CIVILISATION AMERICAINE - SEMESTRE 5

21/09/20

CHAPTER 1 – A farewell to continentalism

XX century, American foreign policy, we begin in 1898. XIX century, American policy much less
important.

BEFORE 1898

Continentalism (American continent):

1. Expansion: USA tried not to deal with what was overseas, focusing on their expansion.
North America was also dominated by European powers (Spain, UK, France), so expanding
to the pacific meant to deal with these powers. Ex. Expanding to Louisiana meant to deal
with France, New Mexico was Spanish, so they had to negotiate and sometimes it brought
into a war (war in Mexico in 1840, after which it became independent).
2. “No entangling alliances”(1790’s): alliances reduce your choice, their business was
expansion and they didn’t want to be stopped.

1898 -> end of continentalism, why?

1. USA grew more powerful as result of expansion and by 1898 they had become an
economically powerful country. There was a gap between continentalism and economic
power, because it’s difficult to remain out of foreign affairs while being an economic
power. USA was a different, an economic giant. When you produce more than needed, you
want to export your products and become more powerful and more rich.
2. Social dominism: concept used to spread overseas, your race should overspread, that’s
why you want to expand (end of continentalism). For ex. New countries tried to establish
new colonies in Asia and Africa in this period. They became powerful and as they became
powerful somebody said that they had to expand and create colonies to bring civilisation to
other countries, at the base stays the idea that they can’t govern themselves so they
needed someone to be governed to. The supreme race to be spread overseas was
supposed to be WASPs.
3. Missionaries: probably the first expansionists because they wanted to spread their religion.
4. Jingoism/nationalism: when you feel superior you want to prove it, that’s why you are
often in war with other countries/religions/tribes… . Basically it’s the love for war.
5. Naval strategy: If you want to spread overseas, you need a naval army and you show your
superiority to countries that don’t have it. This is called naval revolution, Mahen was who
convinced the government that USA couldn’t live safe without a naval army, the Atlantic
can bring danger to the country and if you don’t have a navy you can’t defend yourself
from attacks from the sea. The spear of influence is a state close to a power and dominated
by it, for example South America. Mahen was successful in convincing the government so
by 1898 USA had become one of the naval powers with Britain.
In this period USA thought and acted also, so it’s the moment when they became the power we
know today.

Hawaii: in the 1890’s they were talking about annexing Hawaii to have access to the market, by
1893 USA was ready to annex territories, so they started its annexation that was official in 1898.

War with Spain (1898): Spain still had colonies in the Caribbean, as Cuba, where a lot of people
wanted to independence, so in the 90’s there were rebellions from natives and repressions from
the Spanish government. America helped Cuba to be independent from Spain as they became
independent from Britain in the XVIII century. Spain declared war to the USA in 1898. Spain still
had colonies but was a declining power with a declining navy, exactly the opposite of USA which
was powerful and with a powerful navy. Spain also had colonies in the Pacific, for example the
Philippines, but they were in war right in 1898. They defeated Spain but the question was: should
USA annex Spanish colonies (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guan) as in general does the winner
country? This was a difficult question because if yes, USA would have become a sort of empire as
other powerful European countries. There’s a difference between continentalism expansion and
overseas expansion, they decides that expansion was based on self-government, they became the
“State of liberty”, they conquer territories but they let them having their own government, a sort
of independence. Thomas Jefferson believed that USA should create new states with self-
government instead of colonies.

Spain controlled some territories who were not in the continent (as Philippines), the prospect of
ruin people was something that Americans were not prepared to. Some Americans really wanted
to acquire Spanish territories while some others didn’t, after the defeat of Spain there was an
debate between this two “parties”, these different beliefs.

1. “Imperialists”-> If we acquire territories it won’t be the first time we acquire territories

without asking (as it happened in Louisiana). This idea is based on interest. USA didn’t have
naval bases in the Pacific but this was important for “coaling stations”, this was very
convenient for USA. People in the colonies are not ready for self-government, that’s why
it’s impossible for them to be independent, so if USA doesn’t control them an another
European power will do it.
2. Self-government/the consent of the governed -> the ideal of USA based on the fact that
nobody can control a territory without the consent of the natives. It’ like betraying our
fathers, our own identity, our ideals. American should be identical to Anglo-Saxon race,
that’s why it was better not to mix with Porto Ricans and Cubans.

The birth of American empire meant the end of continentalism, but it was so quick because USA
was already ready during the 90’s with its navy. At the end, Cuba had some independence but
remained under USA influence until Fidel Castro government, the Philippines became independent
but USA for a long time repressed Philippines who wanted to be independent too early.

AFTER 1898
At first, imperialism was dominant so Theodore Roosevelt was elected president in 1901 until
1908, a policy called “Big Stick” is associated to him, where Stick means “power”, power of playing
a role in the world, which means international order. He fought in Spanish war and was a “rough
rider”, he believed that USA had to forget continentalism and become a world power. An
important characteristic was preparedness to fight European powers who were quite aggressive in
that period. “Speak softly but carry the big stick”, which means you must have power, but most
important you don’t have to speak loudly if you don’t have power. Other ideals associated to him
are the principles of intervention and national interest, which were not considered Americans but
Europeans principles, this meant accepting to be an international power, it has nothing to do with
continentalism.

According to him, intervention to maintain order was the USA role in the Caribbean, for example,
where they had territories under control. For this reason he intervened when needed in Cuba, that
remains an American protectorate even if in 1902 there was a local government. Protectorate
means that the USA had the right to intervene to restore order when the local government didn’t
do it. They wanted to avoid rebellions and an eventual European intervene.

CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 28/09/20

MONROE DOCTRINE

After Mexico independence, USA wanted Europe to not intervene again in America, the politics
was very aggressive. Roosevelt said that was up to USA to intervene when necessary, Monroe just
didn’t want Europe to intervene: two different points of view. The new role of USA is to influence
the countries they control and maintain law and order there (global responsibility of USA, using
power when necessary). USA had the faculty to decide whether the Cuba government was acting
good or not, so Cuba was not independent.

DOLLAR DIPLOMACY – President Taft

A different approach from Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick. Dollar Diplomacy -> The aim was to help
American investors in countries under control and to not let Europeans investing there. Using the
power of USA to promote America investors and keep the country safe. They used investments to
intervene in other countries. The main reason to intervene now is to make sure that the
environment is compatible with investments (economic aspect).

China: open-door policy means that they couldn’t exclude the USA, this is related to the dollar
diplomacy.

Central America (Nicaragua and Honduras): there’s an additional reason to invest there, which is
to economically stabilised the countries and avoid the revolution.

WHAT DID WILSON SAY ABOUT DOLLAR DIPLOMACY?

President Wilson’s remarks to bankers, March 1913

Wilson was initially against acquiring territories, so against imperialism and dollar diplomacy, he
wanted a foreign policy based on principles and not on power. Wilson didn’t want to use American
money to help Chinese development. Banks wanted president’s approval because they wanted to
be sure that the president will allow them to take money back from China if needed. Wilson
disagreed with dollar diplomacy so he said that the government won’t allow banks to take money
back, he didn’t want to interfere with Chinese domestic affair (biggest difference with his
predecessors). Wilson’s foreign policy was based on more traditional principles, so no imperialism,
no interference with local governments, no intervention in colonies. Investments and trades are
allowed but only if based on mutual advantage and not on intervention.

Wilson’s diplomacy is called Wilsonianism or liberal internationalism (= relations with other

countries based on individual liberty). Wilson tried to recreate individual liberty and recreate a
world base on this principle, a new world order/diplomacy more peaceful. He was very ambitious
because he thought that after WW1 could be possible to redefine international relationships.

Wilson’s principles

1. Self-determination, so the government must be able to represent its population, that’s why
his policy is opposite to Dollar Diplomacy and Big Stick. He wanted to transform the
existing order, he was against imperialism and colonisation. He had quite a modern idea of
nation, which means letting people have their own government and be represented by it.
2. Justice and equality, opposite to past inequality between powerful country and colonies.
3. Collective security, was supposed to replace an another way to maintain peace which was
balance of power, that’s why he created the League of Nations, “to make the world safe for
democracy”. What is needed for democracy is peace.
4. Public opinion, the foreign policy of a country should reflect public opinion instead of
government opinion, people must know what the government is doing, it’s opposite to
secret diplomacy.
5. Morality is the foundation of a peaceful world order, the foreign policy is in favour of peace
instead of personal interest as it was in the past. Interest should be subordinated to
Monroe’s considerations.

Fourteen points speech, January 1918

CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 05/10/2020

Presidents after Wilson were politically very conservative, three republican presidents. Hoover was
president until 1933, that’s when Roosevelt came to office. Most American think it was a mistake
to participate in WW1 so in the 40s they were convinced not to participate in WW2. Intervention
was entirely rejected, the president Roosevelt who was not an isolationist, signed the Munich Pact
in 1938, due to German expansionism. Hitler was expanding in Poland, but USA decided to not
intervene. Roosevelt changed his mind in the following year when it became obvious that Hitler
and Mussolini wanted to expand and also when became obvious that Hitler had absolutely no
respect for the USA. This would determine relations between Germany and USA. Roosevelt
realized how dangerous Hitler was.

AFTER WW2 -> POLITIC REALISM (CONTAINMENT AND DETERRENCE)

The two superpowers became enemies (URSS and USA), but it was a cold war, not a direct conflict.
Andrew Jackson was an American president known for his Jacksonian foreign policy, which meant
to defeat the enemy as soon as possible using all the available resources, this is the definition of
cold war (not using the army).

Usa and Urss had different views of what should be the new world order after the war, there was a
political vacuum because this was the end of empires in Europe, Africa, the decline of political
powers in Europe and the two new superpowers who wanted to dominate the world. The usa
believed that was possible to impose their after world war order, but what’s important in
American minds and in president Truman mind it’s self-determination, which means that Urss
should exerting less control on the territories it had.

Truman was elected in 1945 until 1953, he believed that it was a mistake not to react to the
Munich pact, even if Americans didn’t want to intervene at the beginning. Usa decided to stop the
Urss before it became too powerful, they tried not to repeat the same mistake they did with
Germany. That’s why Munich syndrome means appeasement (not defeating your enemy thinking
that he’s not going to attack you).

Urss did not agree with this American principle because wanted to expand as much as possible
and exert a solid control on eastern Europe. That’ the beginning of a long silent war. American
foreign policy had been very diverse in the last 20 years. The policy in this period is about
containment and deterrence, which means that the objective was to contain the Urss.

A theory that changed American foreign policy was based about the idea of world and USA role in
the world. We’re talking about political realism (very different from wilsonianism), which was
based on :

1) the reality of relations between states, they watched the relations in the world from a
more realistic point of view.
2) Probably due to the psychoanalysis, human nature started to be seen as irrational,
especially after WW2, which emphasised the irrationality of humans. Wilson was optimistic
about human nature, so his policy was based on public opinion, but which was not defining
American foreign policy anymore after the war because it cannot be expected to
contribute to peace (what people really want).
3) Self-determination shouldn’t be the USA aim.
4) they opted for a kind of isolation of foreign policy from public pressure/opinion to maintain
a rational policy (since human are irrationals as definition, public opinion isn’t stable and
the policy couldn’t base itself on an instable entity).
5) The cold war was a global state of war, which means that it seems impossible to have
peace but at the same time it seems impossible to have war (paradox situation).
The new foreign policy was suited to the state of war, which was seen as something typical
European, this situation is something new for the USA. The USA relied on principles who wasn’t
traditional American because also the situation was not traditional, so since state of war was
something about Europe, they started relying to European traditional principles, as alliances,
balance of power, hard power (=military power), rise of executive power (= potentially the
opposite of democracy). When you are in a difficult situation you have to adapt to it and that’s
what the USA tried to do during cold war, they can’t change the whole world in your favour. In this
period the USA role in the world is not to change it but to stabilise it, to maintain order. Foreign
policy should now be based on national interest, a rational principle.

This is very different from traditional American foreign policy before the war. During WW2 a lot of
European scholars migrate to USA influencing their point of view and contributed to create a new
field of studies which was called “international relations”. An important political scientist was the
German Hans Morganthan, who published “politics among nations” in 1948. He wanted to teach
to the USA how to maintain world order thanks to relations with other states, and he said that
Wilson was naïve because he wanted to change the world, which is impossible.

This new foreign policy is basically everything that Wilson wanted to abolish, he wanted to create
a world based on traditional American principles but 20 years after him the USA foreign policy
looked more European than American. George Kennan, a very important diplomatic during the
cold war, agreed with this politics of containment.

“The sources of soviet conduct” (anonym telegram sent on July 1947)

This telegram means that USA have to understand and know very good their enemy, in this case
the Soviet Union. Necessity of understanding the world and the enemy, this means being
intelligent. It’s way more complicated than Wilsonianism because he just wanted to change
everything, but now what American want is to understand its enemy principles, government and
mentality, as if Wilson tried to understand European principles instead of changing everything and
create its own American principles. What’s happening now is called diplomacy (=understanding
soviet policy and politics).

Key words:

 Anticipate soviet politics

 Soviet diplomacy
 Rationality
 Strong force
 Democratic opinion VS Long-range policies (irrationality VS rationality)
 To contain (word used at first by Kennan)
 Counterforce (=forza contraria)
 URSS is a rival in the Political arena
 USA superiority based on values (what will allow USA to win against URSS)
 Diplomacy instead of militarisation
This document reflects the new American foreign policy approach, based also on the foresight
(=prevenzione), very important to react on time to an eventual URSS attack. This is Kennan aim, to
understand what could be the next URSS move, what they’re planning to do. URSS was led by
ideology but not by reason, so if you want to understand what they’re going to do you have to
understand their ideology before their reason and obviously be patient. Kennan was a very
important figure during the cold war, he was the first who talks about containment but he wasn’t
speaking about military containment, that’s why he often disagreed with some other politicians,
such as Truman.

THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE, 1947

This doctrine was about a militarisation of containment and was born in 1947 after some guerrillas
in Greece and Turkey (pressure from URSS) and USA intervene. This is the first occasion for USA to
implement containment. The two guerrillas are the symbol of the political vacuum there was at
that moment in Europe. Britain announce its not intervene, so USA took advantage and
implemented containment, they became the leaders of the war against communism. An important
point of past American foreign policy was the no entangling alliances which was broken in this
period.

The Truman doctrine is a speech given from the president in march 1947, as important as the
Monroe doctrine for example. In this speech he describes a very ambitious foreign policy that was
supporting free people everywhere in the world and help them resist from armed minorities
(guerrillas) or external pressure (URSS). He militarized the containment. This was so successful that
was an example for the next policies.

The Marshall plan was about USA economical help to Europe but obviously URSS didn’t allow
them helping eastern Europe. They applied a great amount of money for Europe (7B $), they
contributed to the return of prosperity in western Europe after de war. An another reason why
1947 was a crucial year it’s the National Security Act, which gave new resources to the president
for leading foreign policy. Three new institutions were created for this purpose:

 CIA (secret operation, under direct supervision of the president),

 NSC/NSA (National Security Counsellors and Advisor, they worked in the White House and
advised the president),
 Department of Defence (defence of the USA)

There was a need for a more centralised foreign policy, on the president and its security advisors
(=institutions born in 1947). More diplomacy, more bureaucracy.

Related to the Europeanization of principle, there are the alliances and the balance of power.

CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 12/10/20

How did continentalism become global? Due to international relation, that’s the reason why cold
war extended to Asia -> Korean war (1950-1953), a part was supported by USA and the other one
by URSS, they became permanently divided. To prevent reunion of the country under communism,
USA started a violent war, it was seen as an implement of the Truman doctrine, in particular
intervening to prevent the spread of communism. USA started using more secret means to make
the war (CIA).

Dwight Eisenhower

President Eisenhower was elected in 1952 (until 1960), he was republican and also a general. He
tried to remember the lesson of Korea and started using CIA to prevent the spread of communism.

During the cold war Eisenhower and USA didn’t tolerate any kind of revolution because was seen
as related to communism.

In 1954 in Guatemala, the CIA helped a new government to overthrow the legitimate government
of Arbenz after he tried to nationalise Guatemalan food resources.

“Covered action” became very important (around 80% of CIA activity), secret decisions taken by
the president. They justified it saying that they had no other choice. “Domino theory” -> USA had
to intervene in certain countries to prevent that the communism became more powerful. It’s an
another way to globalize foreign policy.

USA should wage the war by proxy instead of being directly involved in war, this is a lesson they
learnt for Korean war, for example by supporting an another country fight against communism but
without intervening.

Doctrine of massive retaliation (=dottrina della rappresaglia massiccia) -> USA tried to make sure
they remain the head for nuclear power. It was based on the West's increasing fear at the
perceived imbalance of power in conventional forces, a corresponding inability to defend itself or
prevail in conventional conflicts. By relying on a large nuclear arsenal for deterrence, President
Eisenhower believed that conventional forces could be reduced while still maintaining military
prestige and power and the capability to defend the western bloc.

In this period was important for USA to maintain their image, their principles. USA at the end of
WW2 was supposed to promote decolonization but with the cold war they were afraid that
decolonized countries could be invaded by communist countries.

Doctrine of the middle east, 1957

Consequence of the Suez crisis in Egypt in 1956. What happened in Egypt is similar to Guatemala.
The Suez canal was controlled by Britain but when the local government and its president Nasser
tried to nationalise the canal, Britain saw it as a threat. There was an intervention in Egypt by
Britain, Israel and France. The USA put pressure on its allies to withdraw from Egypt. This is an
another result of nationalization and self-government.
Eisenhower tried to preserve USA image with this doctrine in which he emphasises that
intervention in the middle east could be justified from a direct request of the country due to
preserve their political integrity, the opposite of what happened in Egypt with the intervention of
Europeans countries and Israel. When Kennedy was elected in 1960, he tried to do even more to
improve USA image.

J. F. Kennedy foreign policy

There’s a big difference between Eisenhower foreign policy and Kennedy’s. Kennedy was obsessed
by communism as Truman and Eisenhower but he did much to satisfy other countries
independence, especially after decolonization because that new countries didn’t have an evident
politics.

Aspects of Kennedy’s policy:

 Eisenhower neutrality was not tolerated by Kennedy, for him who wasn’t with the USA was
an enemy. Kennedy containment was more intelligent, he manipulated public opinion, also
because he used a better rhetoric and was good-looking.
 He wanted to build a “world of diversity”, which means that world was big enough to have
different forms of government, so capitalist USA and communist URSS could live together
without fighting, there was a mutual understanding between the two superpowers (this is
a new form of rhetoric). This improved the relations and the communication with URSS.
 Concept of nation-building -> trying to use American power to help other countries instead
of frustrating them, this also improved USA image. He tried to tap into the idealism typical
of the new American generation.
 He created “The Peace Corps” program, which means that Americans helped other
countries with their economy and their services (self-determination and self-government).
He wanted to support other countries thank to USA power, this is one of the results of this
new idealism.

He was also convinced that sometimes USA didn’t have other choice than the one of containment.
Kennedy’s rhetoric was one thing but what he did was often different from what he said.

Kennedy and Vietnam

After World War II, the French tried to re-establish their colonial control over Vietnam, the most
strategic of the three states comprising the former Indochina (Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos).
Following the defeat of the French, Vietnam was partitioned by the Geneva Accord of 1954 into
Communist North Vietnam and non-Communist South Vietnam, which was divided on religious
and political lines. The United States supported a military government in the South and the
decision of its leader, Diem, to prevent free elections which might result in the unification of the
country under the control of the Communists.

During the spring and summer of 1963 Buddhists were protesting the harsh treatment they were
receiving under the Diem government of South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government’s
actions made it more difficult for the Kennedy Administration to continue its strong support of
President Diem. The Kennedy Administration was in a tenuous position, trying to contain
communism in Southeast Asia, but supporting an anti-Communist government that was not
popular with a large number of its citizens and was guilty of acts objectionable to the American
public.

Kennedy was also obsessed in “not to lose face”, that’s the reason why of his intervention in
Vietnam, to show the world that they will never allow the spread of communism anywhere.

Lyndon Johnson

Johnson is associated to the so-called Americanisation of the World and that’s when USA became
military involved in Vietnam (1965-1968). There was a declaration of war on Vietnam, which had
very bad consequences in many countries.

Between 1965-68, the Congress authorised the government to get involved in the war by sending
troops to bomb Vietnam, so 500 thousand Americans were sent there. During this period there
was a strong division between people in favour and against the war, Kennan for example strongly
opposed to the war.

In the USA, Vietnam war had bad consequences on democratic parties, in fact it ends the
democratic cycle, so the election of Richard Nixon, who was republican, is what led the war to an
end. For the first time a president was seen as impotent, that’s why Johnson’s unpopularity
increased. Johnson suffered a lot for the Vietnam War because he couldn’t concentrate on internal
issues.

CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 19/10/20

Richard Nixon

Nixon was elected in November 1968. He wanted to prove that USA wasn’t ready to just withdraw
and let communism spread, so he decided to negotiate with Vietnam by bombing it to convince
people that it was necessary to negotiate, that they had no other choice. Nixon wanted to do it at
any cost, which means that it was not so different from his predecessors. He referred to Vietnam
war as “Johnson’s war”, which means that it was a political choice of a president, it wasn’t
necessary.

As USA withdrew troupes, Vietnam placed its own troupes. Only at the end of Nixon term, at the
end of 1972, they agreed for a cease-fire, this is the official end of the war with the Peace treaty
signed in Paris in January 1973.

What happened in Vietnam damaged USA image in the world and also the government image in
the country. The Vietnam syndrome is the fact of intervening in a far country and sending
American troupes far away for fighting. USA in general stay on the wrong side of history, American
president was seen as someone who couldn’t take the best decisions for its country. That’s the
reason why we could speak about containment of Vietnam, due also to the lack of consent.

In 1969 was evident that USA and URSS were very different countries.

Nixon doctrine -> USA role was military protection, the difference is that USA would not commit
troupes but help before being involved in the war. It was about ending all the wars and reach a
peace agreement. For it, he went to North Vietnam to negotiate, at the beginning he wanted to
withdraw troupes but in the end he decided to intensify the war by bombing Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos (the message for Vietnam was that it was necessary to negotiate). In October 1972 there
was a cease-fire agreement providing to the withdraw of American troupes, which was accepted
by Vietnam. The peace agreement was signed in Paris 1973, it represented the end of a war that
had produced many deaths, in particular Vietnamese people, which paid a very high price but
didn’t solve their problem.

Long term consequences -> it wasn’t the end of containment of communism, but they learnt
something from Vietnam so they started using different ways of containment. They relied in
democratic leaders or playing more intelligently in the “arena” taking in account what the country
could offer.

Sino-Soviet split (1969)

USA and URSS had very different doctrines about communism but in the 60s URSS appeared as the
head of communism and China followed them. It was important for USA because they used to see
communism as an enemy but now they understood that there were two enemies and they were
very different between them (URSS and China). This is very typical of Realpolitik, originally was the
German politics of international relations, it represents European view of the world based on the
concert of nations (=understanding leading countries). Nixon used it because he tried to negotiate
with China and URSS individually to convince them to negotiate, he was a clever politician but he
considered himself an expert of foreign policy and international relations.

