Monthly Archives: April 2014

Thatcher and Gorbachev

Posted on by

3 Points:

1. Thatcher realizes that Gorbachev and her have different prerogatives but shows a willingness to cooperate as long as each side gets what they want.

2. The most important detail regarding each country’s foreign policy is to make sure there is no chance at a presumed “World War III”. Each side realizes that would be disastrous to their own country’s interests and domestic policy, so they will go to great lengths to avoid such an event.

3. Each country realizes that they are one of the main powers in the world at this point in time; therefore, it is very important that they stay on good terms with each other. Thatcher wants to have as much interaction as possible with the Soviets so that they may build up their relationship with one another – if this is done it could be wildly beneficial to both parties.

2 Questions:

1. What is the single most important action that these countries could take in order to build a stronger relationship? I believe that if they get a strong trade agreement (or trade in general) that the countries would benefit enough economically that they wouldn’t go to war with one another. Strong economic ties usually equals a friendly relationship between two countries.

2. Which of the two leaders do you believe Thatcher would want to lead Russia into the future: Gorbachev or Chernenko? Why?

Interesting Observation:

I know it is probably because she is giving the interview, but I just feel like Thatcher is the one taking the initiative between her and Gorbachev. She seems to have a solid plan in place for what she wants out of the “relationship” and is leading the deliberations between the two leaders.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/5

 

Remarks on East-West Relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin

Posted on by

Substantive Points

  1. United States President Ronald Reagan gave this speech on June 12, 1987 in West Berlin. The speech was televised globally (including East Berlin) with the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin wall as a key backdrop. President Reagan announced to the German people that he joined them as their fellow countrymen and firmly believed that there is only one Berlin. He stated, “as long as this gate is closed, as long as this scare of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.” The President saw the Berlin wall essential to the future of not only Berlin, but also Europe as a whole.
  2. President Reagan denounced the communist world for its failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, and starvation. He then compared the failures of communism to the successes of the Western world. Reagan concluded, “freedom leads to prosperity,” and that the West welcomes change and openness of the East to progress toward world peace.
  3. Reagan acknowledged the rapid economic growth and progress happening in Europe. He saw the Soviet Union needed to decide whether to join in on the prosperity or remain isolated and become obsolete. President Reagan ultimately demanded General Secretary Gorbachev of the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin wall and join the West in their hopes of advancement of world freedom and peace.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How is President Reagan approaching Gorbachev and the Soviet Union in this speech?
  2. What do you think would have happened if the wall did not come down? How would this have affected the outcomes of the Cold War?

Observation:

  1. It is interesting to note that while Reagan proposed trust between the Soviet Union and the United States, we seem to be at a crossroads on this issue today.

Treaty of European Union

Posted on by

3 Points;

1. The Europe once again unite together, for the two wars in the past proved no good to set enemies within the Europe.

2. The union is mainly formed by economic treaties, including single currency and free trade within the EU.

3. The EU also would maintain a consistency in foreign policies, adding more to the unity of Europe.

2 Qs:

1. As the member nations of EU joint ever closer economically, the potential harm exists as well. Just like Greece broke in 2011, the whole Europe was affected by the financial crisis because of internal relation. Is this the reason why Great Britain was not part of EU? Who can help Europe to get out of the crisis when almost every nation in the union was devastated financially?

2. Is EU a new form of multination empire? What is the difference the multination empire and the EU?

Observation:

The relation between countries eventually is connected by the benefit and gains. When the interest is related together, it is hard to act against each other without hurting one’s own benefit. Perpetual peace may seem impossible during the first few decades of twentieth century, essentially because countries were trying to maximize each own profits, even at the cost of damaging other countries’ interest. Just like what Churchill said, “A nation has no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Have no lasting enemy, also have no lasting friend, only have the lasting benefits.” Only by unifying all the countries’ interests, can peace be maintained.

 

 

CIA Intelligence Assessment: Rising Political Instability Under Gorbachev

Posted on by
3 Points:
  1. December 1988, Gorbachev delivered a “watershed” speech at the United Nations that demonstrated his growing liberalization efforts. All of these efforts would create a less intrusive force in the eastern bloc, as shown be attempts to decrease the military forces prevalent there and the amounts of armaments used.
  2. President Bush saw these as empty promises; pointing out how despite the perception that Gorbachev was creating opportunity for the people in the Soviet Union, their standards of living remain very low- similar to as they were under Stalin. He says that economic issues (he frequently describes it with the word “stagnate”) and political differences from what the people enjoyed under Brezhnev, has caused unrest within the people.
  3. Bush predicts that this unrest from the populous will cause a threat to Gorbachev’s control, and that “the next several years promise to be turbulent” because of the idea that there will be a split in leadership under Gorbachev between those that want to continue these reforms and those that do not.
2 Questions:
  1. Why did the Bush administration think that accepting Soviet reforms would “divide the US from its NATO allies” if they should also want a less aggressive military presence from the USSR?
  2. What was the Soviet response to this criticism of their leader and his liberalization efforts?
1 Observation:
  1. Even when presented with liberalization from the USSR, the United States and its NATO allies still appear to distrust the sincerity of it. The description notes that the Bush administration was divided on whether to accept these as genuine efforts or to question if this was simply a ploy to make the US more accepting of Soviet actions. After creating a “strategic review” of the foreign policy on this issue, it is evident that the US determined a cautious stance towards these actions, overall questioning the efforts of the USSR to alter its stances from the past.
Link to the specific section: http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/348

European Common Market

Posted on by

3 Points

1 – Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are negotiating to establish a common market that would involve the elimination of all barriers to trade between them and the formation of a barrier towards outside countries.

