Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

Integration and Culture: What are the Next Steps?

Posted on by

The article “Is multi-kulti dead?” which focuses on integration of immigrants in Europe—specifically Germany—sparked my reflections on meanings of nationalism and culture. In this piece from The Economist, Germany is initially portrayed as an unaccepting, nationalist state that is unwilling to integrate foreigners into the German state. With the influx of immigrants and new religions, many Germans desire “’sharply restricting’ Muslim religious practice…[and] a third think the country is overrun with foreigners and a tenth say they want a strong Fuhrer.” ((“Is Multi-kulti Dead?” The Economist. 2010))  Germany has long been a non-pluralistic, nationalist state. Lately, though, it has been moving away from such, but people such as Chancellor Angela Merkel have argued that recent attempts of integration and multiculturalism have “failed, absolutely failed.” ((Ibid)) Merkel and other government officials such as President Christian Wulff have sought to change this; the government is constructing a law “that would make it easier for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in Germany with professional qualifications to have them recognised so that they can do something more rewarding than cleaning houses.” ((Ibid)) It seems that Germany, despite its rigid history, is moving in the right direction.

The article argues that despite this governmental reform towards integration, not everyone in Germany is on the same page. German citizens have not yet fully embraced new religions and cultures, shedding light on the stiff nationalism and purity that has often isolated Germany and its citizens from the rest of the world throughout history. The author asks many questions at the end of the piece, all of which focus on the potential future for German multiculturalism and what measures Germany needs to take to further address the issue. One of those questions is “Will Muslims be forced to choose between practising their religion and adopting a German identity?” ((Ibid))

The world is becoming more diverse as we know it. How dedicated are we to integrating countries that have historically been predominantly non-pluralistic? How will we go about successfully and peacefully integrating other cultures? Are countries such as the United States and Germany avoiding the seemingly daunting task of integration; are we afraid of it? Or are we not addressing the issue in the right way? I think all of these questions are very important to think about as we move forward in society.

US Exclusionary Policy Post-1989

Posted on by

As the Berlin Wall fell, historian Mary Sarotte argues that the then exclusionist US Policy in Europe formed an ‘ordering point’ upon which the excluded Soviet Union forms its foreign policy to this day. The ‘ordering point’, according to Sarotte, is “the historical evidence now available from both Eastern and Western countries shows what alternatives ‘seemed real at the time’, and what chances they had of becoming actual outcomes of the upheaval of 1989.” What we can now see was not clear to individuals at the time, but the way in which these events played out now shapes our understanding of European-US and US-Russian relations. President George H.W. Bush’s mentality of trying to secure the US’ Cold War victory and failure to identify the long-term issues between Russia and the West provided much context for Sarotte to then justify actions for individuals such as Vladimir Putin. She believes that one can trace all of his actions involving Eastern Europe and the West back to Bush’s policies in the early 90s. With our current inability to reason with and control Putin, politicians and political pundits need to revisit the United States’ decisions during the H.W. Bush Administration and rediscover how the US’ exclusionist policies have more or less back the Russians into a corner. As ‘Baby’, their corner position has forced some of their aggressive actions, all in the name of trying to be seen and included in the world’s superpowers.

Sarotte, M. E.  “In Victory, Magnanimity: US Foreign Policy, 1989-1991, and the Legacy of Prefabricated Multilateralism”. International Politics, 48(4-5), 482-495. doi:http://envoy.dickinson.edu:2077/10.1057/ip.2011.21

Sarotte, Mary. “A Broken Promise?”  Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct2014, Vol. 93, Issue 5, 90-97

Kohl’s Revivalist Vision

Posted on by

Mary Elise Sarotte is a professor at the University of Southern California in their International Relations department. She focuses on Cold War history and especially the post-Cold War period, immediately following the destruction of the Berlin Wall. In her piece, In Victory, Magnanimity: US Foreign Policy, 1989-1991, and the Legacy of Prefabricated Multilateralism, Sarotte discusses the alternative structures that were proposed following the collapse of the Berlin Wall. She discusses four main possibilities, the second of which was proposed by Helmut Kohl, and deemed a revivalist vision. Kohl was the West German Chancellor and upon witnessing early American consent to Gorbachev’s attempted restoration of quadripartitism he created a different plan ((Sarotte, Mary. In Victory, Magnanimity: US Foreign Policy, 1989-1991, and the Legacy of Prefabricated Multilateralism. 2011.)) .

The revivalist vision was focused on recreating the ideas of German statehood, that is, recreating a confederation of German states. If it had been implemented, East and West Germany would have had independent social and political policies, however they would have been united under a single, national roof ((Sarotte, Mary. In Victory, Magnanimity: US Foreign Policy, 1989-1991, and the Legacy of Prefabricated Multilateralism. 2011.)). This architecture would have been successful in diffusing tension between East and West Germany, as they would be technically reunited under one German name, however, they would be allowed to have their own politics and remaining communist influence would have had the opportunity to be present in East German politics. It would have restored the self-governing capabilities to East Germany; however, it would not have created the strongest German state possible. By 1990, Kohl realized that his vision of a divided Germany under a united roof was not possible and switched towards advocating for American involvement in extending prefabricated institutions to Eastern countries.

Many of these possible architectures for restructuring took into account American involvement. Did American’s have the right to be so heavily involved in the restructuring of Europe or should they have been able to do it on their own? How would the outcomes have differed if Americans were not involved?

The Search for Peace

Posted on by

In January of 1957, the U.S. Department of State Press released a statement in favor of the initiative to create a European common market. The economic community included Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and desired unfettered trade between member nations. To bolster the union further, members planned to instate a tariff on trade from all non-member nations. ((United States Department of State Press Statement: On the European Common Market And The Free Trade Area, January 15, 1957)) Those not directly included in the common market were not excluded entirely; the United Kingdom entered an agreement with the six nations which waived many trade barriers between the UK and the “free trade arena,” while upholding member nation’s common tariff on British goods. ((United States Department of State Press Statement: On the European Common Market And The Free Trade Area, January 15, 1957)) The proposal for the common market and the United States’ official support represented the growth of a global economy and a push towards stability in the years after the devastation of WWII.

The rationale for United States support was drawn from the “traditional policies” of supporting political and economic unity in Western Europe, and a general backing of all initiatives which promote freer trade. ((United States Department of State Press Statement: On the European Common Market And The Free Trade Area, January 15, 1957)) A goal of the common market was to expand trade with many nations, not simply those included in the specific agreement, a vision which appealed to American leaders looking to bolster their own economy. Despite the seemingly global initiative, the rhetoric of the U.S. Department of State Press clearly limited trade expansion and the resulting economic prosperity to the “free world.” In 1957, the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union had already spurred multiple proxy, guerilla-style battles in developing nations. The U.S. sought free trade in the non-communist sphere as a bulwark against leftist and Soviet advances. Agreements which entangled multiple powerful nations and bolstered stability also acted as a safeguard against future war. Similar institutions such as the United Nations were created in the postwar years for the same reason. If the economies of many nations are completely intertwined and dependent on one another, these nations will not go to war, and excluded nations will fear allied backlash if they attack a member nation. The push for globalized economies and politics was a push for lasting peace.

The European Common Market

Posted on by

In January 1957 six European countries convened and started negotiations toward a treaty for a common market among them. Those who convened to negotiate included France, Belgium, German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The negotiations were meant to illicit talks that pertained to a common market. The treaty would eliminate most of the trade barriers that stand between these countries as well as establish a common tariff that would be enforced on the countries that were on the outside of this treaty.[1] When the news of the treaty made its way to the United States, the State Department released a statement to the press regarding the Treaty that was in support of this economic and political decision.

The United States State Department released a statement that was in full support of this decision made by the six countries. The U.S. viewed this as a positive step towards the cohesion of Western Europe, as they indicated as one of their two traditional policies of the U.S. Government.[2] Also, it was the hopes of the United States that this agreement would not only increase trade among the countries who are associated with the treaty but it can help foster more international trade. The more international trade occurs it helps boost the economies of those involved as well as promotes more countries to become involved in the practices of international trade. This treaty would help the European countries that participated in World War II help boost their economies and get back to being prosperous again. Trade also would be cheaper than before, due to tariffs being eliminated, which would help countries save money. This treaty could also help create more opportunities for those looking for work since there will be an increase in trade.

[1] Unites States State Department Press release on European Common Market January 15, 1957

[2] Unites States State Department Press release on European Common Market January 15, 1957

Responsibility

Posted on by

After WW2, the entirety of Europe had suffered a great loss. The Maastricht Treaty created in 1992 discusses the purpose of the EU. The intention of this document is to outline the purpose of the EU and explain its goals. The main purpose of creating the EU, as outlined in the beginning of the document is to: “create an even closer union among the people’s of Europe” as well as “organize… relations between the member states and their people’s”. ((“TITLE I COMMON PROVISIONS.” Maastricht Treaty Title I. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.)) By creating a common currency, people are able to trade more efficiently. This promotes political and economic relations between the countries allowing their relationships to strengthen after falling apart during WW2. The document also mentions the creation of a union citizenship that re-enforces the idea of unity among the countries in Europe. Ethnic tension was a huge problem leading up to WW2, therefore by creating a union citizenship, it allows people to see themselves as part of a whole rather than separate countries. An interesting aspect of the treaty was the self-check component. It is stated that the different sections of the EU must abide by the “acquis communautaire” aka EU law. This checking system allows for each department to regulate each other and make sure one party does not have more power than the others, in theory. Lastly, the most interesting statement in the treaty in my opinion was the inclusion of the “eventual framing of a common defense policy, which might in time lead to a common defense”. I am wondering why the EU would need a defense department. What do you think?

 

Is it smart to allow each country to handle their own finance policies? What happens then when their economies crash like Greece? How much of a responsibility should the EU have?

Maastricht Treaty

Posted on by

The Maastricht Treaty was ratified by 12 democratic countries part of the European Union in 1992.  The document clearly states from the start that this treaty is a cooperation between each country on the principles of economics and foreign policy.  This treaty did not try to change the internal politics of each nation, but rather respected the national identities of its member states.  The timing of the ratification of the document is interesting in that it is shortly after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.  Perhaps this document was an incentive for many former satellite states(including east Germany) to become democracies, as they could make a case to join the EU.  I find the word choice in this document to be surprising, especially in Article A, as it refers to the benefits for the ‘citizen’ of each country.  It gives the feeling that they are trying to build a community in an effort to bring prosperity, rather than another NATO which brings military implications.  Article F even states that the Union will respect human rights, adding to this idea of benefiting the people.

One of the most important themes is the economic implications put in place by this document.  In an attempt to create economic cohesion, the introduction of a single currency is put in place.  A single currency helps stimulate trade activities as well as the free movement of goods.  On the subject of foreign policy, Article B states the need for a common defense policy for each country to follow.  This policy is understandable as if a number of nations are under attack or in war, it would disrupt the overall economy of the union.  Lastly there is an emphasis on consistency throughout each member state as a whole.  Internal justice and home affairs will not vary dramatically, but as mentioned before there is a respect for each national identity.

Why do you think this treaty calls for consistency on justice and home affairs?  Why would countries want to join the European Union?

 

 

 

Che Guevara and American Economic Imperialism

Posted on by

Che Guevara was your stereotypical revolutionary. Raised in a rich household, he was trained to be a doctor before he realized his interests were helping the poor. The son of a leftist father, he grew up listening to socialist ideologies from Spanish Republicans. After allying with the Cubans Fidel and Raul Castro, he helped to liberate Cuba from Batista’s rule and gained political influence within Cuba society because of his role within the revolution. In 1964, he was sent to address the UN in regards to Africa and Caribbean decolonization. In his speech to the UN, Che builds the Cubans as a reactive nation as opposed to proactively provoking the United States and challenging their imperialist rule within Africa (indirectly) and more specifically the Caribbean. While Che states that the US’s military influence has helped to oppress many a person, their economic system dwarfs that of the socialist states and prevents any attempts at economic freedom for them and their citizens. “So long as the economically dependent peoples do not free themselves from the capitalist markets, and as a bloc with the socialist countries, impose new terms of trade between the exploited and the exploiters, there will be no sound economic development, and in certain cases there will be retrogression, in which the weak countries will fall under the political domination of imperialist and colonialists” (Blaisdell 273). Che believes that these economics will prevent the burgeoning socialist states from ever truly freeing themselves from imperialism and in turn prevent them from ever truly breaking free of capitalism. Without an equal power base, capitalism and socialism will never resolve their conflict and continue to fight one another in an unequal relationship instead of peacefully coexisting, which is what Che wants to see happen.

Original source as delivered by Che:

 

Animosity between World Leaders

Posted on by

Winston Churchill is one of the most famous British politicians of all time. He was born into an upper class family, and served in the British military when he was young. He rose through the ranks of British government after returning from the military and became Prime Minister of Britain following Neville Chamberlain’s resignation in 1940. As an active political member, Churchill warned against the rising powers of Nazi Germany and argued against appeasement. In his “Iron Curtain Speech” he says that “Last time I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention” ((Churchill, Winston. “Iron Curtain Speech”. 5 March 1946.)). He is strongly anti-communist and uses the comparison of communism to Nazi Germany to convey his message about the iron curtain being cast down upon Eastern Europe.

However, he uses his speech to call upon the English-speaking world to enforce the United Nations agreement and prevent the Soviet Union from expanding their sphere. Stalin critiques this in his Reply to Churchill, where he accuses Churchill of following the same lines as Hitler and creating a system of racial determination to establish who should rule the world ((Stalin, Joseph. Reply to Churchill. 1946.)). Both Churchill and Stalin compare the other to Hitler, indicating a huge amount of animosity between them even though they were on the same side of World War II. What do you think sparked this animosity so quickly after the end of the war? Would there have been a way to avoid this, or was communism just the next enemy to take on after fascism was defeated?

Armenia & Poland & Russia & The Middle East

Posted on by

In Peter Gatrell’s article, Displacing and Re-Placing Population in the Two World Wars: Armenia and Russia, he argues that the two ethnic groups sought protection both Post-World War I and II in order to establish the legitimacy of their state; however, the Armenians supported Russian “protection” while the Poles chose to abandon their homeland because of ideological differences. Gatrell is a Professor of Economic History at the University of Manchester in the U.K. His specialty is analyzing the economic influence of refugees and their movement after both World Wars.

What Gatrell keyed in on in the article but did not specifically mention is larger state’s influence on the movement of refugee and migrant groups based on ethnicity. The Soviet influence on both states is critical to understanding how well each ethnic group functioned within its own nation-state: Poland dealing with a complex egalitarian relationship, while Armenia relied on Russia for the creation and establishment of their “republic”. The implications that Gatrell’s piece has for modern day politics is astonishing to me. How do we deal with the refugee crisis in regards to international politics, because like the article states, while each group had their “state”, there were many issues that they struggled with because of their benefactor’s own political agendas.