Summarize events between the U.S. and at least one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper since the end of the Cold War.
After the Cold War ended in Europe, Nicaragua became a country that was more collected and composed than during the Cold War. The U.S. kept having its influence and actions in Nicaragua, just as it did right before the end of the Cold War. One of the actions was the money given to Nicaragua to stimulate the civil factions that warred against each other in Nicaragua in 1987 (Robinson, 1987).
Around the end of the Cold War, the U.S. government, represented by the Assistant Secretary initiated negotiations with Nicaragua in 1989. The U.S. had its influence regarding the elections in 1990 which were lost by the Sandinistas (Dominguez, 1999, p.11). The U.S. was a supporter of the anti-Sandinista movement of “contra” fighters during these elections (Feinberg, 2011).
Furthermore, as recently as 2006, the U.S. was involved in the elections because of the rise of the communist of the past, Daniel Ortega. In the spring of that year, the then Ambassador had a meeting about creating an opposition bloc of alliances with parties from the right side of the political spectrum. The gathering was to form a force that would stop Ortega (Klerlein, 2006).
2. Identify and describe the current relationship between the U.S. and one (1) of the countries you wrote about in the first paper.
The current relationship between the U.S. and Nicaragua is not so tight or focused as during the Cold War or in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War; the U.S. maintains a passive involvement in Nicaragua’s internal activities. American diplomats in Managua even complain about the U.S.’s lack of active participation in shaping Nicaragua’s internal affairs. Nicaragua continues with certain practices that are a thorn in the eyes of the U.S. but it seems that the U.S. has “ignored” Nicaragua (Feinberg, 2011, p.2) to the extent that certain perceived fallacies and improper behavior is not being addressed.
The current diplomatic relations have been described as cold and formal. For instance, on the basis of the Foreign Relations Authority Acts the U.S. is not allowed to “provide assistance and support to any country in which U.S. citizens have not received adequate and effective compensation for outstanding claims against the government for confiscating property” (US Department of State). With this in mind, the U.S. only assists on making democratic institutions stronger, enforcing economic growth based on sustainability, and giving support to basic necessities programs such as healthcare.
The last elections that took place in November 2011 are regarded by the U.S. as a backward development regarding the ideal of democracy in Nicaragua but so far there are no initiatives to change something.
3. Select a country you did not write about in the first paper, and describe the current U.S. diplomatic approach to the country.
The current U.S. diplomatic approach to Afghanistan is one that is based on security and military strategy. To understand this relationship better, the recent past has to be included. After the Cold War, the U.S. did not need Afghanistan’s Taliban who were actually an ally at the time. However, after the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, the U.S. started a war in Afghanistan (Socialist Worker). Not long after, the war seemed contained because of U.S. victory. The efforts and actions of the U.S. seemed focused on creating a “broad-based, gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic and fully representative government” (Lyall, 2001).
However, the U.S. government still has problems of containing the Taliban. Containment is not easily achieved and ambitions have shifted. The U.S. wants to become less involved militarily in Afghanistan (Katzman, 2012). “Sustainability” is now the focus. Yet the heavy ballistic fighting as was happening at the end of 2001 is not happening. The U.S. is seriously considering withdrawing. Around 19 million dollars has been spent on aid in Afghanistan to build the country. The diplomatic relations were not only based on warfare but also on economic and social development of the country (Lyall, 2001). American assistance consisted of more than money; it provided training to police and other public servants. Despite the calming of tensions within Afghanistan, ongoing U.S.-NATO casualties gave much continued attention to U.S.-Afghan relations.
4. Contrast and compare the two relationships.
The U.S.-Nicaraguan relationship is a very weak one in the sense that there is little high-priority diplomatic and economic involvement. Partly because of American focus elsewhere, Nicaragua is not high on the agenda of the State Department. In contrast, there is a lot of attention, focus and resources going to the U.S.-Afghan relationship. The relationship has more attention in the press and of the government, including the priority the President gives to it.
What is interesting is that both Nicaragua and Afghanistan played critical roles in the history of the Cold War and despite the enormous number of dollars spent, the U.S. relations with both countries remain tenuous at best. In Nicaragua, the Contras were funded to battle communism, yet the communist Ortega is in power today. In Afghanistan, the U.S. funneled money to Taliban fighters to entangle the Soviet Union in an Afghan war, yet the Taliban are the U.S.’s primary enemy in Afghanistan today.
5. Using the two (2) countries as examples, summarize how the U.S. has changed the way it relates to other countries in the past 20 years.
The U.S. meddled more in the internal affairs of countries twenty years ago through covert military operations. The example of Nicaragua illustrates this best where the U.S. tried to influence the internal, civil war by giving military training and influence the elections by forging alliances with the opposition to create a certain desired outcome. This was done through large amount of funds and the developing of alliances with like-minded groups. However, the influence of the U.S. was not fundamentally visible. The subject focus of the U.S. regarding its relations twenty years ago was the concern and triumph of capitalism through every manner.
The way the U.S. relates to other countries is still by heavily involvement when it is passionate about the subject but in a different way than during the Cold War. More current and recent relationships of the U.S show that the U.S.has a greater focus on democracy and development as the way to preserve capitalism. Its resources are also more focused and utilized for that manner and in that context. The interference inside the countries is done through more ‘soft’ and more overt methods such as, for instance the training of police personnel.
References
Basketter, S. (2008). Afghanistan was a pawn in the Cold War between US and Russia. Socialist Worker Online. Issued 12 July 2008. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15430
Dominguez, J.I. (1999). U.S.-Latin American Relations During the Cold War and Its Aftermath. Working Paper Series 99-01, January 1999. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University. Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/612
Feinberg, R. (2011). Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua’s Soft Authoritarianism, The Story of the Sandinista Survivor. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/letters-from/daniel-ortega-and-nicaraguas-soft-authoritarianism
Katzman, K. (2012). Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service. February 6, 2012. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf
Klerlein, E. (2006). Environmental Effects of Nicaraguan Armed Conflicts. American University. December 14, 2006. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/nicaragua.htm
Lyall, J. (2011). Afghanistan’s Lost Decade, What Went Wrong Between the Two Bonn Conferences. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136787/jason-lyall/afghanistans-lost-decade <1 Robinson, L.S. (1987). Peace in Central America? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/42803/linda-s-robinson/peace-in-central-america US Department of State. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm
