Transcript Geopolitics (II)

US Geopolitics (II)
GEOG 220 - Geopolitics
Sum-up of previous class
• US paradox of ‘Interventionist Non-interventionism’
• Self-explained by US ‘Exceptionalism’
• Mainly enounced through the Monroe Doctrine
=> Pragmatic interventions within idealist frame
=> Moving from the domestic to regional and global sphere
US Geopolitics and War
• World War II
• Cold War
• Contemporary era
World War II
• Non-interventionism
No direct intervention until Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 1941
Japan invaded parts of China since 1937
Nazi Germany invaded Poland in Sept 1939
• WWII outcome:
– US as dominant power, yet challenged by Soviet Union, esp. in
the context of decolonization
– United Nations – a new ‘League of Nations’, but with broader
participation, and based in New York
Security Council: 5 permanent members with veto rights (US,
China, Soviet Union, UK and France) + 10 elected members
US interventionist policy of ‘containment’
• Truman Doctrine (1947)
• Marshall Plan / European Recovery Program (1948)
• National Security Council’s NSC-68 (1950) introduced
the explicit militarization and globalization of
containment in its argument that “a defeat of free
institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere . . . in a
shrinking world”
Truman Doctrine (12 March 1947)
“The
gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before
a joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are
involved. One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for
your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. The United States has received
from the Greek Government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance. Preliminary
reports from the American Economic Mission now in Greece and reports from the American
Ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek Government that assistance is
imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation... As a result of these tragic conditions, a
militant minority [communists], exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political
chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible. Meanwhile, the Greek
Government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped.
It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout
Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and selfrespecting democracy... The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had
totalitarian regimes forced upon them against their will. The Government of the United States
has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of theYalta
agreement, in Poland, Rumania, and Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other
countries there have been similar developments. At the present moment in world history nearly
every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free
one. I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are
resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. I believe that we
must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way... I ask the Congress to
authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the
request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of
supervising the use of such financial and material assistance as may be furnished.”
Cold War geopolitics in the US
• Containment policy: Soviets as ‘insecure fanatics’ and
Soviet Union implacably expansionist, thus need to
“confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at
every point where they show signs of encroaching upon
the interests of a peaceful and stable world”
George Kennan, 1947 (US charge d’affaires in Moscow)
• Domino theory: theory of political diffusion
• the ‘fall’ of one country to Communism will precipitate the fall of
its neighbours
=> only physical proximity is sufficient
=> diplomacy is sidelined and military means prioritised
(incl. CIA operations, plus support to allies: Marshall
Plan)
Geopolitical reductionism
Geopolitical reductionism
• Containment [of the influence of the Soviet Union]: 1947-1960s
– Korean war (1950-53)
– Cuban Revolution (1959) and Bay of Pigs (1961)
– Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
– Second Indochina War (1950s-69)
• Détente [with the Soviet Union, normalization with PR China]:
1970s under Nixon, Ford, Carter
– Sino-Soviet Split (since early 1960s)
– Mutually Assured Destruction (nuclear deterrence)
– Nixon Doctrine of working mostly through proxies
– ‘Vietnamization’ and defeat (1969-75)
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (Dec 1979-89) puts an end
to detente
Carter Doctrine of intervention in Middle-East
Reagan Doctrine
• Rollback [of the Soviet Union’s influence]: 1980s under Reagan: “US
policy must have an ideological thrust which clearly affirms the
superiority of US and Western values”
 (‘Making American great again’ – 1980s’ nostalgia of the 1950s)
 Backing of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran (Sept 1980)
 Intensification of armed opposition to communist
regimes/insurgents, esp. in Latin America (School of the Americas,
support for the Contra in Nicaragua)
US ‘interventions’ since WWII
US Foreign Policy – a critical view
• The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not
by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the
necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be
summarized as follows:
– making the world safe for American corporations;
– enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at
home who have contributed generously to members of
congress;
– preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a
successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
– extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an
area as possible, as befits a "great power.“
William Blum Killing Hope:
US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
Armed conflicts (1946-2003)
The end of the Cold War
• Arguments:
– Non-alignment movement in Europe and rising dissent in Eastern
Europe
– Collapse of oil prices
– Mikhail Gorbatchev
• breaking the ‘enemy image’ of the USSR as the ‘evil empire’
• promoting ‘openness’ in Soviet society (glasnost)
• economic and socio-political re-structuring of USSR (perestroika)
• non-intervention as regimes collapse in Eastern Europe
– Ronald Reagan: huge military buildup ‘exhausted’ and ‘defeated’
the USSR
‘American Century’ beyond the Cold War
• Maintenance of US dominance
• “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC):
neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006) that
had strong ties to the American Enterprise
Institute and US administrations under G.W. Bush
• Orchestration of the military invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq: regime change under the
pretext of ‘pre-emptive war’ and advancement of
democracy
Objectives
• Forcefully bring about ‘democracy’ to Afghanistan
& Iraq
• Bush Doctrine of US unilateralism
• Pragmatic interests (AfPak region, Iraq oil and
geostrategic location)
• Initiate a ‘domino effect’ in the Muslim World
(esp. MENA region) reorienting it towards the US
• Contradiction: closest ‘allies’ are not democratic
(Saudi Arabia, Egypt)
National Security Strategy of the United States
(17 September 2002)
“The security environment confronting the United States today is
radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first
duty of the United States Government remains what it always has
been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is
an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the
government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements
of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The
greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the
more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend
ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of
the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist
attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our
adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively
in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States
will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats.
Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country
should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”
Reads like an
afterthought
Main US Doctrines on military interventions
Monroe Doctrine
Roosevelt Corollary
Truman Doctrine
Nixon Doctrine
Carter Doctrine
Reagan Doctrine
Bush Doctrine
European powers should not interference in the
affairs of Western Hemisphere independent states
The US should act as an international police power
The US should act to prevent communist rule
overseas and contain the Soviet Union
Reduce direct US military interventions and bolster
allies (use of ‘proxies’)
The US will intervene military in the Middle East to
defend its interests
US should ‘rollback’ the Soviet Union through
aggressive military buildup and foreign policy
The US will act unilaterally and ‘pre-emptively’
‘American Exceptionalism’
The (false) idea that the US, its society and
government, are distinct from, and above, the
rest of the world because they were founded as
a ‘free’ nation under democratic republicanism
=> Asserts that the US should assume global
leadership and not submit to (foreign-imposed)
international law (‘exemptionalism’)
US Relative Decline and
Exceptionalism
Obama's "worldview is dramatically different from any
president, Republican or Democrat, we've had...He grew up
more as a globalist than an American. To deny American
exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this
nation.“
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
(2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, and Fox News Talk Show host)
‘Islamic State’ / ‘Daesh’
“America will lead a broad coalition to roll
back this terrorist threat. Our objective is
clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy,
ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained
counter-terrorism strategy.”
US President Obama, Sept 2014
Conclusion
• US has a strong focus upon secure, regulated trading
spaces distinct from territorial administration
• Early tradition of non-interventionism superseded by
ideology of exceptionalism and pragmatic pursuit of
self-interest and dominance
• Regularly confronted by
– its own limits
– contradictions of its arguments
– back-clash of its numerous and violent ‘interventions’
• Documentaries:
‘The Fog of War’ by Richard Latham (2003)
On the ‘rationalization’ of war... Take a very
critical view!
‘The New American Century’ by Massimo
Mazzuco (2006)
On the manipulation of public opinion and illegal
conduct of war