THE COLD WAR ERA
Cuban Missile Crisis:
In April 1961, the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were worried that the United States of America (USA) would invade communist-ruled Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1962, USSR placed nuclear missiles in Cuba and this made USA extremely vulnerable as many of its cities came under the fire range of these missiles. American warships intercepted Soviet ships heading to Cuba as a way of warning the USSR of the seriousness and a clash seemed imminent. Eventually, to the world’s great relief, both sides decided to avoid war.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a high point of what came to be known as the Cold War. The Cold War referred to the competition, the tensions and a series of confrontations between the United States and Soviet Union, backed by their respective allies.
These were accompanied by a real ideological conflict over the best and the most appropriate way of organizing political, economic, and social life all over the world. One side was committed to the ideology of liberal democracy and capitalism while the other to the ideology of socialism and communism.
What is the Cold War
The end of the Second World War was the beginning of the Cold War. The consequence of the end of the Second World War was the rise of two new powers on the global stage: USA and USSR. The Cold War was an outcome of the emergence of the US and the USSR as two superpowers rivaling each other.
In spite of being an intense form of rivalry between great powers — it remained a ‘cold’ and not hot or shooting war because of the logic of deterrence. This means both sides have the ability to inflict enormous damage to each other and the political gains from such a war could not be justified.
When two superpowers and the blocs led by them are in a deterrence relationship, fighting wars will be massively destructive and in this sense the Cold War managed to ensure human survival.
The Emergence of Two Power Block
The two superpowers were keen on expanding their spheres of influence in different parts of the world.
The smaller states got the promise of protection, weapons, and economic aid against their local rivals. The alliance systems threatened to divide the entire world into two camps.
Most countries of western Europe sided with the US and those of eastern Europe joined the Soviet camp. That is why these were also called the ‘western’ and the ‘eastern’ alliances.
The western alliance was formalized into an organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under which an attack on one country would be considered an attack on all of them.
The eastern alliance, known as the Warsaw Pact, was led by the Soviet Union. In some cases, the superpowers used their military power to bring countries into their respective alliances.
In East and Southeast Asia and in West Asia (Middle East), the United States built an alliance system called — the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO).
Cracks and splits within the alliances were quick to appear. For example: Communist China quarreled with the USSR towards the late 1950s, and, in 1969, they fought a brief war over a territorial dispute.
The other important development was the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which gave the newly independent countries a way of staying out of the alliances.
The smaller states were helpful for the superpowers in gaining access to -
Vital resources, such as oil and minerals. Territory, from where the superpowers could launch their weapons and troops. Locations from where they could spy on each other. Economic Support, in that many small allies together could help pay for military expenses. Ideological reasons, the loyalty of allies suggested that the superpowers were winning the war of ideas.
Arenas of the Cold War
Arenas of the Cold War are referred to areas where crisis and war occurred or threatened to occur between the alliance systems but did not cross certain limits. For example: confrontations in Korea (1950 - 53), Berlin (1958 - 62), the Congo (the early 1960s).
In some cases, huge military build-ups were reported and diplomatic communication between the superpowers could not be sustained. Sometimes, the non-aligned countries played a role in reducing Cold War conflicts and averting some grave crises. For example: India played a crucial role in mediating between the two Koreas. By and large, it was the realization on a superpower’s part that war by all means should be avoided that made them exercise restraint and behave more responsibly in international affairs.
The mutual suspicions led both the superpowers to arm themselves to the teeth and to constantly prepare for war. The two sides understood that war might occur in spite of restraint. For example: due to miscalculation of power on the other side, misunderstandings or nuclear accident.
Therefore, the US and USSR decided to collaborate in limiting or eliminating certain kinds of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. For example they signed Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the 1960s and 1970s.
Challenge to Bipolarity
Non alignment offered the newly decolonized countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America a third option—not to join either alliance.
Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesia’s Sukarno and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah came to be known as the five founders of NAM.
NAM was a culmination of following factors: Cooperation among these five countries. Growing Cold War tensions and its widening arenas. The dramatic entry of many newly decolonized African countries into the inter - national arena. By 1960, there were 16 new African members in the UN.
Over the years, the membership of NAM has expanded as countries of various different political systems and interests joined it. It was based on a recognition that decolonized states share a historical affiliation and can become a powerful force if they come together.
The latest meeting, the 18th summit, was held in Azerbaijan in 2019. It included 120 member states and 17 observer countries.
Non-alignment is not isolationism since isolationism means remaining aloof from world affairs, whereas non-aligned countries played an active role in mediating between the two rival alliances.
Non-alignment is also not neutrality. Neutrality refers principally to a policy of staying out of war and not taking any position on the appropriateness or morality of a war.
Non-aligned states, including India, were actually involved in wars for various reasons. They also worked to prevent war between others and tried to end wars that had broken out.
New International Economic Order (NIEO)
Most of the non-aligned countries were Least developed countries (LDCs).
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) brought out a report in 1972 entitled Towards a New Trade Policy for Development. The report proposed a reform of the global trading system so as to:
(i). Give the LDCs control over their natural resources exploited by the developed Western countries.
(ii). Obtain access to Western markets so that the LDCs could sell their products.
(iii). Reduce the cost of technology from the Western countries.
(iv). Provide the LDCs with a greater role in international economic institutions.
Gradually, the nature of nonalignment changed to give greater importance to economic issues. As a result, NAM became an economic pressure group. By the late 1980s, however, the NIEO initiative had faded, mainly because of the stiff opposition from the developed countries who acted as a united group.
India and the Cold War
India’s response to the ongoing Cold War was two-fold: At one level, it stayed away from the two alliances. Second, it raised its voice against the newly decolonized countries becoming part of these alliances.
India tried to reduce the differences between the alliances and thereby prevent differences from escalating into a full-scale war. For example: Mediation during the Korean war in 1950s.
Benefits of NAM:
(i). First, non-alignment allowed India to take international decisions and stances that served its interests rather than the interests of the superpowers.
(ii). Second, India was oen able to balance one superpower against the other. Thus neither alliance system could take India for granted or bully it.
Criticism of NAM:
(i). India’s non-alignment was said to be ‘unprincipled’. In the name of pursuing its national interest, India often refused to take a firm stand on crucial international issues.
(ii). India was inconsistent and took contradictory postures. Having criticised others for joining alliances, India signed the Treaty of Friendship in August 1971 with the USSR for 20 years.
In 1971, India needed diplomatic and military support during the Bangladesh crisis and the treaty did not stop India from having good relations with the US.
After the end of the Cold War in 1991, non-alignment lost some of its earlier relevance and effectiveness.
Arms Control Treaties
(i). Limited Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. Signed by the US, UK and USSR in Moscow in 1963.
(ii). Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT): It allows only the nuclear weapon states to have nuclear weapons and stops others from acquiring them. For the purposes of the NPT, a nuclear weapon state is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967. So there are five nuclear weapon states: US, USSR (later Russia), Britain, France and China.
(iii). Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I (SALT-I) The first round of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks began in November 1969. In 1972 USA and USSR signed– a) Treaty on the limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty); and b) Interim Agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
(iv). Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT-II) The second round started in November 1972. Treaty on the limitation of strategic offensive arms was signed in 1979.
(v). Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START-I) Treaty signed by the USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and the US President George Bush (Senior) on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms in Moscow on 31 July 1991.
(vi). Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START-II) Treaty signed by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the US President George Bush (Senior) on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms in Moscow on 3 January 1993.
Share
& Comment
Tweet