Lecture eleven 1992-2000

So before the Christmas holidays we focused on the end of the Cold War, most specifically by looking at the role of Gorbachev in the opening up of the Soviet Union to potential reforms, seen through his two policies of glasnost and perestroika, which eventually brought about the total collapse of Soviet power in Eastern Europe and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991. At the same time we saw the retreat from Soviet foreign policy position (not only in Eastern Europe) but also in the third world as Gorbachev smoothed the way for the pull out of Soviet forces in Afghanistan and aiding the end of conflicts in Cambodia. It also saw the Soviets prepared to negotiate on arms reduction. Whilst this was going on we saw the increasingly relaxed policies of Reagan towards the Soviets, and the relatively cautious approach of George Bush senior who did not inflame the situation which could have been easily done as the Eastern bloc crumbled. The world that emerged from the end of the Cold War was very different to that which had gone before – no longer was there the simple bipolar power situation of the Cold War. The Soviet Union had disappeared and the Russia that emerged did not have the power to challenge the United States. This then was an age of US dominance but the two presidents here Bush and Clinton who were in power were unsure of what to do with their new found power. This meant the US and the world was finding its feet in the immediate post-war era, should the US look for new enemies to fight? What kind of a political system would emerge in the post-1991 world? How important was the UN to be in this world? These are all questions which the lecture will answer.

Ok so let’s have a look at the issues we will look at over the course of the lecture. Firstly we will look at the ‘new’ world that emerged after 1992 – what was so new about it, and what continued from what had gone before?

2) Then we will have a closer look at US foreign policy choices in the 1990s, specifically by focusing on the decisions made by George Bush the Senior and Bill Clinton (president from 1992-2000).

3) We will then take a closer look at Clinton’s policy regarding rogue states, states whose policies according to Clinton took them outside of appropriate actions defined by international law, including North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

4) We will then look at the thorny issue of Humanitarian intervention and how it was put into practice in the 1990s, with the successes and failures that went with it. Obviously this is still a pressing issue now with UN intervention in Libya in the last year.

We will then take a look at the changes in the ex-Soviet Union in the post-end of Cold War decade. These included a number of wars and ethnic revolts in the years post-1990, some including the one in Chechnya which destablised the new Russian republic.

We will then move on to a focus on US-Russian relations in the first post Cold War decade. How did the two former superpowers deal with each other in this new world?

7)We will then stay with the situation in Eastern Europe, and show how NATO didn’t fold in the wake of the end of the Cold War – but in fact strengthened and expanded.

As a case study of instability and state disintegration we will then look at the situation in Yugoslavia which brought the highest amount of bloodshed on the European continent since the end of the Second World War (term ethnic cleansing begins to be used regularly). Finally we will look at the situation in East Asia after the end of the Cold War, how would China and America relate in these new circumstances. I will then offer some conclusions.

In the years during and immediately after the end of the Cold War new opportunities emerged for the United States but at the same time difficulties sprung up. There was no doubt that the United States emerged from the end of the Cold War as the dominant world power but what was it to do with this new power.

1991 saw important moves in this ‘New World order’. First of all and most importantly – Soviet power had disappeared through the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new states that emerged in its place of it were considerably weaker in a number of ways, the primary cause of this were the economic problems that Russia and other successor states suffered in the first post-cold war decade (something we will look at later). Without Soviet Union’s pressure the US in theory had a free reign in the world, but what would be done with this newly dominant power position?

A second sign of the dominance of the US on the world stage was their victory in the Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The war, which lasted approximately six months was backed up by a UN resolution in November 1990 which allowed US and other forces to use ‘all means necessary’ to remove Saddam from the country. It was the first time since 1950 in Korea that the UN had approved military actions against an agressor country. The main difference here being the fact that then Soviet Union was working more or less in tandem with the United States at this point – they were thus prepared to support the removal of Saddam (China only abstained). We will see more of UN led actions later in this lecture. But the Iraq war and its victory showed that the US were the dominant force in world politics at this time.

Indeed in many ways the post- 1991 era seemed liked liberal democracy was winning around the world. First of all there was the fall of authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, this was the case even in countries such as Yugoslavia and Albania which had taken a more independent path from Moscow. 1990-1992 other authoritarian regimes were coming crashing down at the time. These included the right wing dictatorship in Chiles under August Pinochet and the coming to an end of Apartheid in South Africa. It seemed like liberal democracy was winning – and the phrase given to this was ‘The end of History’ after the title of Francis Fukuyama’s book of the same name from 1992.

