Foreign Policy Post-Cold War Era

Foreign Policy Post-Cold War Era



so in this lecture we're going to wrap up foreign policy by looking at our post Cold War era and look at some of the concerns and the complexities of the post Cold War hold the post-cold war world sort of a look at nuclear proliferation rogue states discerning a new role for the US and the world the world terror and one Afghanistan war in Iraq undemocratic partners so some of this will overlap a little bit with the Cold War era and that's the sort of gonna vote unavoidable so I want to go through some of your presidencies here so prior to the George Bush administration the last Cold War president was Ronald Reagan 1981 to 1990 Navy a and so it's during George H Bush's tenure early on that the Soviet Union collapses we talked about that in the last lecture and then Clinton is president so he just served one term Clinton is president from 1993 to 2001 elected in 1992 re-elected in 96 George W Bush was elected in 2000 takes the presidency in 2001 to 2009 and then President Obama 2009 yeah yeah election is oh eight swears in and 2009 until the end of 2016 not to change that from the present here you can see the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and this was a wall that separated East and West Berlin and East Germans were not allowed to go into West Germany on East Berlin into West Berlin they could risk being shot so this was hugely symbolic when the Burton Berlin Wall came down so we have a new world in the and the post Cold War era new kinds of threats so during the Cold War the tension was between the US and Soviet Union and that was a very loud large tension and it kept a lot of other conflicts and issues out there relatively quiet so when you think about the chaos that a lot of people seem to see internationally a lot of this is when you take that cover of the Cold War off and you see what's really going on a lot of these tensions and conflicts that were kept at bay and so if you've heard about um you know I kind of think of the Cold War is sort of like a glacier and you know that there are earthquakes sometimes in areas that don't have fault lines and they call that glacier rebound it's the earth sort of rebounding since glaciers are no longer in certain parts of the earth the earth is then rebounding to that and it's kind of like you remove the Cold War blanket and there's a lot of tension and conflict underneath that has been kept quiet and so that really explains a lot of the chaos and the complexity we've seen internationally in recent years so here's a better metaphor it's like lifting an old log up out of the dirt you see a lot of life underneath right so what do we have going on since the cold war ends emerging powers new nation-states created a lot of new senses a sense of nationalism and you have ethnic conflict as well one major problem that actually begins during the Cold War and continues to be a problem post Cold War is nuclear proliferation and proliferation means increasing number of or increase in something and that we have seen an increasing number of nuclear weapons an increasing number of countries have are considered nuclear power so originally it was the US and the Soviet Union but since since then more countries have obtained nuclear weapons for the first time other countries that attain them earlier are adding to their current stockpiles our policy on that what's our policy on the use of nuclear weapons is actually mad so we don't believe in using nuclear weapons because you saw the nuclear weapons as a weapon is mad because of mutually assured destruction you I launched a nuclear weapon towards you you or you launched one back or one of your allies launches on your behalf either way we both face terrible destruction because a nuclear weapon won't just take down a building it'll take out an entire city so it's really not worth it to use a nuclear weapon it's really not worth it to even talk like we would use one we don't threaten to use them because that's very very dangerous talk it's not something you want Ronald Reagan said a nuclear war cannot be won no one wins a nuclear war so we must never fight one and this is largely why the US and the Soviet Union never directly fight one another because they both had nuclear weapons so u.s. foreign policy has actually been to reduce nuclear weapons the u.s. believes that a less nuclear weapons in the world makes the world safer so we've gotten involved in arms agreements agreements to reduce our nuclear stockpiles our new nuclear arsenals if other countries agreed to do so as well an example of an arms agreement as the start stands for strategic arms reduction treaty and this was signed by Reagan and renewed actually a few years ago and you can see what these arms agreements have done to nuclear stockpiles and that they have produced those nuclear stockpiles over time now this other idea of rogue states a rogue state is always a concern of the United States and the reason it's concern is because rogue states tend to be very hostile and very aggressive and they can really bring a lot of conflict to a region that can cause a lot of tension and usually these rogue states are not just hostile and aggressive usually they're undemocratic we don't tend to see