when Nazi paramilitary damaged or destroyed synagogues and Jewish property throughout Germany during what became known as Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass.”
Up until the outbreak of World War II, when the racist policies of the Nazis turned into outright genocide, the persecution of Jews and other “subhumans” continued under mostly legal means.
Key Terms
“master race”
A pseudo-scientific concept in Nazi ideology in which the Nordic or Aryan races, thought to predominate among Germans and other northern European peoples, were deemed the highest in an assumed racial hierarchy.
stab-in-the-back legend
The notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918-19. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the “November Criminals.”
Kristallnacht
A pogrom against Jews throughout Nazi Germany on November 9-10, 1938, carried out by SA paramilitary forces and German civilians. German authorities looked on without intervening. The name comes from the shards of broken glass that littered the streets after the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings, and synagogues were smashed.
Nuremberg Laws
Antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced on September 15, 1935, by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households, and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were classed as state subjects without citizenship rights.
Racism and antisemitism were basic tenets of the NSDAP and the Nazi regime. The Germanic peoples (the Nordic race) were considered by the Nazis to be the purest branch of the Aryan race and therefore viewed as the master race. The Nazis postulated the existence of a racial conflict between the Aryan master race and inferior races, particularly Jews, who were viewed as a mixed race that had infiltrated society and were responsible for the exploitation and repression of the Aryan race.
Nazi policies placed centuries-long residents in German territory who were not ethnic Germans such as Jews (a Semitic people of Levantine origins), Romanis (also known as Gypsies, an Indo-Aryan people of Indian Subcontinent origins), European non-Nordic peoples including Slavs (Poles, Serbs, Russians, etc.), and all other persons of color as inferior non-Aryan subhumans (i.e. non-Nordics, under the Nazi misinterpretation of the term “Aryan”) in a racial hierarchy with the Herrenvolk (“master race”) of the Volksgemeinschaft (“people’s community”) at the top. Jews were at the bottom, considered inhuman and thus unworthy of life.
Using the “stab-in-the-back legend,” the Nazis blamed poverty, hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment, and the loss of World War I and surrender by the “November Criminals” all on the Jews and “cultural Bolsheviks,” the latter considered in conspiracy with the Jews. German woes were attributed to the effects of the Treaty of Versailles, also considered a Jewish conspiracy. The Nazi Party used these populist antisemitic views to gain votes.
Early Persecution of Jews
Discrimination against Jews began immediately after the Nazi seizure of power. Following a month-long series of attacks by members of the SA (Nazi paramilitary) on Jewish businesses, synagogues, and members of the legal profession, on April 1, 1933, Hitler declared a national boycott of Jewish businesses. The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, passed on April 7, forced all non-Aryan civil servants to retire from the legal profession and civil service. Similar legislation soon deprived Jewish members of other professions of their right to practice. On April 11, a decree was promulgated that stated anyone with even one Jewish parent or grandparent was considered non-Aryan. As part of the drive to remove Jewish influence from cultural life, members of the National Socialist Student League removed from libraries books considered un-German, and a nationwide book burning was held on May 10.
Violence and economic pressure were used by the regime to encourage Jews to voluntarily leave the country. Jewish businesses were denied access to markets, forbidden to advertise in newspapers, and deprived of access to government contracts. Citizens were harassed and subjected to violent attacks. Many towns posted signs forbidding entry to Jews.
In November 1938, a young Jewish man requested an interview with the German ambassador in Paris. He met with a legation secretary, whom he shot and killed to protest his family’s treatment in Germany. This incident provided the pretext for a pogrom the NSDAP incited against the Jews on November 9, 1938. Members of the SA damaged or destroyed synagogues and Jewish property throughout Germany. At least 91 German Jews were killed during this pogrom, later called Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass.” Further restrictions were imposed on Jews in the coming months. They were forbidden to own businesses or work in retail shops, drive cars, go to the cinema, visit the library, or own weapons. Jewish pupils were removed from schools. The Jewish community was fined one billion marks to pay for the damage caused by Kristallnacht and told that any money received via insurance claims would be confiscated.
By 1939, around 250,000 of Germany’s 437,000 Jews emigrated to the United States, Argentina, Great Britain, Palestine, and other countries. Many chose to stay in continental Europe. Nonetheless, emigration was problematic, as Jews were required to remit up to 90 percent of their wealth as a tax upon leaving the country. By 1938 it was almost impossible for potential Jewish emigrants to find a country willing to take them. Mass deportation schemes such as the Madagascar Plan proved to be impossible for the Nazis to carry out, and starting in mid-1941, the German government started mass exterminations of the Jews of Europe.