With these seemingly positive changes (well for some) there were also issues with the post-1991 world. The end of the cold war meant the end of old reference points. It was difficult for the US to know what to do in the new reality, for so long the Cold War with its policies of containment and rollback had dominated US policy, without the Soviet Union to balance their position the US, and the world in general, had to think of other issues to worry about. Some questions which arose during this time for the US – should they be playing such an engaged role in world affairs or not? Should they push for arms control – all of these things needed to be discussed- new.

• Secondly the coming to power of new leaders such as Clinton – who defeated Bush in 1992 – had to deal with the absence of Cold War certainties – foreign policy was for these new leaders, in many ways, improvised and didn’t really follow a consistent plan.

• Thirdly the end of old stablity in the Eastern bloc was clear to see – the 1990s brought ethnic conflict in the former Soviet Union, and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. The structures of the Warsaw pact would formerly have prevented such instability, the mid-1990s saw a constantly changing picture in the former Eastern bloc. This could also be seen by the end of the Warsaw pact in 1991 and the move towards NATO of many countries in Eastern Europe – we will have a look at this more later.

• Despite the changes at the top of the first and second world – problems in the third world continued throughout this period. These included high levels of Latin American debt, which had been a special problem in the 1980s and high levels of povery in Africa. These issues did not go away with the end of the Cold War. In some respects it turned the world’s attention to them once more.

• There also continued to be stark political insecurity in many countries in the third world. These included failed states – states which were not able to deal with their own internal problems and descended into anarchy and trible wars. A good example of this was the situation in Somalia, which we will look at later in the lecture.

• So we can see there was a mixture of old and new in the post-1991 period. Still it was clear that it would take time for the world to get over the end of the Cold War.

• So now let’s look at the foreign policy choices of the two US presidents of the first post cold war decade. The two men who occupied the position of presidency were very different from each other. George Bush senior had a long history of involvement in internationa affairs. He had been the US ambassador to the UN in the early 1970s and in the mid 1970s had been the envoy to China. He focused most of his presidency (1988-1992) on foreign policy issues – the end of the Cold War, First Gulf War etc. Clinton on the other hand was elected due to this promises regarding the domestic economy and had very little experience of foreign policy. He was criticised for lacking a direction abroad, Clinton eventually took on a lot of the policies of Bush but in the end played a relatively active role in foreign policy (in some respects you could say he had to due to the US being the only real superpower in the 1990s).

• So let’s have a look at the two men’s policies

• Bush – Bush as explained before xmas was a naturally cautious and pragmatic leader, he often wanted to wait and see rather than react spontaneously to a given situation. This brought him considerable successes whilst sometimes led to criticism for his lack of aggressive approach.

• Scholars have discerned three major principles to Bush’s foreign policy between 1990-1992. Firstly he believed in a world of order. This meant the importance of international law, stability in international affairs, support of collective security and resistance to agression (this could be seen in the first gulf war).

• Secondly he believed in the spread of liberalism and democracy around the world. Liberalism was a tool for encouraging capitalism and democratic rights in former Eastern European communist countries and for justifying humanitarian intervention in countries which did not join up to the so-called new world order.

• Finally he believed in the opening of trade around the world, again this would strengthen the US hand in the new post-cold war world. Still difficult to develop concrete policies without the enemy that the Soviets had provided.

• In terms of his successes – the main ones can be seen in the calm and measured way he dealt with the reunification of Germany in 1990. He worked to allay the fears of the Soviet Union regarding the union of Germany and famously said he ‘would not dance on the wall.’ In addition success came to Bush in 1989 where US troops deposed General Noriega – drug-dealing embarrassment of a leader – successful operation, lack of casualities. Bush was also applauded for his decisive policies in the first gulf war agains Saddam Hussein (at the same time Hussein was not deposed which could have been done – causes problems later).

• At the same time there were major issues with Bush’s presidency. First among these was his lack of focus on domestic problems. The US had run up a massive deficit as a result of all the defence spending under Reagan – and Bush didn’t do enough to address the problems. Small depression in 1991-2 – didn’t explain to the public how his foreign policy initiatives were important. One final criticism would be the Bush administration’s support for humanitarian intervention in Somalia. Clinton took this on during his presidency – but Bush had ordered the Operation – its failure was partly thus down to him.

• So what about Clinton when he took power? As I said he had relatively little experience in the foreign policy field, confused policies at times. But he did get involved around the world.

• There were several major areas in which Clinton could deal with when he came to power. As I was saying before the US was looking for a new policy focus in the wake of the end of the cold war. One of the was to move against the international trade in narcotics, this war on drugs from the late 1980s attempted to intercept drugs as they came into the country from places such as Colombia in South America. The drugs war created conflict though in the Colombia – 1992 – Bush spending 10 billion a year on the war against drugs but cocaine use still grows in the US (not successful). Clinton continuse the war on drugs but by the end of the 1990’s realistion that this was not successful.

• Environment also offered a possible new focus for US policy – UN conferences on the environment from the early 1970s onwards – two clear enviromental hazards talked about by the end of the 1980s. Firstly the role of CFCs in making a hole in the ozone layer and secondly evidence regarding global warming. In 1992 massive Rio Earth summit, Biodiversity treaty (protection of animals and plants) and emission targets for greenhouse gases. Problems for the US, would not sign the biodiversity treaty and only reluctantly signed the emission targets. Clinton admin still not prepared to sign up to UN protocols later in the decade. Obviously these were not good focuses of US policy.

• Clinton however was more successful in defining policy around the idea of ‘enlarging democracy’ – idea to enlarge the parts of the world living under democracies – states such as Cuba, Iran and Iraq were considered ‘rogue states.’ Aim to liberalise states hostile to democracy.

• Free Trade – Clinton realised that the strength of the US economy was based on the strength of the world economy – US could not retreat from global involvmenet – intedependent world economy. Idea here was to reduce trade barriers – something I will deal with later.

• So how successful was the Clinton administration in its foreign policy – some notable successes can be seen, these include the Clinton admins support for a solution to the troubles in Northern Ireland – where his policies paved the way for the opening of a Northern Irish assembly. The intervention of the Clinton government in Haiti – Operation Uphold Democracy in 1994 – restored a democratically elected government. Clinton’s policies significantly reduced debt in the United States itself – successful economy.

• Clinton focused most on the economy and it was here where he achieved most success – his aim to reduce trade barriers, the World Trade Organisation replaced GATT in 1994 and Clinton put pressure on WTO to further reduce trade barriers.

• Clinton also supported trade initiatives in North American and the Asia-Pacific region – Bush has created NAFTA – the North Atlantic Free Trade Area in 1992 with Canada and Mexico but Clinton continued to support it – this created a trading zone of 350 million people (although there wasn’t free movement of people).

• Secondly Clinton supported the Asian Pacific Economic Co-operation Group (Apec) – Already existed before he came to office – countries around the pacific rim – Clinton tries to strengthen it – idea of creating a free trading zone by 2010 – problems regarding liberalisation – clashes between countries over policies.

• Anyway as you see a mixed bag of policies from the US in the 1990s – which direction should the US take?

• So we have seen the slightly confused US policy in the years after 1990. Let’s look a bit more closely at several ways the US changed direction in the period after 1990. As the sole great power in the world it could do things that were not possible before the end of the cold War.

• One way that Clinton did this was through his policy of rogue states – this was linked to the already mentioned policy of democratic enlargement. Clinton planned to isolate those states whose ideologies or support for terrorism made it impossible to deal with them on a normal basis. Clinton’s NSA Lake wrote in 1994 – attempt to make these states responsible members of the international community.

• This policy sounded good but what did it mean in practice (full of contradictions). For example China was and is renowned for its human rights abuses – but the US administration then and now has courted them due to their importance for trade. Often aimed at small states that could not defend themselves, weak. In truth the term of rogue states was used by the Clinton administration as it was a way for to mobilise the US people in support of an activist foreign policy. It was easy to get support for actions against states which harboured terrorists or were building (or threatening to build) weapons of mass destruction. Worries that it could turn into an anti-muslim policy due to the large numbers of islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

• Let’s have a look at some examples of this rogue state policy – firstly we can look at Libya and Sudan. Both of these states were accused od supporting terrorists. Libya under Gaddafi would not give up suspects which were suspected of bombing of a US flight over Scotland in 1988, UN sanctions against Libya from 1992 onwards.

• In Sudan – civil war between Muslim and Christian tribes in the country. Al quaeda and Osama Bin Laden had for a time made Sudan its home. Economic sanctions against Sudan in 1997, 1998 bomb attacks on US embassies.