Henry Kissinger

Nixon’s foreign policy was characterised by power and secrecy. Him and Kissinger thought that the
ideology of communism wasn’t important because URSS and China were acting like states and
were only interested in power.

Henry Kissinger was a Jewish refugee from Germany, he was already an expert in international
relations. Him and Nixon had similar visions of American foreign policy after Vietnam, they tried to
monopolise foreign policy, it was a plan full of secrets and involved foreign leaders as well. By
doing so they wanted to take foreign policy off public opinion because it wasn’t needed.

They tried to normalise relations with China, that’s why Nixon went there to meet the president in
1972. In 1979 they officially established relations between the two countries. Nixon also wanted to
achieve an improvement of relations also with URSS, and they tried to do it by the improvement of
relations with China, a close allies to URSS. In 1972 he signed SALT I, a treaty with URSS, which
reduced the number of missiles held by USA and URSS, it was a strategic reduce of arms, in fact it
ended the arms race. This is called the “three dimensional game” ().

The most negative aspects was related to the use of secrecy (=CIA). On one hand they improved
relations but also to contain Soviet influence by helping anti-communist government even if they
weren’t democratic. There was a recognition of the limits of the USA, Truman was convinced that
USA could do everything, but Nixon had a more realistic vision of American power and its limits.
They absolutely wanted to eliminate communism from south America, that’s why they used the
CIA for helping repressive anti-communist governments and dictators. The most emblematic, and
dramatic, intervention of the CIA was in Chile in 1973, they killed the president Salvador Allende
because was seen as a Marxist. CIA secretly consulted Chilean military to eliminate Allende
because they couldn’t prevent its election. Allende is supposed to commit suicide even if it’s not
true, and after him Augusto Pinochet took the power, he suppressed any opponent of the
government by making them disappear. USA considered international relations as a chess game
(=not ethic). Kissinger was processed in 2015, he had to respond of the deaths the war caused in
Vietnam.

Political realism -> reluctantly accept reality and its consequences for American foreign politics,
because it tried to reconcile them with traditional values, it’s based on principles and ethics.

VS

Realpolitik -> likes traditional European diplomacy, enjoys playing the power-politics game, makes
no attempt to reconcile it with American traditional principles, so it’s not based on principles at all
but Machiavellian.

Nixon appeared as an European more than an American man, he liked playing parts for politics.

Nixon resigned in august 1974 because he was impeached. First of all the president is impeached
by the vote of the house of representatives and then he …………. . He was impeached because they
investigated and discovered some secrets about Vietnam war and foreign policy. He resigned
before being destitute, it was more decent for him.

Gerarld Ford (Nixon’s vice-president)

It was a desire to switch to a different foreign policy, moving away from the CIA and Nixon dirty
tricks and go back to American principles. People wanted to go back to normal. American policy
didn’t change immediately because Nixon resigned but his vice-president took his place and
Kissinger remained secretary of state.

Jimmy Carter

American people had new elections only in 1976 and they voted for Jimmy Carter, a new president
very different from Nixon. Carter’s foreign and domestic policy was based on understanding,
transparency and human rights, which took the distance from what happened in Chile under
Nixon. This was the major change when Carter was elected, he wanted a moral foreign policy,
that’s why he blamed his predecessor, at a time when there was still the cold war. He made
human rights a priority of his policy.

He wanted to depart as much as possible to his predecessors foreign policy, for example in south
America he refused to let dictators and he denounced human rights abuses in Argentina and Chile.
It’s interesting what happened in Panama -> he completed the transition of the canal from USA
control to Panama control, helping the country becoming independent from Colombia. The
transition was completed only in 1999.

He was against URSS and also criticised them for human abuse, he believed it was USA moral role
to denounce human abuses around the world. Differences between him and Nixon are evident.
When he went to China he was kind of tolerant, he restarted diplomatic relations and exchanges.
On the other hand he remained very critical with the URSS. Carter’s national security advisor was
Zbigniew Brzezinski who was very tough with URSS. In 1980 the URSS invaded Afghanistan, so
Carter decided to boycott the Olympics in Moscow the same year, no longer supporting
illegitimate regimes (Pinochet, Videla,…).

Carter’s major achievement was the Camp David Accords (1979), a treaty between Egypt and
Israel, in which Egypt recognised Israel as a country for the first time.