2 – The two traditional policies of the U.S. Government are: the consistent support of actions to further the political and economic strength and unity of Western Europe within an expanding Atlantic community and the long-standing devotion to progress toward multilateral trade and convertibility of currencies.

3 – The association of the United Kingdom in this agreement would further strengthen the unity of the Atlantic Community and the free world.

2 Questions

How would the United Kingdom benefit from entering this agreement?

How does this agreement relate to/how is it similar to GAT?

1 Observation

It was the hope and expectation that the negotiations on the common market and free trade area would be carried forward and concluded in such a manner that there would come a new contribution to the unity and prosperity of Europe and the Atlantic Community and to the welfare of the entire free world.

 

The Treaty on the European Union

Posted on by

3 Points:

1.The European Union brings together the member states under one single common law, while still allowing the nations to keep their own sovereignty.

2.The nations are bound together to “promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers.”  ( It combines the nations economically and socially)

3. It will establish a new council and commission that all the member nations are subject to.

2 Questions:

1. How powerful is the ‘governing body’ of the EU?

2.  Why are some European Nations not a part of the EU?  Do some choose not to join, and others are not permitted?

1 Interesting aspect:

I found it interesting that the European Union allows the power is possesses to be equally distributed among its members, as each nation is eventually able to be ‘head’ of the EU.

Post World War II European Economic Relations

Posted on by

The European Free Market Trade Area published in 1957 served as a post war petition to bring economic unity to various European states previously in political opposition. Trade barriers prevent potentially valuable communications for solidifying positive social relations; historically, one country preventing the means of trade of another either served as a product of, or enabled political tension. Economic homogenization assisting as a method of political unification remained a common strategic political policy throughout the remainder of the century. The Maastricht treaty, the treaty on the European Union (1992), sought to aid in unifying Europe “through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union.” It also encouraged human rights reinforcements in the international sphere. European nations were not alone in promoting economic cohesion in the early 1990s, however. The Clinton Administration implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, which eliminated trade barriers between Canada, The United States, and Mexico, further stimulating trade between powerful North American nations, increasing solidarity. Nations seem to understand that economic inclusion is a powerful means to stimulate economies and maintain stability.

The Maastricht Treaty and the European Union

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. Established the European Union, forming a union of states and peoples, demonstrating consistency and solidarity between the member states. Recognized that despite the differences between European nations, there was a distinctly European identity shared by all member states.
2. Established a common currency, the Euro, for all member states, which would tie the economies of all member states together. This is significant because inflation or deflation of the Euro, or any other economic activity for that matter, would significantly affect all the economies of the European Union. In addition to a common currency, the treaty broke down barriers to trade within the Union in order to stimulate all the economies of member states.
3. Mandated sustainable fiscal policies by the member states, including the maintenance of a debt no larger than 60% of that country’s GDP, and annual deficits no larger than 3% of that country’s GDP. Since the economies of all member countries would be tied to a single currency, it was very important to establish guidelines for successful and sustainable fiscal policies. An economic disaster in one state could lead to a continent-wide depression.

Questions:
1. What were some of the major challenges in switching all of these economies to the Euro from their original currencies, and what was the time frame in which the switch occurred?
2. What was the primary impetus for the formation of the European Union, since trade agreements in Europe had already existed for decades?

Observation:
The European Union began with twelve member states, and has grown to include 28 members since its inception. There are more states waiting to join the Union, perhaps most notably Turkey.

On the European Common Market and the Free Trade Area

Posted on by

3 Observations

1) Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and West Germany are the six nations which were negotiating to establish a common market with no internal trade barriers and a common external tariff. The United Kingdom was interested in joining the elimination of trade barriers with these six founding members but having its own external tariff. Other Western European nations showed interest similar to the UK.

2) The United States’ policies were: to support moves to further political and economic strength and cohesion in Western Europe, and devotion to progress toward freer nondiscriminatory multilateral trade and convertibility of currencies. Simply put, the US supported the formation of this common market because it would benefit both the US and the world economy.

3) The United States was particularly interested in arrangements that related to agriculture, had a bearing on the liberalization of import controls affecting dollar goods, and measures both public and private which bear on international trade. Again, the US supports this common market because it would benefit the US especially in its agricultural exports to Europe.

2 Questions

1) As it stood, this cooperation represented progress in the world economy. Later on, when this was incorporated into the Treaty for the UN, they treaty mentioned a common defense policy which might lead to a common defense. Does this sound like the type of alliance which could lead to another World War? If not, then why is this different from alliances earlier in the century?

2) What was happening at the time with diplomacy in Eastern Europe? And how did they perceive this agreement?

1 Interesting Observation

1) Although nothing about communism or the Cold War was mentioned, it was highly probable that the US supported this partly because it helped the six member states resist the influence of communism. The US would do anything at the time to undermine efforts of communist expansion.

U.N. on Colonial Independence

Posted on by

Tree Points

1. It is important to note that all people in the world, regardless of race, gender, religion, or language deserve stability and peace.

2. It is necessary to end colonialism in the world.

3. The subjection of people by another, foreign group of is directly against fundamental human rights.

2 questions:

1. What was the reaction of the countries that had colonial properties to this document?

2. What was the country or incident that made the United Nations create this document?

1 Thought:

The entire declaration is very thorough and covers each part of colonialism.  While broad it also seems to target a very particular section of colonialism.  While most colonialism was violent, all of it was not.  This declaration is an umbrella look at colonialism and what it means for both sides involved.  This makes it much more difficult to enforce.  It could not have been easy for the U.N. in the 1960s to monitor all of its members.  It would be that much harder to manage the colonial properties.  It is so broad and general that it becomes harder to manage.