CC BY
104
Section 4. History and archaeology
Section 4. History and archaeology
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/ESR-16-11.12-26-27
Medovkina Lina Yuryevna, PhD, Associate Professor Donetsk National University Historic faculty E-mail: MedovkinaL@gmail.com
Impact of Cuban Missile Crisis on US foreign policy
Abstract: The influence of the Cuban Missile Crisis on U.S. foreign policy from 1989 to 2000 has been examined and the major events that occurred during this period have been analyzed.
Keywords: Cuban Missile Crisis, diplomacy, Russian-American relations, the Cold War, democracy.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is an international conflict situation, which is caused by the placement of Russian missiles in Cuba that have the average effective range. Humanity absolutely felt the reality of the Apocalypse. Fortunately, the common sense has gain on the upper hand over the emotions that have played out, and recklessness. Political figures from the USSR, USA and Cuba for the first time realized it was "nuclear stalemate", and thus showed the desired realism in liquidation of crisis situations, found within themselves the strength to embark on the road to tackle the most urgent international task not by military, but by diplomatic means. And It is not too much to say that the lessons of the Crisis, that warn against hasty, thoughtless actions, were a harsh investment in new thinking, developed new layouts to the events on the world stage.
The Cuban Missile Crisis had extremely important, far-reaching results for the formation of international relations. US foreign policy played a tremendous role in international relations.
On the background of diverse and often contradictory directions in American political and academic elite in the 1990s, the foreign policy has been forming. Its purpose, as well as the purpose of any county's foreign policy, was to develop a rational foreign policy, which helped to maintain the dominant position in the world, thus avoiding any needless overspend of internal resources of the nation, its "Imperial overstretch". In fact, two trends - to the activism of foreign policy and isolationism, occurred at the same time, and interconnected - one day as parallel, the other as intersecting, adjoining, diverging and re-converging.
Foreign policy has long been used as a testing ground for the achievement of superiority between the major powers. Within 19892000 United States made a bet on the informational component as a method of achieving the desired policy objectives. George Bush Senior came up with the doctrine of "Liberation", which purpose was to destroy the Soviet Union [1].
In 1990 the US and Russia came to an agreement on reducing military confrontation in Europe and in 1991 - on reduction of strategic offensive arms. The Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan and supported firm action against Iraq, which invaded Kuwait. The collapse of the Soviet Union has temporarily transformed the USA into a superpower that was able to settle the fate of the world [5].
In the 1990s US foreign policy had to face several crises. The role of Americans in the work of the multinational UN forces for peacekeeping in Somalia in 1992-1993 ended with complete failure.
Serious losses in battles with local militants and the reluctance to intervene in the civil war forced the US to withdraw its troops from African countries.
In the 1990s America's leaders reacted to the warnings of the isolationists. So, in early August 1990, President George Bush predicted the collapse of the bipolar world and appointed not only the need for the formation of new global strategies, but the concomitant creation of a hierarchy of supporters, regions, and policy objects according to their degree of importance to the United States. In order not to throw resources in places where the results of the regional struggle are not important for America's interests. George Bush started to point to his administration the priority of internal tasks, although inactive and visually for the nation ofAmerica. In the presidential address of 1992 "State of the Union" it was also suggested [2]: "We can now stop making those sacrifices that we made in the confrontation with the aggressive superpower".
This trend has gained more significant development in the policies of subsequent US President Clinton. The election campaign of the Democratic party, where Clinton was the candidate, beating Bush in the presidential election in early November 1992, focused, before all, on America's internal problems. While Clinton was the President, for the first time in the postwar situation, the United States has made it plain that US are not able to solve major problems alone. This statement made clear that there is a clear presence of neo-isolationism component of the mechanism in the foreign policy of the democratic administration.
Neo-isolationism mood was manifested in the fact that the United States tried to withdraw from participation in solving of a number of international tasks. So, almost at the end of winter 1993 Deputy Secretary of State for political tasks Tarnow declared that "the United States are not going to meddle in Bosnian Affairs, as in other incidents, after the Cold War ended "just because we have no money".
In parallel with the orientation towards isolationism in America's foreign policy, the trend interventionism is constantly present in foreign policy. Already in his first presidential address "State of the Union" Bill Clinton promised to reduce more military spending of America.
In 1994 the United States proposed the strategy of national security. It supported the armed forces that meet the threats in the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cold War. Fixing the American economy through providing access to new foreign
Impact of Cuban Missile Crisis on US foreign policy
markets and globalization. The United States decided to play the role where they will be the only superpower, and became the guarantor of international security and americentric system of international law: less UN, than USA [4, P. 12-13].
In 1995, the report of the Ministry of Defense gave confirmation of the plan to preserve the armed forces as well as military obligations, but in some certain cases, to expand them. In 1995, President Clinton agreed with the Republican Congress on a gradual increase in military spending.
Interestingly, after the victory was won by Republicans in 1994 congressional elections, members of Congress, that were member of the Republican and Democratic parties, found a common language on the issue of cuts in foreign policy costs of US. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans rallied well in their positions of neo-isolationism and began to repel the Clinton administration in conducting an intensive international policy. In response, Secretary of State Christopher announced that a substantial reduction in foreign costs "will damage our national interests and the opportunity to be a leader". Leaving his post, the United States Secretary of State Christopher considered it was his duty to warn the American civilization about the threat of "new isolationism": "We face the danger of new forms of isolationism, in which the United States is the requirement of its leadership, but also its deprivation of the possibility to play a Central role" [7, P. 224].
Continuation of antisocialists method was manifested in the presidential address of 1999 "State of the Union" [3]. In it, President Clinton announced an increase in military budget - the largest increase after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cold War. By the end of 1990s, activism has become not only more visible, but the dominant focus in American foreign policy.
In general, American politicians and experts believe that if the XIX century was the century of balance of power in the world, then the XXI century will be the century of the decisive imbalance in favor of America. The US strategy in the XXI century includes the following [8].
1. To preserve leading large-scale position of the country, to strengthen the main participant in the technological revolution, which controls forces in the North Atlantic and East Asia.
2. To avoid uncontrolled opponent, capable of becoming major competitor in the mid- century, and build a new world in which for the first time in five hundred years the West would not be major power.
This way, during the 1990s, Washington administration solved the problem of the selection of foreign policy between neo-isola-
tionism and activism. The key focus of the progressive foreign policy of the United States has the deepest historical roots, as evidenced by the political experience of the country in the XIX-XX centuries. Both foreign policy directions have their pros and cons, and the actual foreign policy of the White House usually becomes the "middle" epitome, a synthesis of them both. It is possible to imagine that these directions shall collide, intertwine and complement each other in US foreign policy in the XXI century [6, P. 22].
It is alarmingly then that armed intervention in the internal incidents that erupt in other states became a common thing for USA. Does this meet the long-term interests of the United States? I doubt it. Millions of people around the world regularly refer to USA not as a model of democracy, but as a country that relies only on brute force, cobbling together coalitions under the motto "you're either with us, or against us".
US foreign policy is regularly criticized as a source of inconstancy in some regions of interests of the United States. In particular, the US role in "color revolutions" around the world, supporting opposition and non-profit organizations that are loyal to USA through the funds, the execution of municipal coups. According to any observers, the United States thinks of a major rule and creation of a unipolar world that is absolutely executed by the American politicians the last decade.
US foreign policy focuses generally on the security solutions due to feelings of own military advantage and neglect the interests of other states. It also suffers due to senior diplomatic managers who have low professionalism.
In our opinion, the Cuban Missile Crisis was the same bitter but necessary lesson for the population of the Earth as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In those cases, tens of thousands were killed, but the whole world realized the nightmare of a nuclear disaster, and their destruction saved millions in the future.
The Cuban Missile Crisis has been overcome not by military, but by diplomatic means. Saving of formal and informal contacts between the two states, especially during the recent tensions, the political will to engage in vigorous dialogue, endurance, ability to hear the other side and go to a real compromise - this was of considerable importance and did not let the Cold War turn nuclear. The subsequent situation of Soviet-American relations clearly confirmed it.
Though the possibility of recurrence of a similar crisis in relations between Russia and America in modern conditions is very high, these lessons have a chance to be needed in the other possible nuclear incidents in the XXI century.
References:
1. Levesque, Jacques. The Enigma of - 1989: The USSR and the Liberation of Eastern Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press, - 1997. URL: http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft4q2nb3h6/
2. US President address of - 1992 "State of the Union" URL: http://millercenter.org/president/bush/speeches/speech-5531
3. US President address of 1999 "State of the Union" URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/ sou99.htm
4. Bush, George H.W.; Scowcroft, Brent. A World Transformed. - Moscow, - 2004. - 154 p.
5. Kissinger, H. Diplomacy. - Moscow, - 1997. - 733 p.
6. Garusova L.N. US Foreign Policy: Major Trends and Directions (1990-2000). - 153 p.
7. Utkin A.I. American Strategy for the XXI Century: The Manual / under. ed. of Utkin A.I. - Moscow: Moscow, - 2013. - 328 p.
8. The Heritage Foundation // USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology. - 1992. - No. 7. - 28 p.
