Politics
|
|
Did the Cold War end in a stalemate?
|
| An SI Board Since February 2013 |
| Posts |
SubjectMarks |
Bans |
| 10 |
2 |
0
|
|
This on its face seems to be an absurd question. After all, the Soviet Union no longer exists and most of its former satellite countries have adopted democratic institutions and free market economies. But as is the case in so many things, what seems to be, and what actually is, diverge.
To answer the question posed in this Forum's title, it's necessary to go back to the 1970s. The decade of the 1970s was one of turmoil, both political and economic, in the United States. Oil prices significantly increased, one of the worst bear stock markets in US history occurred, and inflation reached historic highs. While these were significant challenges for the US, they were manageable.
In Britain, however, the political and economic state of affairs reached crisis proportions, raising the question of whether Britain would be able to maintain its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Labor Unions in Britain were far more militant than in the US, and this militancy, led by the Coal Miners, posed a fundamental challenge to Britain's long-standing Anti-Communist and Anti-Soviet policy. How militant were the Labor Unions, led by the Coal Miners? In the early 1970s, in response to a Coal Miners strike, Britain implemented rationing of electricity consumption by means of a 3 day limit on non-essential businesses' consumption of electricity. Television broadcasts were required to terminate at 10:30 pm, again to help lower electricity use. Indeed, the situation in Britain became so serious Margaret Thatcher, in her first visit to the US as leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, warned Britain could fall apart, stating: "If Britain were to break, a well-nigh mortal blow would be struck against the whole Western world." She was not exaggerating for if Britain did in fact withdraw from the NATO alliance, it would have changed the Cold War overnight, seriously weakening the security of Europe, and possibly other regions of the world, such as the Persian Gulf.
This obviously was a nightmare scenario for the United States, and Britain's withdrawal from NATO had to be prevented at all costs. But this created a profound dilemma for the United States, for if the US openly and directly addressed the situation, it would serve notice to the Soviet Union the Western Anti-Soviet alliance was in significant trouble, possibly encouraging the Soviet Union to take advantage of the West's weakness by, for example, invading Western Europe. The easiest course of action the United States could take was to have a wait-and-see approach in the hope events in Britain would not turn for the worse.
In this environment of crisis and confrontation Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party came into power in the late 1970s, followed later in the United States by Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. When first aware she was to become Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher said: "There's a world-wide revolt against big government, excessive taxation ... An era is drawing to a close."
There was only one problem for Margaret Thatcher: she had to stay in power and that, she discovered, was no sure thing, for her policies proved to be deeply unpopular. Needless to say, the Reagan Administration and the Republicans were deeply sympathetic towards Thatcher and the Conservatives and were willing to do whatever they could to help Thatcher succeed. As it turned out, the Reagan Administration would be given that opportunity by a Latin American country called Argentina and its invasion of the Falklands Islands.
To fully understand the Reagan Administration's behavior during the Falklands War between Argentina and Britain, it's important to remember the Reagan Administration was pursuing an aggressive containment strategy against the Soviet Union involving a significant buildup of the American military. Key to this strategy was the active and strong participation of Britain, something the Reagan Administration believed only the Conservatives could provide.
From the moment Argentina invaded the Falklands Islands, the Reagan Administration provided support to Thatcher, and it wasn't merely moral. The Reagan Administration, led by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, gave access to a US military base, provided military supplies as well as communications and reconnaissance intelligence. The Reagan Administration even went so far as to move a US military satellite from its location over the Soviet Union to over the Falklands Islands, consuming precious fuel in the process and thereby lowering its lifespan. The Reagan Administration, courtesy of the US military, provided Aviation Fuel to the tune of 12 million gallons. In short, without American military assistance, Thatcher would have failed to re-take the Falklands Islands and consequently would have fallen from power.
Having saved Thatcher from political oblivion, the Reagan Administration ensured Thatcher's and Britain's support for the Reagan Administration's aggressive containment strategy. And the gratitude was reciprocated. At Thatcher's request, Ronald Reagan was given an award by Queen Elizabeth. Caspar Weinberger also received an award from the Queen.
The question is: At what price to American freedom?
|