democratic rogue states some examples of rogue states would would be Iraq you may recall george w bush's phrase the axis of evil and Iraq Iran in North Korea or on that axis well again in 2003 George W Bush had the US military invade and overthrow a leader of our rack so I guess you can scratch a rack off the list of rogue States although Iraq has a whole new set of problems as a result of that invasion so we'll see if it becomes a rogue state if it made notes back on the list again or is it able to become democratic um but so an example of what a rogue state in 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait to try to take over their oil fields and that's why we fought to go for it to push Saddam Hussein out North Korea is another example of a rogue state here you have you have Saddam Hussein up here here you have Kim Jong Il's a former leader his son Kim Jong hoon is now the current leader of North Korea North Korea is always causing everybody to be very very nervous always threatening South Korea always you know testing missiles and these sorts of things and we're not really sure if North Korea has nuclear capabilities they have something or not sure if it's operable though Iran is another example of a rogue state that is undemocratic we don't want to have a nuclear weapon so deterring rogue states from bad behavior so we're very concerned we know because rogue states tend to be aggressive and undemocratic and very hostile we don't want them for example to obtain nuclear weapons so we use economic sanctions to deter countries from these bad behaviors another question do you want to use military force do you punish bad behavior you know do we punish Syria's Assad for the killing of civilians in the rebellion in Syria so these are really important questions we do have some you know not all of our partners nowadays are demo democracies we have some undemocratic partners and you almost have to have that because you know you might learn about globalization there globalization is an interconnectedness and in largely that's because of technological advances I mean it's you know we are so much more connected to the rest of the world and you can't roll that back you can't undo that so it doesn't mean that we're going to have relationships with we're gonna have partnerships with countries that are undemocratic we can't choose to only mingle with democracies it's just not going to work that way so why do we have partnerships with non democracy sometimes it's for a security concern or it's a strategic partnership we get something valuable in return for that partnership um you know an example of a partner we have and I actually may need to start removing Russia as a partner Russia has become less and less of a partner this is an increasingly undemocratic country under leader Vladimir Putin he's been in power since 2000 he changes the job title here and there but he still is the the leader no matter what his job title is there's a lot of persecution of the press in Russia there have actually been reporters that have been killed and I would probably Trace that somewhere back to Putin in his administration he invaded a neighbor to the South Georgia and he's also sort of covertly had Crimea taken over and taken away from the Crimea region taken away from Ukraine so very undemocratic hostile aggressive behavior but we can't ignore the fact that they are a major power and they have a large economic influence Russia is one of the top three oil producers in the world alongside the US and Soviet Union we can't ignore that we can't do whatever we want with Russia we can't punish Russia however you want to Russia is also a nuclear power they also have an alliance with Iran and Syria which complicates our decisions towards those two countries and and the question nowadays is Putin interested in refighting the Cold War so that's really a concern given his actions you've probably heard about in the news China is communist and they are a huge economic trade partner they hold some of the u.s. is debt most of the u.s. is debt is held here in the United States and there are other countries that hold us debt like Japan and Great Britain but we always put a lot of focus on China because they are communist they are undemocratic but they are an important trade partner I mean just look at the amount of products that make it to the United States that were made in China so again when we see problems in China like hacking that they're a huge source of hacking in the US comes from China internet security violations and humanitarian abuses in China you know there's some we're sort of limited we can do because of the repercussions that wouldn't be had economically so that's complicated relationships and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy it's an undemocratic state but they are a partner of the United States and the middle-east why are they a partner major oil producer that's one reason but it's not just that the Saudi Arabia is a partner in our Middle East security concerns so when we when Iraq invaded Kuwait Saudi Arabia allowed us to build a military bases and in their country and that remains to this day let's talk about war on terror in the war in the Middle East we'll talk about al Qaeda and the Taliban the Gulf War the