TOWARDS GLOBAL CONFLICT: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS RELATION IN KOREAN WAR OF 1950 – 1953.
Chukwu C. James
Department of History
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
Abstract
This work focused on United State of America and Soviet Union relations how the relationship lead to ideological war popularly known as the Cold War, which almost lead to a global conflict and how this war affected Korea. The era saw the advent of the most destructive instruments in the annals of human’s development – the Atomic Bomb and the Ballistic Missiles. The presence of these instruments in the midst of humanity, gave rational beings something to worry about. During this period, international peace was exposed to the danger of being violated. More worrisome but engaging is this notion has continued to survive in many accounts of the era. Obviously, the role of Cold War in perpetuating conflict or enhancing peace in the international political system needs to be re-examined. This paper, therefore, re-examines, the impact of the Cold War on international peace, with place like Korea as area of concentration. Measures taken by the lead actors – the United States and the Soviet Union respectively, and how the two super powers explore the era in order to protect their national and vital interest. The paper finds out that the influence of the United States and Soviet Union over Korea violated international peace and polarised the international system. The paper thus argues that the entire world populace must have a sense of commitment to the international system. This is attainable only when the international political apparatus is organised and managed in such a way that it will reflect the people’s yearnings. To realise this, we need a competent and dynamic world body which will be capable of interpreting what constitutes the overall human interests into common interest. The paper is historical: hence, it adopts a qualitative method of analysis. Useful pieces of information were obtained from important relevant documents, and array of secondary sources.
Key Words: Towards Global Conflict, United States, Soviet Union, Relations, Korean War.
Introduction
The causes of the Korean War (1950-1953) can be examined in two categories, ideological and political. Ideologically, the communist side, including the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea, desired to secure the Korean peninsula and incorporate it in a communist bloc.[1] Politically, the Soviet Union considered the Korean peninsula in the light of Poland in Eastern Europe—as a springboard to attack Russia—and asserted that the Korean government should be “loyal” to the Soviet Union. Because of this policy and strategic posture, the Soviet military government in North Korea (1945-48) rejected any idea of establishing one Korean government under the guidance of the United Nations. The two Korean governments, instead of one, were thus established, one in South Korea under the blessing of the United Nations and the other in the north under the direction of the Soviet Union. Observing this Soviet posture on the Korean peninsula, North Korean leader Kim Il-sung asked for Soviet support to arm North Korean forces and Stalin fully supported Kim and secured newly-born Communist China’s support for the cause. Judging that it needed a buffer zone against the West and Soviet aid for nation building, the Chinese government readily accepted a role to aid North Korea, specifically, in case of full American intervention in the projected war.
The World War II, ended with the emergence of two opposing ideological blocs in international system led by the United States of America on one hand and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) on the other hand.[2] The prestige acquired by the United States and USSR during World War II is certainly not in doubt, however, the unexpected expansion of the Cold War in Asia after 1949 surprised both sides.[3] The Cold War, a brain-child of the Second World War originated from the war-time illusions of the Western Statesmen.[4] These actors notably, Winston Churchill Prime Minister of Britain and President Truman of United States of America anticipated a post war co-operation of Soviet Union, but the post war development disillusioned them.[5] This is aptly stated by Fleming D., The Cold War, originated in the chagrin of Western leaders, notably Churchill and Truma, over Soviet control of Central and Eastern Europe after World War II.[6]
The Second World War ended in a most spectacular way – the emergence of the two super-powers and the birth of the atomic bomb. This destructive instrument was used by the United States to end the war with Japan. Britain having secretly possess the atomic bomb, took steps to conceal it from Soviet Union and other actors of international political system. In his iron curtain speech on May 3, 1946, Winston Churchill of Britain said:
It would nevertheless be wrong and impudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which United States, Britain and Canada now shares, to the World Organisation, while it is in its infancy. It would be crimibal madness to cast it adrift in this agitated and unirated world. No one in any country has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the materials to supply it, are at present retained in American hands. I do not believe, we should all have slept so soundly, had the position be reversed, and if some communist or neo-fascist state monopolised for the time being these dresded agencies.[7]
The monopoly of the atomic bomb by the West and the war time strategy of the western allies nations whereby they delayed the opening of the second front for lack of sufficient barges for such enormous undertaking and which the Soviet’s interpreted as a “delibrate attempt by the World’s two leading capitalist powers to destroy both of their two major ideological opponents one and the same time”,[8] naturally led to mutual suspicion of Western powers by the Soviet Union. She saw her Western allies, war time delay in opening the second front as a calculated attempt by the West to expose the Red Army to massive onslaught of the Nazi’s. during the war-time and post war-time peace conferences, the allied powers laid down modalities for post war settlement. Hence the end of the World War II, heralded the division of Europe between the victor powers – Britain, America, Soviet Union and France.
The Cold War has been boiling between Western and Eastern bloc nations since 1949, with brief diplomatic rapprochement until 1975. The years in between were tension – ridden. Mankind lived under the perpetual fear of nuclear holocaust, with every stage of the Cold War, the world stood like a statue waiting for Armageddon to come. The question uppermost in men’s mind was, when will the Third World War occur? What nature will it take, and probably who will trigger it off. By 1970, following the imperative imposition of détente on international system, it became obvious that World War, the third in the history of mankind, is not likely to occur, because of this, some analysis argued that the Cold War did not violate international peace. Our concern here is to know what roles the United States of America and Soviet Union played in Korea during the Cold War era in aggravating the global tension on one hand and at the other, the influence their relations in embracing the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.
The Soviet violation of the allies post war peace treaties at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, her outright blockade of her portion of Berlin from the West, the communist expansionism in East Europe, and the Soviet’s frustration of free election in Eastern Europe alarmed the Western leaders. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, Sir Winston Churchill warned, an iron curtain has descended across the continent”. [9]
The Cold War had had meaningful impact on international peace. These can be seen in the areas of the preservation of international Peace, it violation, the introduction of arms race, its escalation and imposition of highly destructive weapons on international system, the permanent division of the world into bellicose camps and the evolution of neutralist feelings among peace loving people.
The paper is divided into five parts. The first part is introduction. The second section deals with the theoretical framework on which the work stands and draws it analysis. This is followed by the analysis of The Impact of Korea War on International System. The penultimate section is an analysis of the aftermath of the Cold War skirmishes over Korea. The last part is the conclusion. To this end, this work is set to analyse the impact of the Cold War on the Korea crisis and its influence on international peace between the periods of study.
Theoretical Framwork
Cold War is a research field that poses serious problem of choice in adopting a theoretical framework for its analysis. This is because of the abundance of contending frameworks. There are System Theory, Mutual Aid Theory, Conflict Resolution, Centre Periphery, Marxist and Game Theory. These theories can equally provide a perfect theoretical mould for the analysis of the war of nerves between United States of America and Soviet Union Relations on international peace. This paper adopts Game Theory out of the lot as it’s tool of analysis because, it seems to be most relevant to the topic under investigation. Though not without blemish, the game theory, has universal applicability to international political system. In this work, actors of the Cold War are liken to players of various kinds of “parlour games” – drought, chess, chicken, poker, scramble or bridge games. The games are prone to conflict decision – making and co-operation.
Game theory is a mathematical discipline, that is designed to deal with the question of optimun behaviour of participants in games of strategy and to determine the resulting equilibrium. In game theory, each participant endeavour to maximaze their advantage in situations where the outcome depends on their actions, and the nature. The interests of participants in the game theory, are often opposed and sometimes parallel, to one another. In other words, conflicting interest and possible co-operation among participants are likely to be there. There is also mutual suspicion among participants because, some of them can forecast with certainty the next action of others.
Games are described by specifying possible behavour within the rules of the game. In a game, the rules are given by physical and legal environment within which an individual’s actions may take place. In the game of international politics, actors are regarded as being rational beings, who has definite objectives and having at their disposal, some resources with which to confront their opponents in conflicts. The actors are expected to act rationally. Game involves moves and countermoves, which tends to explain the unfolding of the moves, the states of information of the players, and the alternative choices available to each actor at each encounter. Each actor unaware of the opponent’s choices, choose a single number that identifies a strategy from sets of strategies allowing for all contingencies.
In game theory, the player is also expected to have perfect knowledge of the strategies open to him in pursuit of his aims. The players should also be able to design a strategy that covers all contingencies and ensure minimum risks and maximum – pay-off. In all games, there are outcomes – the pay-off. It is the relationship between player and the price of objective, they aim at – a win, a loss, or draw. In game theory, theorists are interested in analysing the strategies that will enable the players to maximise their outcomes, and the prospect being usually small in range, requires careful study of the alternative course of action. The rules of the game is simply the distribution of resources and the employment of these resources. In Cold War, players, are expected to know that nuclear missiles are not to be used – they are not part of the rules of international game.
Alliances are often formed in international politics. In game theory context, alliances means, m the combination of resources for the best advantage of the players. This is an indication that the players are many. Consequently, those who have common objectives, pool their resources together to enable them achieve their objective. This co-operation among actors is known as the variable – sum game which assumes that two or more parties can gain more individually by co-opereting, especially in the long run, for according to Isaak:
Rather than arguing over existing economic pie, it is more satisfying to co-operate and create more pies, for every one by means that individual parties would not have available, if they merely worked on their own.[10]
Conversely, the Zero-sum game – a pure conflict game or situation assumes that “Whatever one party gains, the other party necessarily losses and that co-operation is, therefore, irrational”.[11] A more appropiate model in international relations, is the multiparty non zero-sum game; for, as Zawodny reminds us, “We must recognise that some types of international conflict today can be resolved only by situations in which neither side losses and in which sometime both sides may win”.[12]
The Impact of Korean War on International System
The spread of the Cold War to Asia meant it had become global rather than primarily European. The confrontation between the East and West took off in Korea which could be said to be one of the most dangerous dispute ever experienced in the human history, due to its impacts, which was more perilous and feverish than its predecessors – the Napoleonic Wars, and the First and Second World Wars. The reasons was that, the instruments of war by the time of Korea Crises had became too dangerous and destructive, the employment of which will entail an automatic annihilation of all living things on this planet. The Korea War was the first conflict that involved the mega powers of international system after the advent of the Atomic Bomb, and whose spread could have enveloped the world in an age in which the Atomic Bomb had replaced gun powder, automatic rifles, jet bombers, and armoured tanks as instruments of war.
The Korea problem stemmed from the post World War second peace arrangements. After the defeat of Japan, Korea was occupied by American and Soviet forces who were to control the country until a single Korean government could be established. Thereby marking the end of Japan’s forty years of occupation of the region, which saw the Cold War developed the dividing line between Russians and America in 1945; along the 38th parallel of latitute hardened into a frontier between communist North Korea and the Republic of South Korea with its elected government. By 1949 both America and Russian occupying armies had withdrawn, but the United Nation General Assembly was unable to unite the divided country, in 1950, the communist North Korea decided to unite it by force and on June 25th, 1950, their armies crossed the frontier.[13] South Korea was very weak with a poor army and few economic resources and the invaders made rapid head way.
According to Duffy, “The United States promptly appealed to the United Nations against this act of war and the security council denounced the North Korean as aggressors and called on the United States and other volunteers nations to repel the attack.”[14]The cause of North Korea offensive was controversal. North Korea was blamed by some for triggering off the Korean War. Others disagreed, they, especially Fleming, D., held America responsible, for accordiing to him:
The assumption is nearly universal in this country that Stalin pushed the button for the North Korea attack on South Korea. After searching for twenty years. I have never found any evidience that this was true, but it is a matter of record that early in 1949, our government laid down a defense perimeter in the pacific, that did not include Korea, or Pormosa for their ambitions unless something drastic was done. In South Korea, Syngman Rhee was in dire political trouble and he had been threatening for a long time to unify Korea by marching North. That he did so, provoking the North Korea invasion, is one of the strongest probabilities, especially since Chiang Kai – Shek on Formosa also had been left out of the Defense perimeter and had no future unless something drastic happen to change Washington’s policy.[15]
Fleming expatiated further by substantiating his former claim:
This event for which eventually, the North Koreans had been well prepared by the Russians, forced the almost lightened decision by President Truman and his advisers change their whole policy in East Asia, mobilise the United Nations, and make the Cold War truly global – certainly the conduct of Kremlin in the crisis, especially it strange failure to return from boycotting the United Nations Security Council in time to veto United Nations support of the United States indicates that Moscow was caught flat footed by the outbreak of the war. [16]
Fighting intensified with the intervention of the United Nations Peace Keeping Force. After early setbacks, the United Nations forces conquered the whole of South Korea, thereby forcing the North Koreans to withdraw behind the 38th parallel, Geoffrey Hudson, posited that:
General Douglas Mac Arthur, appointed to command the United Nations as well as American Forces in Korea repeated the amphibious strategy he had used so effectively in the War against Japan, he took the North Korean in the rear by a landing at Ichon on the West coast and decisively defeated them.[17]
Had the United Nations troops limited their exploits to more restoration of the status quo by stopping at the 38th parallel, the Korea War could not have gotten out of proportion. But propelled by his exploits, and lust for the unification of the whole country, Mac Arthur extended the fight beyond the 38th parallel and launched his forces as far as Yalu River. This aggravated the situation; for this development can never occur without grave consequences, which Hudson argued that:
With American and allied European troops on their way to the Yalu, a Soviet military intervention could only have meant direct hostilities between the two power blocs and a World War in which both sides would now be in possession of nuclear weapons.[18]
The above danger was adverted because the Soviets for no clear reason chose rather to recoil. The communist intervention came from the most unexpected angle – the Chinese dragon. The intervention of the Chinese changed the course of Korean War. The Red dragon struck back on the advancing United Nations troops and forced them back across the 38th parallel, and in the rugged mountainous conditions, an uneasy stalemate developed. “Mac Arthur, infuriated by this setback at the hands of the Chinese, wanted to break the stalemate by bombing targets inside China itself, but a Soviet threat of intervention seemed to have deterred American threat to retaliate by bombarding Chinese territory”.[19]
Wart created a mental picture of the whole affair,
If the Russians made no public intimation that they were prepared to become openly involved in the war…there was always the nagging fear among the Western democracies that if the conflict were allowed to spread to Chinese soil, the Soviet government would intervene and Korea would become after all the Sarajevo of World War III.[20]
In other to prevent the action which might have started the dreaded World War III, President Truman dismissed General Mac Arthur from his post. Meanwhile, the fighting went on, until peace talks began, it was two years before an armistice was signed on July 27, 1953. An armistice, Hudson said, was not peace; therefore, there was need for formal treaty to end the Korean War that was the aim of 1954, Geneva Peace Conference. The conference fall short of achieving the avowed objective for in the words of Hudson:
The Korean phase of the conference ended in complete deadlock, no peace treaty was signed; the war was not renewed, but it remained suspended merely by the armistice agreements, with two halves of Korea still separated and the armies which fought each other for three years still confronting each other from fortified lines across a deserted demilitarised zones.[21]
The Korea debacle had a far reaching impact on international system. This is because; Korea remained a punching bag for the propagation of Cold War objectives. Again, it kept the world on the brick of an all – out war and the battle line permanently drawn along the 38th parallel. Strauss, concurred with this projection, for he observed that “The armed conflict in Korea ended with its original cause –the country’s division – being revived”.[22] However, after Korea, American strategy in South East – Asia and the pacific, was based on a very simple theory. The non – communist countries of the area, with their valuable resources of population and new materials, were dominoes, standing on edge. If one domino was to fall, pushed over by communist aggression, the rest would fall as well pushed over in sequence by a chain reaction of collapse. At all cost, the dominoes had to be protected. This is the domino theory, which the America adopted.
The Aftermath of the Cold War Skirmishes over Korea
Having examined the issues at stake in Korea during the Cold War, it will be worthy to outline its lasting influences on international peace. The Cold War affected international peace, so much, that it balkanised the world against itself.[23] Korea was divided into separate zones. It was divided permanently along the 38th parallel, the communist occupying the Northern zone and the capitalist, the Southern zone, respectively.
Another significance of the Cold War in relation to Korea was the violation of international peace. In Korea, the mega – powers found them exchanging blows and total war was only avoided by the Soviet boycott of the United Nations Security Council.
The greatest impact of these skirmishes was the preservation of international peace. Men invented the instrument for exterminating one another, but the fear of the aftermath of their usage was so great that none is eager to precipitate the action that will lead to their usage. Thus international peace was preserved.
Conclusion
This paper has tried to examine the actual influnces of the psycho-ideological struggle between the Eastern and Western bloc-nations on international peace, and also find out the extent the brain-child of Second World War (Cold War) had encroached on the peaceful coexistence of actors in international political system.[24]
The game theory helped so much in dispelling the mist that beclouded the Cold War and my understanding of its obvious impacts on international peace.[25] During the course of this research, the analysis showed that the protagonists of the Cold War, behaved in a typical player’s manner. There were moves and counter moves, during the Korea War, and worthy of note is that, through out the Cold War, the actors resolts to negotiation when their strategies, moves and counter moves were exhusted in Korea war.