• In the middle East the US rogue state policy focused mostly on Iraq and Iran and ended up being a policy of ‘double containment’ – The Iraw war meant that both Iraq and Iran represented a threat to stability in the region. In the 1980s the two powers had fought against each other in an eight year war. In the 1990s both powers continued to mistrust each other – US plays the two off each other – could have had negative effects – but US prepared to take the risk. Saddam at times refuses to let UN inspectors in (accepted after the first gulf war) 1995 – trade embargo on Iraq from the US. US also try to work with Iranian presidents who in the mid 1990s were looking to modernise and liberalise slightly. US also wanted Iran as an ally against Iraq in the region – but still criticises Iranian support of terrorism – mass destruction weapon build up.

• Finally in terms of Comm survivors the US – Cuba had lost its only ally in the Western Hemisphere when the Soviet Union fell, Castro turns to limited free market reforms (tourism allowed etc), US continue to deal toughly with Cuba – no diplomatic relations since 1963. Economic warfare against the Cubans- opressive regime. 1996 – Helms Burton Act – prosecution of foreign owned businesses which traded with Cuba. Policy backfires in some ways – states have sympathy for Cuba – cold war politics after the cold war?

• And finally let’s have a look at North Korea – issues continue after the Korean war in 1953 (armistice but no peace). Worries about North Korea aiming to build a nuclear weapon to secure their position as the cold War comes to a close. North Korea agrees in 1991 to sign the NPT, but in 1993 starts to block nuclear weapons inspectors on its soil – crisis between US and NK in 1994 – Kim Il Sung dies – US promise aid to Kim Jong Il but slow to keep his promises. Discussions between North and South Korea from 1997 onwards but many issues still remain (to this day).

• So the rogue state policy successful but also incomplete and full of contradictions

• Ok so now let’s look at the controversial issue of humanitarian intervention. A term which was first properly used in the 1990s. Human rights in the 1990s was one way in which Western governments were moved to action by their media and public opinion. It seemed like a way to realise promises of order and stability (the new world order) of Bush.

• Media and public opinion throughout the 1990s showed pictures of starving children or of those killed by ethnic cleansing – produced an important incentive to intervene

• Discussions about intervention were not new – examples of mass murder in the twentieth century – argument that governments should intervene before these events occurred. Holocause discussion for example.

• However the issues of humanitarian intervention brings up many dilemmas – difficult to define what scale of abuse deserves action.

• Also the decision to intervene a complex mix of…as how do you decide when to intervene, how does it correlate with international law and statues? And does it not intervene with the sovereignty of the nation in which you intervene?

• Also who defines rights? In many countries rights are a highly western concept – different cultural norms in different countries – some argue that this was just an excuse for the West to carry out neo-imperialist policies in certain countries – did it just allow Western countries to continue with high military spending? Many different dilemmas.

• So let’s have a look at a number of key cases. First of all as briefly explained earlier the Bush administration agreed to intervene in Somalia. There was virtual anarchy in the country in 1991-1992 and images of starving Somalians reached US screens. This put pressure on the US to intevene. Operation Restore Hope. December 1992 US deploy 20,000 troops to provide famine relief in Somalia. US forces extend work to disarm local militias – by mid 1993 things had begun to go badly wrong for the Americans. By March 1994 Us troops had pulled out of Somalia – had not achieved its aim.

• In Haiti – the US intevened in 1994 to reimpose a legally elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide. Economic blockade announced in 1993 – possibilities of humanitarian disaster – US intervenes with UN resolution – Aristide put back in power. Another crucial case was in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo was part of Serbia but was 90% ethnically Albanian by 1989 – Slobodan Milosevic in 1989 took away its status as an automonous region. Fighting erupts in 1998, Serb atrocities against ethnic Albanians – thousands of refugees created – NATO plans airstrikes (didn’t want another Bosnia). Attempts at talks between the two sides (serbs and Kosovans). Nato prepares airstrikes and carries them out between March and June 1999 – Serbian armed forces leave in June 1999. 10,000 lives lost – but considered to be a success for humanitarian intervention.

• There were however serious failures not to intervene or of delaying intervention – In Rwanda in 1994 500,000 people were killed in acts of ethnic cleansing between two ethnic groups. The international community did little to stop the murders – US not prepared to go in due to the failuire of the Somalian mission. Heavily criticised. In Bosnia there were delayed and slow reactions to ethnic cleansing carried out by ethnic serbs in the country as paert of the Bosnian civil war between 1992-5. The UN was not able to prevent widespread ethnic cleansing – most famously in the town of Srebrenica – it tool NATo and the US to set up peace accords.

• We can thus see that humanitarian intevention has a chequered history.

• Let’s not take a closer look at the situation in the first post-cold war decade regarding the former Soviet Union. As we saw before Christmas December 1991 brought the end of the Soviet Union and its break up into a host of new republics in Eastern Europe, the Caucusus and Central Asia. The end of the Soviet Union brought about a good amount of conflict amongst and between the new states which emerged in the post-Soviet zone. This created a lot of insecurity in the region, factors which did not exist the economies of post-Soviet states which were suffering from dislocation anyway as a result of the imposition of market economies.

• These wars of succession can be broken down into three different categories – see above

• Border claims – the most obvious of conflicts over borders in this new post-Soviet Zone was between – see above – over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1992-3. The region was mostly christian and Armenian but had been put under Azeri rule in 1923 by Lenin. Fighting broke out in 1992 and Armenian forces occupied the territory – Azeris have since then refused to accept its loss.

• Secondly civil wars – Tajikistan civil war between 1992-7 between rival groups in the country – causes the deaths of approximately 50,000 people.

• Ethnic revolts – Georgia was handicapped by an ethnic revolt in the region of Abkhazia in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. July 1992 Abkazia declared independence - Georgians send troops in – but Russia supports the rebels. 1994 – Georgia basically has to accept Abkazy independence. Continued violence.

• Russia itself was not spared from instability in the aftermath of 1991 – Russia was weakened in the initial period post 1991 by chronic economic instability as it attempted to adapt to a market economy, it was also hit by the rise of nationalism as the extreme nationalist Vladmir Zhirinovsky won 23% of the votes in 1993 and in 1995 the Communists won with 22% of the votes. Democracy uncertain – this can be seen in Yeltsin’s decision to send tanks against parliamentary deputies in October 1993, causing the deaths of over 100 deputies when they wouldn’t disband parliament.

• Wars in and over Chechnya however meant that Russia was in danger of breaking up itself – Checnya was 58% Chechen in 1991 and declared its independence in November 1991, some Muslim states recognised it. Not until 1994 did Yeltsin take action in the region, economic blockade in the meantime and military manouvres on the border. Civil war 1994 – Russia invades – took the Russians two months to subdue Chechnya. Guerilla warfare in Chechnya in 1995-6 – Russia loses 50,000 soldiers. Ceasefire August 1996. Continued tension, bomb attacks by Chechens in Russia – August and September. 1999 Vladimir Putin prime minister – decides on strong arm tactics against Chechnya – defend the republic, and oppose nationalists and communists. Ruthless campaign – Putin seen as a powerful leader. Putin uses this to win presidential elections in 2000.

• So let’s have a quick look at US-Soviet relations in the 1990s. How would relations between the US and its former superpower rival pan out? Firstly we need to say how in the early period Bush, after being initially wary of Gorbachev moved over to support and back up G as his position began to weaken by 1990-1991. Bush and Gorbachev were able to agree to Start I in July 1991 where nuclear missile numbers were reduced by a third.

• What was the us attitude in the wake of the end of the Soviet Union?

• First of all it sought to maintain its position as the sole superpower in the world

• Secondly it sought to push for the continued reduction of nuclear arsenals in the former USSR – The US was especially worried about the possession of Soviet successor states of nuclear capacity – Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine all inherited some nuclear weapons – by early 1994 all three states had agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. Bush and his successor Clinton also pushed for further nuclear arms deals between US/Russia.

• Thirdly the US believed that they should engage the new Russia – they could be an ally in integration of other new democracies and it also meant the US could attempt to expan NATO withouth as much Russian resistance – we will have a look at this later. Clinton felt there was no point in antagonising Russia – so a calm, measured policy adopted with them – possibility of a new cold war?

• Russian policy under Yeltsin – (1991-9) – Three crucial policies for Yeltsin – firstly to maintain geopolitical control over the USSR

• Secondly to defend Russian national interests – this can be seen in the war in Abkhazia, Chechnya and opposition to UN/NATO intervention in Bosnia

• In addition he sought to continue to work with the United States – us help was especially important as Russia’s economy was in dire straits throughout the 1990s, debts, poverty, high inflation etc

• Generally a positive working relationship despite some issues – Agreements included the Open Skies Treaty – something we talked about in previus weeks – certain amount of flights accepted over each others territories (Eisenhower – in the 1950s). NATO states and the former Warsaw Pact – long drawn out ratification – but still a start

• Start II – Clinton – Yeltsin – strategic arsenals to be cut by 2/3 – very important move

• NPT – 1996 – Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – Clinton and Yeltsin worried about the spread of nuclear weapons to other power – All nuclear testing banned. This didn’t stop India and Pakistan testing in 1998.

• Still some success on US_Russian relations in general

• Remarkable features of the post-cold war world was the survival of NATO. Created 1949 to oppose Soviet Influence in Europe. By 1992 it’s Raison d’etre seemed to have disappeared. However NATO thrived in the new atmosphere surprisingly.

• Idea of ‘New Atlanticism’ 1989 – adapt to the challenges of a post-cold-war world – summit meeting July 1990 – less nuclear arms, less of a forward defensive position, links made with former enemies – Warsaw Pact countries. So NATO was to be preserved.

• Role in peacekeeping in Kosovo and Chechnya.

• America believed that expansion would stablise the democracies of countries in the former Eastern bloc and would also strengthen American power in the region.

• States from the region themselves were very keen to join NATO, even countries which used to be a part of the Soviet Union.

• This situation caused some tension with Russia – especially regarding the Baltic countries – on its borders – the West had to thus steer a delicate course – appeasing Russia and thr Eastern European countries.

• Moves towards expansion were on the whole relatively quick – run through the different dates –

• 1994 – Allowed ex-Warsaw pact countries to enter into military co-operation agreements with nato – not full membership

• Clinton’s second term – expansion very important – founding act – where the US and Russia discussed security issues – July 1997 – East European countries invited –

• Enemies had joined the opposition

• Ok so we’re going to have a quick look at the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The wars that broke out were ones which brought the most bloodshed that Europe had seen since the end of the Second World War, acts of ethnic cleansing and thousands of refugees.

• Yugoslavia had been formed in 1919 – with a mixture of different national groups, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes

• The region had seen ethnic cleansing during the Second world war – Croatians and Serbs ethnically cleanse each other.

• Multi ethnic state established under Tito post-war – rise of nationalism after his death in 1980

• After 1991 – go through information on the sheet

• The breakup of the country was however an extremely violent process – led by Nationalist demagogues such as Milosevic in Serbia and Tudjman in Croatia

• Resurfacing of nationalism which had seemingly been buried during the Tito period. After the initial declaration of independence - - forced out – forced to accept Slovenian and Croatian independence.

• Ethnic cleansing of minorities reared its head during the conflicts…

• Fighting breaks out in Bosnia-Herzegovina Muslims, Serbs and Croats in 1992

•  Bosnian serbs helped by Serbs in Serbia – close the airport, blockade Sarajevo. Bosnian serbs bring about many Massacres and hundreds of thousands of refugees created.

•  June 1992 UN security council sends peacekeepers to Sarajevo – but UN forces don’t have a mandate to stop ethnic cleansing of civilians by militias and Serb army

•  Humanitarian aid to Bosnia – Safe areas, a no-fly zone introduced by NATO in 1994

•  Bosnian serbs bombed if they entered safe areas, economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro

•  UN peacekeepers, EU and NATO eventually work together to keep the peace

• Slow reaction to the matter at hand – could they have saved more lives – atrocities such as srebrenica could have been prevented?

• Finally let’s have a look at the situation in East Asia

• Changes in East Asia as a result of the end of the Cold War – Soviets had already retreated from Afgh and Cambodia – this created the conditions for a détente between Russia and China – normal relations resumed between the two countries - - 1997 the long running border dispute ends

• The crackdown of Chinese dissidents in Tiananmen square – brought much criticism from the West in 1989 – but China too strong an economic partner to ignore them – Clinton emphasises trade with China – He visits the country in 1998

• The height of all this is China joining the WTO in 2001.

• China in the 1990s starts to attain the great power status that it has now – many predicted the fall of communism after 1989 – this didn’t happen – Deng Xiaoping – modernisation- special economic zones – greater economic growth.

• In 1997 the economic power house of Hong Kong returned to China – assertiveness regarding Taiwan but at the same time the two countries able to sit at international organisations together – normalisation in general of relations with China.