first and the second Iraq war and the rise of Isis so looking at our Cade Al Queda is a terrorist organization this al Qaeda is Arabic for the base and the founder of that is Osama bin Laden you probably heard of them and he was a previous leader of course he was killed President Obama had Navy SEALs dropped into Pakistan where he was living at the time and killed him in 2011 but what is motivated to some of them not very extreme extreme Islamic beliefs he comes from a variant in Islam no it's known as Wahhabi Islam and that began in Saudi Arabia where Osama is from and it's a very extreme interpretation a very literal interpretation so for example there are literal interpretations of the Bible like everything in the Bible is people some people interpret as they happen exactly that way it's not a metaphor and this is exactly how it should be and that's basically al-qaeda's view is Islam the new leader is Ayman al-zawahiri and he had founded an Islamic extremist group in Egypt called as long as you had and then he took over once Osama bin Laden was killed he took over arcadia here's just a list of al-qaeda attacks I'm not going to go through this list you can read this on your own some of the ones that you may be familiar with are the first 1993 first World Trade Center bombing there's some connection out okay though it was not exactly orchestrated of al Qaeda because al Qaeda was very new at this point there had some except unsuccessful attempts the shoe bomber at I'm swear square attempted bombing but the first major success orcish coordinated attack of al-qaeda was the 1998 US embassy bombings so two of our embassies were bombed here in Africa one in Kenya and the other in Tanzania and then in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed a little boat came up to the side it was a suicide bombing and then of course September 11 but we're not the only country that's been attacked by al-qaeda here you can see just some examples of other countries so you can go through that list lawsuits of al-qaeda but the main al-qaeda was originally based in I want to say Somalia and then Osama bin Laden moved their operations to Afghanistan and had some operations in Pakistan as well and that's why we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after 9/11 some offshoots of al-qaeda al-qaeda in Iraq when we went to Iraq in 2003 allocated al-qaeda followed us there and set up operations there and eventually the al Qaeda in Iraq is going to become Isis by the way and that's where you get Isis which is an offshoot of al Qaeda AQAP in the al Qaeda near of an Arabian Peninsula and they are mostly in Yemen so really quickly suck it up the war on terror and Afghanistan in the 1990s al Qaeda like I said was formed by bin Laden it's a terrorist organization and was responsible for several attacks we already went over those Africa and also on the USS Cole al Qaeda eventually moves to Afghanistan and the reason for that is because the Taliban were a group that took over Afghanistan in the 1990s they became the ruling government actually overthrew a democratically elected government in Afghanistan and the Taliban gives al Qaeda safe harbor and the reason the Taliban does that is because the Taliban have the same extreme literal violent interpretation of Islam as al Qaeda does so they really see a like on a lot of things and so the Taliban is trying to turn Afghanistan into a theocracy and they give safe harbor to al-qaeda so make sure you understand the difference between al-qaeda and the Taliban the Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan but their ideologically similar to al-qaeda al-qaeda is just a terrorist cell a terrorist organization that can operate anywhere and because Afghanistan was taken over by the Taliban and because the Taliban and al-qaeda are similar in their beliefs on biology yeah al-qaeda was able to operate and train inside Afghanistan under protection of the Taliban so of course the big attack by al-qaeda on the United States was a September 11th attack almost 3,000 killed that was planned and executed by al-qaeda and that began our hunt for al-qaeda now we already targeted al-qaeda al-qaeda prior to the September 11th the type because of the bombings of our US embassies in Africa and also of the USS Cole there were airstrikes on our Qaeda training camps there was an attempt to locate al khaimah al Qaeda when they were still in Somalia so it's not like we didn't do anything with al Qaeda but obviously this attack is going to call for a much bigger response and of course you know there were three airplanes that fought for airplanes that were hijacked two flew into the World Trade Center buildings one was flown into the side of the Pentagon and the other one we don't know where it was intended but it was brought down by the passengers in Pennsylvania in a field in Pennsylvania so the hunt for al Qaeda began began and because al Qaeda was in Afghanistan we invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001 in order to eliminate al Qaeda but also to overthrow the Taliban because one the Taliban were protecting terrorists in to the Taliban had already exercised a very brutal rule over the Afghani people prior to the 9/11 attacks the Taliban were getting a very bad reputation