Carter’s biggest failure, instead, was the Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-80) which cost him a second
election. In 1979 was taking place Islamic revolution led by Khomeini (anti-american), who was
then stopped by the Shah (=king) helped by the USA. Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens
were held hostage for 444 days, after a group of Iranian college students, who supported the
Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Carter called the hostage-taking an act
of "blackmail" and the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy". In Iran it was widely seen as an
act against the U.S. and its influence in Iran, including its perceived attempts to undermine the
Iranian Revolution and its longstanding support of the Shah of Iran, who was overthrown in 1979.

Carter criticised the imperial presidency, as he thought power should go back to congress after the
Watergate scandal, this made him an unpopular and underestimated president.

CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 09/11/2020

Ronald Reagan

Reagan was a republican and was elected in January 1981. He was strongly against URSS, he
described the country as an “evil empire”.

Moral criticism : black and white approach similar to Eisenhower’s towards URSS.

First term

To put pressure on the URSS Reagan organised a military build-up, for this reason the budget of
the Pentagon went from 171 billion dollars (1981) to 300 (1985). Furthermore, USA deployed
missiles in western Europe to counterbalance the Soviet arsenal in eastern Europe. There was a
noticeable change compared to Carter.

SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative) -> introduced in March 1983, was a defence project that would
have used ground- and space-based systems to protect the USA from attack by strategic nuclear
ballistic missiles. Reagan believed that this defence shield could make nuclear war impossible.

As opposite to détente (=allentamento,=slackening, weakening), he went back to intervention:

 Nicaragua -> Reagan reversed Carter’s policy (back in 1979 the revolutionaries supported
by Carter, reversed the dictatorship of Somoza), since he was against the Sandinistas. The
CIA began financially supporting their opposites, the Congress opposed to it so Reagan had
to rely on illegal means by selling weapons to Iran and using that money to finance the CIA.
 Grenada (1983) -> Reagan ordered U.S. forces to invade Grenada, where a 1979 coup
d'état had established an independent non-aligned Marxist–Leninist government.
Operation Urgent Fury was the first major military operation conducted by U.S. forces since
the Vietnam War, several days of fighting commenced, resulting in a U.S. victory. In mid-
December, after a new government was appointed by the governor-general, U.S. forces
withdrew.
 Lebanon -> Reagan sent forces to Lebanon in 1983 to reduce the threat of the Lebanese
Civil War. The American peacekeeping forces in Beirut were attacked. The Beirut barracks
bombing killed 241 American servicemen and wounded more than 60 others by a suicide
truck bomber (terrorist attack). He then withdrew all the Marines from Lebanon.

Second term -> foreign policy troubles and achievements

- The Threat of Terrorism : at the beginning, used to weaken nations and organisations
- The beginning of democratisation in two countries which were important USA allies:
Philippines and South Africa.

Between 1985-88 there were several terroristic attacks by Palestinians; in the Persian Gulf an USA
ship was hit by a missile in 1987. In 1986 a nightclub in Berlin, where a lot of USA soldiers were,
was bombed.

There was a new slackening with URSS since in 1985 Gorbachev came to power. It led to the INF
treaty in 1988, which allowed the withdrew of weapons from eastern and western Europe and
their destruction (=denuclearisation). It was concludes with Reagan’s visit in Moscow in 1988.

Reagan’s posterity

He’s considered a great president and a model for republican party. The neo-conservatives praised
him: they used to be close to the democratic party but it was divided before Nixon’s election due
to disagreements in regard to the URSS and the role of the USA in it. It was mostly formed by
intellectuals who drifted toward the republican party under Reagan. Reagan stands as an
embodiment of American idealism and exceptionality.
CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 16/11/20

How did the Cold War end?

The president who defined a new doctrine for American foreign policy was Bush Jr. after 9/11.

Debate on the USA’s role in Soviet demise. According to him communism was about to collapse,
URSS could not remain communist under new conditions after the war.

What did the end of the cold war mean to the USA?

The USA would no longer be the leader of the world, cold war led to a more ordinary world, and
the USA was no longer needed for protection by other countries -> prospect of a more modest
future. Safety and security are no longer important in the USA. Economic power had declined but
military power did not.

The need to redefine foreign policy, was it important in a world that is no longer dangerous?
Seems to be no enemies left so no need to redefine foreign policy. There were different options
depending on what they wanted USA role in the world to be. The purpose was to maintain pax
Americana. The different options were:

 Rely on balance of power

 Withdraw -> unrealistic option
 Act unilaterally and scrap alliances because they were no longer necessaries after URSS
collapse
 Collective security based on American leadership

George Bush Sr.

He chose the last option for his foreign policy.

Bush Sr was Reagan vice-president and candidate to elections of 1988, his term started in January
1989, the year of Cold War ending at least in eastern Europe. That year became evident that URSS
was about to collapse.

President reacted very consciously to 9/11, in the USA there was a very optimistic book due to the
end of the war, this is evident in Fukuyama’s book, “The End of history”. His reaction may be
explained by this insecurity clime. He tried to define a new world order, the problem was that it
wasn’t easy because a lot of countries wanted to change in this period, there were frozen
conflicts, frozen changes due to the war. To achieve change or better, self-determination, some
nations wanted to have a new government and create their own state. Nationalism was on the rise
again after the end of cold war, it meant new states. Reagan stood for forcing countries not to
become communist, while Bush Sr stood for stability, as he wanted to prevent any new conflict.

The first Gulf War was the result of Kuweit invasion by Iraq in august 1990, they see it as an
opportunity to expand and USA as an opportunity to maintain order and help a weaker country.
Bush chose to lead a coalition of 28 countries acting under the authority of USA. They chose to act
multilaterally, about 500k soldiers were sent to liberate Kuweit. After Vietnam USA was very
reluctant in sending troupes in foreign countries, this is the return. American were more
enthusiastic by the success of this war than they were by the end of cold war.

The new world order was defined by Bush Sr in a way that USA could protect the order so that
they could maintain a sort of supremacy. The new world could be seen as multipolar and Bush
stood for multilateralism because for the USA it was more convenient to stand for others and
reaffirm their leadership militarily speaking. Even though he was multilateral there was such an
emphasis on the USA domination and military power.

The domestic importance of the war -> thanks to the war, Bush sent a message to Americans
suggesting that the nation will remain great and won’t act alone, it will minimise the costs by
acting with allies, he reassured public opinion which was very important at the moment.

Bill Clinton

First term

Elected in November 1992 for one term, he was a democrat. Pragmatic Wilsonianism -> he relied
to Wilson for his policy, he allowed USA to spread democracy, free trade and human rights in the
world. Clinton wanted a change in the world while Bush Sr not. He was very ambitious, he tried to
use their power to support democratic regimes and to put pressure on undemocratic ones, he
wanted to cooperate with other states. Bush collaborated with other regimes but didn’t want to
put too much pressure on URSS and China, because they were two superpowers and USA allies,
while Clinton was very critic about it. In 1989 China repressed demonstrations by students in
Tiananmen Square in Beijing but Bush didn’t react as strongly as expected. Bush was in favour of
democratic enlargement rather than order, it usually goes through revolutions, while Clinton was
for pragmatic Wilsonianism, so he was convinced that USA could use trades to induce other
countries to introduce political reforms, he believed in free trade. Also Clinton was in favour to
enlarge NATO to central European countries, such as Poland and Czech Republic, while Bush SR
was very reluctant because he didn’t want to humiliate Russia.

Second term

Clinton was re-elected in 1996 and became more and more pragmatic. He intervened in Somalia’s
civil war in 1996 and avoided a humanitarian disaster, in 1997 he intervened in Haiti. Intervention
in Yugoslavia was much more successful, they intervened under NATO authority, it’s evident as
USA still plays an important role in the world, military speaking, by avoiding humanitarian
disasters.

Clinton decided to support democracy and intervene for humanitarian reasons only if there was a
clearly identified national interest and only in situations which was likely to succeed. Clinton
abandoned his insistence on human rights as a prerequisite to trade, he recognised that it was
better to trade with China because it could lead to political reforms in the country.
CIVILISATION AMERICAINE 23/11/20

After 9/11 : provided an opportunity to redefine the role of the USA in the world and the foreign
policy that had to be different from the Cold War approach.

Political realism -> deal with the world as it is instead of trying to change it.

The Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal
hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic
Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture. Some also began to question their liberal
beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate
the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through
strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and
political radicalism.

Many of its adherents became politically influential during the Republican presidential
administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the
administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the
2003 invasion of Iraq and invasion of Afghanistan.

Critics of neoconservatism have used the term to describe foreign policy and war hawks who
support aggressive militarism or neo-imperialism. Historically speaking, the term neoconservative
refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of
American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s. They spoke out against the New Left and in
that way helped define the movement.

The New Left

The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists
in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of social issues such as civil and political
rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms. Some saw the
New Left as an oppositional reaction to earlier Marxist and labour union movements for social
justice that focused on dialectical materialism and social class, while others who used the term
saw the movement as a continuation and revitalization of traditional leftist goals.

In the United States, the movement was associated with the anti-war college-campus protest
movements, including the Free Speech Movement. Many New Left thinkers in the United States
were influenced by the Vietnam War and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Some in the U.S. New
Left argued that since the Soviet Union could no longer be considered the world centre for
proletarian revolution, new revolutionary Communist thinkers had to be substituted in its place.

They supported Reagan because he actively promoted democracy and supported all those who
were supporting communism.
George Bush Jr.

There were prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration, while not
identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of
Defence Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy,
especially the defence of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.

Unilateralism and Neo-imperialism, militarism