This paper concerned with investigative analysis of the Korea War and activities of United States of America and Soviet Union on international peace. After what is pass for exclusive analysis, the work concluded, from the findings, that the Cold War in Korea violated international peace which almost lead to World War III and polarised the international system.
Paradoxically, the Cold War which gave birth to the nuclear arms race preserved international peace because the destructiveness of nuclear equipment – to be precise, prevent global war, knowing that it usage will herald the extermination of all lives on earth including the deployer of such dreaded instrument this was shared by Essan Gala, “It is considered likely by many that the system of security which is inherent in the strategic relationship between the superpowers based as it is on a balance of terror, has discouraged them for over three decades from initiating military conflicts directly with each other. It is also assumed that it has prevented regional conflicts in which either side might be involved to escalate to lobal conflict”.[26]
The paper finds out that the Korea War violated international peace and polarised the international system. The paper thus argues that the entire world populace must have a sense of commitment to the international system. This is attainable only when the international political apparatus is organised and managed in such a way that it will reflect the people’s yearnings. To realise this, we need a competent and dynamic world body which will be capable of interpreting what constitutes the overall human interests into common interest.
[1]Ohn Chang-Il, “The Causes of the Korean War 1950-1953”, International Journal of Korean Studie,Korea Military Academy, 16(2) 19.
[2]J. C. Chukwu, “War of Nerves between United States of America abd Soviet Union Relations on International Peace 1949-1975 “Nigerian Journal of Arts and Humanities (NJAH) 1(1) 2021, 774.
[3]J. C. Chukwu, “Contentions in Sino-Soviet Relations 1959-1973” Interdisciplinary Journal of African & Asian Studies, 7(2) 2021, 176.
[4] J. C. Chukwu, “Awakening the Sleeping Giant: The Influence of the Cold War over China on International System 1949 – 1962”, International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research Studies, 2(2) 2022, 475.
[5] J. C. Chukwu, “The Cold War and Bipolarisation of International System”, Scientific Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Science, 2(2) 2022, 24.
[6] S. Denna Fleming, The Issues of Survival, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1972. 1
[7] Churchill Winston, “Iron Curtain Speech” at Fulton, Missouri, March 5th, 1946.
[8] Spanier,American Foreign Policy…16
[9] John W. Spanier, American Foreign Policy Since World War II, London: Pall Mall Press Ltd., 1962, 24
[10]Isaak, Individuals and World Politics,…186.
[11] Isaak Individuals and World Politics,… 186
[12] J. K. Zawodny, “Man and International Relations” in Palmer N. D., and Perkins H. C.,International Relations: The World Community in Transition, 3rd Ed, Delhi: Krishan Nagar, 2004, xx.
[13] Chang-Il, “The Causes of the Korean War… 21
[14] M. N. Duffy, The 20th Century, Second edition, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1983, 213.
[15] Fleming, The Issues of Survival,… 56
[16]Fleming, The Issues of Survival,… 56 – 57.
[17] Geoffrey Hudson, “The Rise of Communist Power in the Far East” in Luard (ed), The Cold War: A Reappraisal, London: Thames and Hudson, 1964, 76.
[18] Hudson, “The Rise of Communist Power… 77.
[19] Duffy, The 20th Century,… 214
[20]W. D. Wart, Soviet Russia in World Politics, London: Vision Press Ltd., 1963, 307.
[21] Richard Holme, Civilisation, volume II: Journey to the Modern World, California: CRM Books, Del Mar, 1973, 463.
[22] Fleming, The Issues of Survival,… 57.
[23] J. C. Chukwu, “United States of America and Soviet Union Relations: The Influence of the Cold War Over Berlin 1958 – 1961”, Nigerian Journal of Arts and Humanities (NJAH) 1(1), 2021, 168.
[24]J. C. Chukwu, “Ideological Warfare: Cuban Missile Crisis and its effects on International Peace 1959 – 1962”, Nigeria Police Academy Historical Review, 5(2) 2021, 94.
[25] J. C. Chukwu, “Aems Race: The Influence of Vietnamese War on International Peace 1960 – 1975”, International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 2(2) 2022, 345.
[26]Essan Gala, “Dynamics of the Arms Race: A Third World View” in J. Rotblat (ed), Scientists the Arms Race and Disarmament, London: Taylor and Francis Ltd., 1982, 60.