Kristallnacht
Damage caused during Kristallnacht. On November 9-10, 1938, a pogrom against Jews was carried out by SA paramilitary forces and German civilians throughout Nazi Germany.
Photo of a storefront with the windows and signs destroyed.
Nuremberg Laws
The Nuremberg Laws were introduced on September 15, 1935, by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans (seen as “race disgrace”) and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households, and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were classed as state subjects without citizenship rights. A supplementary decree outlining the definition of who was Jewish was passed on November 14, and the Reich Citizenship Law officially came into force on that date. The laws were expanded on November 26, 1935, to include Romani people and Afro-Germans. This supplementary decree defined Gypsies as “enemies of the race-based state,” the same category as Jews.
The Nuremberg laws had a crippling economic and social impact on the Jewish community. Persons convicted of violating the marriage laws were imprisoned, and (subsequent to March 8, 1938) upon completing their sentences were rearrested by the Gestapo and sent to Nazi concentration camps. Non-Jews gradually stopped socializing with Jews or shopping in Jewish-owned stores, many of which closed due to lack of customers. As Jews were no longer permitted to work in the civil service or government-regulated professions such as medicine and education, many middle-class business owners and professionals were forced to take menial employment.
30.5.5: Lebensraum and Anschluss
The ideology of Nazism brought together elements of antisemitism, racial hygiene, and eugenics with pan-Germanism (“Heim ins Reich“) and territorial expansionism with the goal of obtaining more Lebensraum (“living space”) for the Germanic people.
Learning Objective
Define the terms Lebensraum and Anschluss
Key Points
The foreign policy of the Nazi regime, outlined by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf in 1925, expanded upon the German ideas of a “Greater Germany” that had been discussed and enacted in various ways since the 19th century.
Similar to the Italian expansionist policy of Spazio vitale (“vital space”) under Mussolini, Hitler sought to expand the territory of Germany to give room (Lebensraum: “living space”) for ethnic Germans to live and work.
This territorial aim was combined with the racist ideologies of the Nazis to form the idea that people deemed to be part of inferior races (Slavs and Jews, for example), within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.
Thus under the Nazi policies and military plans, the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently, either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement.
The invasion of Poland, which started World War II, was motivated by this Lebensraum principle.
Similar to the Lebensraum principle, the Nazis wanted to build a Great Germany by annexing ethnically-German territories, especially Austria.
The annexation of Austria (termed Anschluss) occurred in 1938 when Hitler ordered troops into Austria to pressure its president to appoint a Nazi chancellor who would orchestrate the unification.
Within two days of installation, Nazis transferred power to Germany, and Wehrmacht troops entered Austria to enforce the Anschluss, which was then ratified by a controlled popular vote.
Key Terms
settler colonialism
A form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents.
“Heim ins Reich”
A foreign policy pursued by Adolf Hitler during World War II, beginning in 1938. The aim of Hitler’s initiative was to convince all Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) living outside of Nazi Germany (in Austria and the western districts of Poland) that they should strive to bring these regions “home” into Greater Germany and relocate from outside German-controlled territories following the conquest of Poland in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet pact.
Lebensraum
German for “living space,” this term refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s.
Anschluss
This is the term used to describe the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938, but the idea goes back to the 19th century.
Lebensraum
The German concept of Lebensraum (English: “living space”) refers to policies and practices of settler colonialism proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in the Third Reich until the end of World War II. First popularized around 1901, Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918).
In Mein Kampf (1925), Adolf Hitler dedicated a full chapter titled “Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy,” outlining the need for the new living space for Germany. He claimed that achieving Lebensraum required political will, and that the National Socialist Movement should strive to expand the population area of the German people and acquire new sources of food. Hitler rejected the restoration of the pre-war borders of Germany as an inadequate half-measure toward reducing purported national overpopulation. From that perspective, he opined that the nature of national borders is always unfinished and momentary, and that their redrawing must continue as Germany’s political goal. Hence, Hitler identified the geopolitics of Lebensraum as the ultimate political will of his Party:
And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
Following Hitler’s rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior. The Third Reich aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. The invasion of Poland, which started WWII, was motivated by the Lebensraum principle and planned under Generalplan Ost.
Hitler’s strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, pursued by a racially superior society. People deemed to be part of inferior races within the territory of Lebensraum expansion were subjected to expulsion or destruction. The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space. Nazi Germany also supported other “Arian” nations pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy’s Spazio vitale.
Greater Germany and Lebensraum
The Greater Germanic Reich, to be realized with the policies of Lebensraum, had boundaries derived from the plans of the Generalplan Ost.
A map of Europe showing the German plan for “Greater Germany” in green, a state that expands the German borders into Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.
Anschluss
Anschluss (English: “connection” or “joining”) is the term used to describe the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938. The idea of an Anschluss (Austria and Germany uniting to form a “Greater Germany”) began after the Unification of Germany excluded Austria and the Austrian Germans from the Prussian-dominated German nation-state in 1871. The idea of grouping all Germans into a nation-state country had been the subject of debate in the 19th century from the end of the Holy Roman Empire until the end of the German Confederation.
Following the end of World War I in 1918, the Republic of German-Austria attempted union with Germany, but the Treaty of Saint Germain (September 10, 1919) and the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919) forbade both the union and the continued use of the name “German-Austria.”
The constitutions of the Weimar Republic and the First Austrian Republic included the political goal of unification, which was widely supported by democratic parties. In the early 1930s, popular support in Austria for union with Germany remained overwhelming, and the Austrian government looked to a possible customs union with German Republic in 1931.
When the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, rose to power in the Weimar Republic, the Austrian government withdrew from economic ties. Austria shared the economic turbulence of the Great Depression, with a high unemployment rate and unstable commerce and industry. During the 1920s it was a target for German investment capital. By 1937 rapid German rearmament increased Berlin’s interest in annexing Austria, rich in raw materials and labor. It supplied Germany with magnesium and the products of the iron, textile, and machine industries. It had gold and foreign currency reserves, many unemployed skilled workers, hundreds of idle factories, and large potential hydroelectric resources.
The Nazis aimed to re-unite all Germans either born or living outside of the Reich to create an “all-German Reich.” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he would create a union between his birth country Austria and Germany by any means possible (“German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland.” “People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.”).
Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany on March 12, 1938. There had been several years of pressure from supporters in Austria and Germany (both Nazis and non-Nazis) for the “Heim ins Reich” (“back home to the Reich”) movement. Earlier, Nazi Germany provided support for the Austrian National Socialist Party (Austrian Nazi Party) in its bid to seize power from Austria’s Fatherland Front government.
On March 9, 1938, Iin the face of rioting by the small but virulent Austrian Nazi Party and ever-expanding German demands on Austria, Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg called a plebiscite referendum (popular vote) on the issue, to be held on March 13. Infuriated, on March 11 Adolf Hitler threatened invasion of Austria and demanded Chancellor von Schuschnigg’s resignation and the appointment of the Nazi Arthur Seyss-Inquart as his replacement. Hitler’s plan was for Seyss-Inquart to call immediately for German troops to rush to Austria’s aid, restoring order and giving the invasion an air of legitimacy. In the face of this threat, Schuschnigg informed Seyss-Inquart that the plebiscite would be cancelled.
Nevertheless, the Hitler underestimated his opposition. Schuschnigg did resign on the evening of March 11, but President Wilhelm Miklas refused to appoint Seyss-Inquart as chancellor. At 8:45 p.m., Hitler, tired of waiting, ordered the invasion to commence at dawn on March 12 regardless. Around 10 p.m., a forged telegram was sent in Seyss-Inquart’s name asking for German troops, since he was not yet chancellor and was unable to do so himself. Seyss-Inquart was not installed as chancellor until after midnight, when Miklas resigned himself to the inevitable.
As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Edgar A Mowrer, reporting from Paris for CBS, observed: “There is no one in all France who does not believe that Hitler invaded Austria not to hold a genuine plebiscite, but to prevent the plebiscite planned by Schusschnigg from demonstrating to the entire world just how little hold National Socialism really had on that tiny country.” Clearly it was Hitler and not Schuschnigg who was terrified by the potential results of the scheduled plebiscite, and that was the best indication of where Austrians’ loyalty lay.
The newly installed Nazis within two days transferred power to Germany, and Wehrmacht troops entered Austria to enforce the Anschluss. The Nazis held a controlled plebiscite in the whole Reich within the following month, asking the people to ratify the annexation, and claimed that 99.7561% of the votes cast in Austria were in favor. Austrian citizens of Jewish origin were not allowed to vote.
Anschluss
German and Austrian border police dismantle a border post in 1938.
A photo of German and Austrian border police dismantle a border post in 1938.