The Cuban Missile Crisis Aftermath and Lessons Housekeeping •Last Response Today •Tomorrow’s Class. 8:00 U43 Negotiating the final agreement •Blockade Remains in Place •The agreement so far: • 1. The Soviets remove missile and offending weapons • 2. The US pledge not to attack Cuba • 3. Secret agreement to remove missiles from Turkey •Issues: • 1. What kind of guarantee for US pledge: UN-brokered treaty? • 2. What are offensive weapons? Bombers? Tactical Nuclear weapons? • 3. What kind of verification? On-site inspection? Fly-bys? Complications: Soviet Relations with Cuba •Castro is ANGRY • Not consulted on the issue: hears it from Radio announcement • Unsatisfied with results: no real guarantee • Mikoyan sent to placate them •Khrushchev consults • Bombers: Khrushchev agrees to remove them, Castro does not. US agrees to remove blockade, take Khrushchev’s word • Verification: U-2 flights, check cargo of outgoing ships • Tactical nuclear weapons: Khrushchev decides to remove them Khrushchev’s Post-Cuba situation •Still very powerful •Tries to put a good face on it • Argues he saved Cuba, which was his goal all along • Argues that US finally understood what it meant to have nuclear • threat breathing down their neck •Clearly his authority hurt • Military: Feel necessary to build up more weapons quickly • Hardline Party leaders: Feel Khrushchev weakened Soviet position relative • to China • China: Argue his move into Cuba was reckless, and his retreat weak • Kennedy’s Domestic Position •Greatly enhanced •Demonstrated his strength, restraint • • The Thaw •Both Khrushchev and Kennedy Change Foreign Policy After Cuba • Do not abandon ideological positions; competition • Do relax “bargaining from strength” ideology • Recognize need to avoid crises in future •Improve communications: Create the hotline •Khrushchev declares Berlin issue settled •John F. Kennedy’s Speech to American University Graduates in May, 1963 • John F. Kennedy’s Speech to American University President John F. Kennedy's "Peace Speech" The Test Ban Treaty •Goal: Comprehensive Test Ban • The Issue: Verification: US wanted 12, Soviet would accept 3 •The Achievement: The Partial Test Ban The End of the Thaw •Kennedy is assassinated, November 23, 1963 • Lyndon Baines Johnson: More interested in domestic politics • Relies heavily on Kennedy advisers • Distracted by Vietnam War •Khrushchev: Soviet Economy falters • Defense spending increases, moves for national liberation movements • Looks for more reforms in Soviet system that endangers elite • October 14, 1964: Khrushchev Removed • Cuban Missile Crisis mentioned, but not crucial • The Lessons Learned •Khrushchev and Kennedy don’t institutionalize the lessons they learned from Cuba • •More caution around nuclear weapons on both sides, but •THE UNITED STATES: The Lesson: Strength wins • “Eyeball to Eyeball, and the Other Side Blinked” • •THE SOVIET UNION: We will never be in a position of inequality again •More support for national liberation movements • QUESTION •If the United States and China get into a strategic crisis over the future of Taiwan, what lessons could Joe Biden and Xi Jinping learn from the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Does the fact that China did not participate in that crisis make a difference? Paragraphs •What do they do? •Take one concept in the argument, or perhaps one aspect of a concept, and develop it •Provide a visual signal regarding the organization of the paper Paragraphs •How should they constructed? •They should state clearly what idea will be developed in the paragraph and how it fits in the argument. •This usually comes in the form of a topic sentence with a transitional clause, but may have a transitional sentence and a topic sentence •They should be limited to that idea, to the extent possible. If you include more than one idea, then you defeat the purpose of signaling the organization of the argument •They should not be too long. If they get too long, think about splitting it in two paragraphs centered around different aspects of the same idea. •They should not use the last sentence to repeat the topic—if you keep it short that will not be necessary. •They should not use the last sentence to introduce the next idea. That should be in the topic sentence of the next paragraph. • Putnam Examples •The politics of many international negotiations can usefully be conceived as a two-level game. At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing coalitions among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments. Neither of the two games can be ignored by central decision-makers, so long as their countries remain interdependent, yet sov- ereign. •Each national political leader appears at both game boards. Across the international table sit his foreign counterparts, and at his elbows sit diplomats and other international advisors. Around the domestic table behind him sit party and parliamentary figures, spokespersons for domestic agencies, rep- resentatives of key interest groups, and the leader's own political advisors. The unusual complexity of this two-level game is that moves that are rational for a player at one board (such as raising energy prices, conceding territory, or limiting auto imports) may be impolitic for that same player at the other board. Nevertheless, there are powerful incentives for consistency between the two games. Players (and kibitzers) will tolerate some differences in rhetoric between the two games, but in the end either energy prices rise or they don’t. •The political complexities for the players in this two-level game are staggering • Example from Earlier Response •As for Khrushchev’s decision, I would ascribe the greater role to international politics, mainly because the USSR was facing a significant deficit in its nuclear capabilities compared to the USA. The USA was able to threaten their mainland, both their bombers and missiles placed in Turkey could reach there reliably. The Soviets, on the other hand, had only one option, ICBMs, but these were unreliable and inefficient. This disparity was in my view the most important, although by no means the only, factor in making the decision. •