internationally because they were very brutal beheading people who didn't agree with them didn't believe in the very pure form and literal form of caranas they did they banned music and movies they made women stay home from work no longer bill to work girls couldn't even go to school anymore this is when women had to start wearing the burka which is in addition to the hijab which is this the covering of the hair women were also having to put these masks over their face so they were already getting a lot of notoriety notoriety internationally Pakistan as you can see is right next door to Afghanistan became a very important ally this is again another complicated relationship because Pakistan has some ties to the Taliban but they became an ally and we launched our attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan and when the Taliban and al-qaida fled they went into the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is very very mountainous and very difficult to navigate so that's why it took so long to get some of them are eventually made it into Pakistan wars in Iraq so we'd actually had two wars with Iraq the first one was the 1991 Gulf War and that's because Saddam Hussein and we can see Iraq here invaded Kuwait to gain control of Kuwait's oil which means a lot more money for Iraq and so the u.s. this was a multilateral effort actually the u.s. worked with as was the Afghanistan war the u.s. worked with Lindy led the attack but the u.s. along with other international partners pushed Saddam back into our rack this was not an effort to overthrow Saddam it was just an effort to put him back in his country and it was a very short about two weeks and victorious war and he retreated back to Iraq and then we began economic sanctions on Iraq so that Iraq Iraq was not allowed to export or sell their oil and this was to deprive the Iraqi the same regime of money so that it could not engage in these aggressive maneuvers but also you cannot build weapons of mass destruction because we were starting to see we saw some evidence of Saddam using a mustard gas against its own people so worried about future attempts at WMDs and Hussein did resist the UN weapons inspection so that was a ongoing story in the 1990s now how do we get to the Iraq invasion of 2003 now remember okay we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because we were attacked by al-qaeda and they were in Afghanistan al Qaeda was not in Iraq Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11 now it was sort of a trade that way that it did have something to do but it did not have anything to do with 9/11 so President Bush's primary reasons for invading Iraq well Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did have them I guess was hiding down and so there was the potential for Saddam Hussein to use them Bush also thought that Iraq was central to the war on terror he claimed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al-qaeda which is a little bit questionable because some Hussein Iraq was not really much of an Islam Islamic state and Saddam Hussein was actually a theist so he didn't necessarily get along with religious folks in the country so that was really kind of a stretch there and that claim was found to be false eventually but there were also some secondary reasons that that the Bush administration turned to after the first two reasons were proven to be false of course not till after we went in though weapons of mass destruction were not in Iraq Saddam actually because of the sanctions they were effective the WMDs were not there he didn't have the money to make them but Bush also argued that overthrowing Hussein allows democracy to grow in Iraq you get rid of the brutal dictator our democracy will flourish the Iraqi people want us to get rid of Saddam Hussein and so that was one reason also the when you have a dictatorship it's a breeding ground for terrorism so he argued that making helping Iraq to become more of a representative democracy would would be essential in the war on terror and to preventing terrorism for growing their our invasion of Iraq is what is known as a preemptive strike or pre-emptive war or preventative war these are all alluding to the same thing and it means that you attack your enemy before they have or before they may attack you you don't know if they'll attack you they haven't attacked you but you're gonna go to war and so to speak to prevent war very very very controversial this was not considered a just war by much of the international community much of the international community believed that just war means you attack when you are attacked or being attacked not when you haven't been attacked so now Rick Britain was our ally in this war but it was very controversial even in Great Britain and Tony Blair the Prime Minister of Great Britain left office in disgrace a lot of quite a bright news were very upset with him taking Great Britain into the wars and ally of the United States and these reasons of course were later proven false so very very controversial more this was so a lot of people asked the question today is was Iraq in 2003 a mistake and this political cartoon is alluding to that that on the invasion checklist we got the missiles we got the tapes we got the troops we got the ships we got the guns but what we don't have is a reason so that gets to the controversy of the war and you can see over time fewer of Americans believe that going into Iraq was the right decision while a higher percentage of Americans believe it was the majority of Americans believed it was the wrong decision to use military force in Iraq it's how Americans view the wars Afghanistan they see it as a war of necessity now where Afghanistan it's at present President Obama set to pull out the troops in 2014 but however we do still have troops in Afghanistan so I so I think while the major war effort is supposed to be ended we still do have some it's there largely as trainers to assist the Afghan military we lost about 2200 American soldiers in Afghanistan over 23,000 where we did that war cost two trillion dollars and you also have to think of the future cost the care of the wounded etc you can add to that to train another one to two trillion because of the future cost and then Iraq Americans now see is a war of choice we didn't have to invade Iraq there was no looming threat with Iraq so it was a choice to go on it wasn't a war of necessity we were there from 2003 to 2011 again in this situation while President Obama supported the war in Afghanistan he did not support the war on Iraq so he campaigned in 2008 on ending the war in Iraq and he called most American soldiers out at the end of 2011 but the same as Afghanistan we still had some troops there and now because of the rise of Isis we've had some troops go back but we don't have a large force there we were mostly there to assist groups like the Iraqi military in in pushing back Isis death and casualties we lost twice as many people and our war of choice as we did in our war of necessity and that's really astounding to think about almost 4,500 American soldiers killed in Iraq over 30,000 wounded and a lot of people bring up the fact the Iraqi civilian deaths because people figure see this as a war of choice that some estimates are higher than the one I have here this one is 66 thousand civilian deaths so you know the US has gotten a lot of flack around the world for that invasion and the amount of deaths that were a result of that when we have any future blowback from this well I guess you could say Isis um you know the al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq the only reason al-qaeda ended up being in Iraq is because we were there and they wanted to go where we were so they could attack us and al Qaeda and Iraq decided to settle in and create and and create a new organization called Isis to set up an Islamic state in that area so you could argue that there would be no Isis if there were no one Iraq so this is something for historians to continue to debate but that's what we mean by you know maybe unintended consequences for every action there's a reaction and blowback and it was very controversial as well because they are at war which was launched two years after the Afghanistan war took a focus on Afghanistan and off al Qaeda we had to redirect that focus again eventually the cost of our rack was about the same two trillion dollars and again you can add on the future cost warranty to two trillion this quote below just highlights the opposition that then-senator Obama and candidate Obama had to the war and of course he becomes president and makes it makes it on his checklist getting us out of those whores the rise of Isis let's cover that really quickly I just kind of did already it's also known as the Islamic state ISIL is sometimes the term the president uses it and I think it's for the Islamic state in the Lamont well should historical name for the area that they are setting up and then die ich is used by a lot of our international allies but commonly you'll hear in the news they just stick to what most Americans originally saw it as is Isis formed in 2006 in Iraq I told you as an offshoot to al Qaeda in Iraq by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq so the al Qaeda cell in Iraq was led by I think it's I'm not sure if this is the original leader or not but the leader is Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and their goals one of those is to establish an Islamic caliphate or an Islamic state so this is different from al Qaeda their goals go beyond what al Qaeda wants Kato wasn't trying to set up an Islamic state Isis is and they want to cleanse the world of everyone who does not believe their views and they have a very extreme literal a again interpretation of Islam a very violent interpretation of Islam and they want to unite the Sunni majority in the Levant region and here you can see their area of control at one point partially in Iraq and partially in Syria and I want to say a little bit Turkey as well now there have been recent successes Isis against Isis Isis has been pushed back out of some areas in Iraq and in Syria and the interesting thing about Syria is that Assad the dictator of Syria is fighting two different fronts he has a similar war in his country and he has rebels in his country and he also has to deal with he has to deal rebel controlled territories he also has to deal with Isis controlled territories so a very complicated situation for Syria and what to do about Isis is very complicated because if we give we can't necessarily just go into Syria and try to fight Isis here but we also don't want to aid Assad because he's a brutal dictator we're nervous about aiding his rebels because we don't know what they want to create in Syria we don't want to another is extremely lammott group to grow out of this undemocratic group so and very complicated here how do we defeat Isis without helping Assad how do we help the rebels and and still be able to defeat Isis very difficult situation of course we're aiding the Iraqi government military here in Iraq also Russia's involved in this as well and the ISIS another goal of Isis is they need supporters they need recruits and the best way to do that is to inspire people and how do they inspire people well they launch attacks and they also encourage lone wolves to have attacks as well and that kind of brings us into the wrong terror difficulties the difficulties in fighting a war on terror let's look at international terrorism first in our counter terrorism efforts well we have military actions like airstrikes drones we get intelligence and then we can try to thwart a terrorist attacks by having intelligence and stop them before they happen arrest people who are in the planning stages you want to work with the host country government so for example we try to work with Pakistan you know there are remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban and Pakistan you want to seize the assets you know they can't plot and carry out terrorist attacks if they have no money so you want to find out where are they getting their money from where is their money being stored and you want to try to get that you attack their funding sources if they're funding Isis some of their money comes from the oil reserve oil areas that they've taken over so you try to weed blown-up trucks transporting oil so they can't make money off of the oil you don't pay ransoms if they kidnap somebody but terrorist groups use ransom to fund their their efforts so there's all kinds of things the United States does along with other countries by the way there's lots of things we are doing but you're not it's not it's a very complicated effort and you also at the same time you have to undermine the ideology of the group and the myth that inspires their support more people will just keep flocking to them and they use social media and that's a really tackling down the internet attacking them on the Internet is very difficult thing too and then you have the lone wolf terrorist attack even if we bombed Isis out of existence our bombed al-qaeda out of existence there's there's going to be an echo of these groups and possibly new groups that are on the internet and they inspire attacks by somebody that has not ever even traveled to meet with these groups we call these lone wolf or lone wolf terrorist attacks and and and an example of that over here are the Boston Marathon bombers that they both had immigrated from Chechnya as children and the these were two brothers Tamerlan tsarnayev are Sarna and this is the older brother and Tamerlan you know went to Eastern Europe in countries and was radicalized and also radicalized over the Internet and he already had a very dangerous brutal violent mentality so he was radicalized and inspired to carry out attacks on his own and he you know got his brother involved as well and there's they blue they set off two pressure cooker bombs during the Boston Marathon that resulted in several deaths and the multiple multiple lost limbs here and again terrorism how do you have a war on terrorism it's a tool it's an act it can't be bombed out of an existence so this is something I think we're gonna forever deal with the new debate are we the world's policeman so this is a debate that emerged in the post Cold War era when our major enemy was gone what was the approach what is the appropriate role of the US and the world we no longer have our major fo the Soviet Union we are now the superpower the lung hegemon the the dominant power of our time what do we do with that power and there were some specific issues and questions that faced the United States so for example should the United States given our power do we have the responsibility to spread democracy and how do we spread democracy do we overthrow dictators do we simply just support the rebels do we intervene in conflicts you know so examples it when we see regional conflicts or ethnic conflicts fighting over which groups going to control do we intervene in these and some interventions went okay and some went badly and some didn't happen at all examples in Africa our intervention in Africa the Somalia that if you've seen the movie Black Hawk Down that didn't go well we lost two soldiers their bodies were dragged to the streets the Americans were not very happy with that and it caused them to President Clinton to be less inclined to intervene in the ethnic cleansing in Darfur and Rwanda and then Eastern Europe here some other examples of intervention so major debate we're still in that debate even today and we do have some folks in this country today that want to pull back and want to retreat and want to become more isolationist

One thought on “Foreign Policy Post-Cold War Era

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *