Background intervention in the far East of Russia. Japanese intervention in the far East. Policy "allies" against the Bolsheviks and Russia. The evaluation of the events based on the theory of international relations: realism, liberalism, constructivism.
|Рубрика||Международные отношения и мировая экономика|
|Размер файла||37,2 K|
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/
Theory of International Relations
This essay is dedicated to one of the most difficult periods in the history of Russia - the period of civil war and The Foreign intervention in the Far East. During these events, various political forces launched a struggle for the implementation of their own model of Russia's state structure. This period was characterized by an almost complete disintegration of the state, the massive destruction and victims, a sharp weakening of the country's international position and led to the temporary suspension of Russia's existence as a subject of international relations.
Needless to say, in this state of affairs Russia's external enemies (and former allies) couldn't not benefit from it. When considering the entire previous history of Russia, there can be identified the following consistent pattern: whenever the central authority in the country was weakened, it entailed interference. On the other hand, foreign intervention during the Civil War had a considerable influence on its course, duration and bitterness. As it's known, in the intervention in Russia was organized by 14 countries, including such rich and powerful as England, the USA, Japan, France. They had great material resources that were used to finance the anti-Bolshevik forces. The importance of intervention in the civil war is still being debated among historians, but there is no doubt in the fact that it played an important role. intervention japanese liberalism constructivism
The influence of intervention in the event of civil war is most vividly showed in Russia's Far East, where the existence of anti-Bolshevik government depended on foreign aid. Here the intervention was the longest. In this region, in fact, the military events took the form of not only the civil war, but the war between the states, albeit in veiled form.
As the most important role in the intervention in the region has played not only Japan that is why the narrative in this essay will be about the Entente intervention. Japan and Russia, before the intervention, and after it, compete with each other for influence in the Far East. The contradictions between them in the region persist to this day.
The theme of the essay is relevant because both then and today, Russia's position in the Far East is rather fragile. Far East - the most depopulated region in the country: for the period 1991-2010 its population has decreased by 22%. This creates a demographic threat to Russia as its neighbors in the region are densely populated countries such as Japan and China. There are chances of a new "peaceful" intervention in the region.
Meanwhile, the Far East region has important geopolitical and geostrategic value for Russia. Firstly, the region has access to two oceans: the Pacific and the Arctic, it is bordered by five states (including the already mentioned Japan and China). Secondly, the region has vast natural resources, for example, about 1/3 of all coal reserves in the country and hydraulic resources. Forests cover about 30% of the total forest area of ??Russia. The region has rich reserves of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Thirdly, given the rapid pace of development in the Asia-Pacific region as economic and military areas, the integration of the region is very promising for Russia. Far East can serve as a "bridge" in the Asia-Pacific region at reasonable policies.
Therefore, any researches on development issues (both economic and political) of the Far Eastern region are relevant. Studying the history of the region, with proper conclusions made, will allow building up its development strategy for the future.
The purpose of this essay is to study the Japanese intervention in the Far East of Russia and highlighting the key moments of this problem. The objective of the essay is to assess the events on the basis of the three positions of international relations - realism, liberalism and constructivism.
The chronological framework of the essay covers the period of 1917 - 1924 years. The territorial scope of work covers the Far East and Siberia in part.
1. Premises of intervention in Far East region of Russia
Far East was one of the least developed regions of the Russian Empire. It was geographically remote from the main economic and political centers of the country. Being vast in territory, it had a poorly developed network of routes and so was poorly connected to other parts of the country. One of the few routes linking the Far East with the rest of Russia was the Trans-Siberian Railway, the construction of which was completed shortly before the described events in this essay. The density of population in the region was very low. The number of settlements was small. The only major industrial center was Vladivostok. Far East industry was poorly developed, so the number of workers, the mainstay of the Soviet regime, there has been much lower than in the center. The bulk of the population were peasants, which was divided into a prosperous indigenous and representatives of migrant elements - the "new settlers" whose financial situation was much worse. An important feature of the region was also that there privileged Cossacks completely retained their military organization, wealthy part of them give up a large part of their land to rent. Also, there was a significant stratum of urban commercial bourgeoisie, imperial officials and officers of the Imperial Army. Wealthy farmers, urban commercial bourgeoisie, the officers of the Imperial army, royal officials and the leadership of the Cossacks further made significant part of the anti-Bolshevik forces.
Russian military forces in the region have been few and the transfer of additional forces in the event of the outbreak of hostilities was difficult. Russian-Japanese war of 1904 - 1905 has demonstrated the weakness of Russia's positions in the Far East. On 23th August (September 5) of 1905, in Portsmouth (USA), the armistice was signed. Russia recognized Korea as Japanese sphere of influence; it ceded South Sakhalin, the right to the Liaodong Peninsula with Port Arthur and Dalny, South Manchuria Railway. The defeat forced Russia to refocus its foreign policy priorities from the Far East to the European vector. Galin, V.V. „Интервенция и Гражданская война”. - Moscow.: Algorithm, 2004. - p. 605.
But the opposition has not ended. Japan just waited for the right moment to tear away the whole Far East from Russian. Although, for little time, it seemed that there have been some "warming" in Russian-Japanese relations: during the First World War, Japan and Russia became formal allies. However, Japan has acted in the war on the side of the Entente with the sole purpose to get control of the German sphere of influence in China and its colonies in the Pacific. After their capture in the autumn of 1914 the active participation of Japan in the war was over. On the appeal of the Western allies with a request to send the Japanese expeditionary force to Europe, the Japanese government responded that "it is not suitable climate for Japanese soldiers".
In July of 1916 between Russia and Japan was concluded a secret agreement on the division of influence spheres in China, which was the point, declaring the military alliance between the two countries: "If a third Power declares war on one of the contracting parties, the other side of the first demand allies must come to the rescue. " The Japanese have hinted that they are ready to go and to do more if they succumb to Northern Sakhalin, but the Russian delegation refused to even discuss such an option.
As for the attitude of the public and the army to "ally", it was quite certain: memories of the Russian-Japanese war were still alive, and everyone understood that Russia will have to fight with Japan in the not too distant future. Timed and unnatural character of the union between Russia and Japan was obvious for the Russian public consciousness, especially because the Japanese did not hide their territorial claims and prepared to implement them at the first opportunity.
During the First World War, Russia's attention was completely distracted by the events that took place in Europe. Japan at that time was part of the Entente, which was objectively an ally of Russia. Therefore, in this period, the Russian government did not hold large military forces in the Far East. There were only small military units necessary to maintain communications. During the First World War in Vladivostok accumulated about 40 thousand soldiers, sailors and Cossacks (despite the fact that the city population was 25 thousand.), As well as a large amount of military equipment and weapons that were brought here by allies of the Entente for the transfer to the west on the Trans-Siberian. Kuzmin, G.V. „Гражданская война и военная интервенция в СССР”. - Moscow.: Voenizdat, 1958. - p. 360.
In February of 1917 in Russia there was a revolution that has sharply aggravated the internal political situation of the country. The overthrow of the monarchy helped to engage the broad masses of the population in the political life. Dual power has led to the gradual disintegration of the country. Monitoring by the central government over the individual, especially distant, parts of Russia sharply weakened. The overthrow of the Provisional Government in the October Revolution promoted even greater aggravation of the internal political struggle in the country. Russia is gradually slipped into civil war. The revolutionary ferment in the country has attracted the attention of foreign countries. They decided to take advantage of the weakening of Russia to implement their aggressive plans against it.
After the victory of the October Revolution, the US government, Japan, the Entente began to develop plans for the overthrow of Soviet power. Great importance was attached to the capture of Siberia and the Far East as a springboard for the fight against the Soviet Republic. In preparation for the intervention of the governments of the Entente and the United States not only sought to save Russia from the Bolsheviks, but also wanted to solve their own selfish interests. For a long time the United States aggressively prepared to seize Russian territories in Siberia and the Far East, as well as Japan, were just waiting for an opportunity to carry out their plans.
Civil war and intervention has become one of the most tragic pages in the history of Russia. In fact, the turning point of the Russian Revolution in its transformation into a civil war became the "Allied" intervention. "Allies" came to help the White armies also because of numerous requests by "friends of the Russian people" of the liberal intelligence, the Cadets and the White generals.
As a result - millions dead, dispossessed, mutilated Russia's citizens. In addition, these years have brought the Russians heavy moral losses. After the foreign invasion and civil war, the population of Russia has decreased from 1917 to 1923 by almost 13 million, primarily civilians. Victims among armed forces of both sides were about 2.5 million. About 1.5-2 million people left their homeland and have become emigrants. And the rest - urban and rural residents - have undergone incredible suffering from hunger, cold, disease, red and white terror. Dunscomb P. E. Japan's Siberian Intervention, 1918-1922: „A Great Disobedience Against the people.” Lexington books, 2011, p.249.
Until now, historians argue about the causes and other aspects of the intervention in Russia during the Civil War, but in this regard it is still not certain. The literature has repeatedly pointed out that the October Revolution has cost a little blood. However, the shock of it soon passed, and discontented took up armory.
Civil War as a process of open military confrontation between different classes, groups and estates began in late May 1918 and continued until the end of 1920. During this period, the military has become a major issue, the central question of the Soviet state life. Melchin, A. "Разгром американо-японских интервентов на советском Дальнем Востоке в 1920-1922 годах". Moscow,.: Znanie, 1953.
It should be said about such particular group of the population, as the Cossacks. Before the revolution the Cossacks though were labor, but the privileged class. Revolution intended to equate them with the whole of the peasantry, which irritated the Cossacks. However, the Cossacks were not uniform, and there were different attitudes towards the New Government. They split and the Cossacks fought on both sides of the front, sometimes changing the side. A specific problem has been the relationship of the North Caucasian Cossacks and mountain people. The Soviet government tried to solve the old problem of the local land shortage, restoring Cossack lands to mountaineers that inhabited them once, mostly Chechens and Ingush. This, of course, attracted mountaineers on its side, but respectively thrown Cossacks to white camp. Berezkin, A.V. „Октябрьская революция и США 1917 - 1922 гг. „- Мoscow, 1967. - p. 495.
An important force in the Civil War became officers. Having lost their privileges after the February Revolution, and especially after the October Revolution, were now degrading and insulted by soldiers, who in their turn have suffered from the former commanders insults, officers in sufficient mass rallied around the most respected generals and created the so-called Volunteer Army under the leadership of M. V. Alekseev and L.G.Kornilov, and then turn to other White Formations. This impressive military force became the nucleus of the White Movement.6
The New Government has restored against itself another powerful enemy - the Church. The Orthodox Church could not come to terms with the loss of their land that Revolution passed to the peasants, it did not suit well as the elimination of the special position, which the church had before the Revolution, as the ideological pillar of the old order, as a part of the state apparatus. Chosen shortly after October Patriarch Tikhon in a special message rebuked the chairman of People's Commissars for all revolutionary changes and above all for the nationalization of land, factories etc. The Bolsheviks, being irreconcilable ideological atheists did not want to search and failed to reach any compromise with the clergy. On the contrary, widely distributed forms of anti-religious struggle were sometimes openly offensive to believers and so inevitably led them to the anti-Soviet camp. Krushanov, A.I. „Гражданская война в Сибири и на Дальнем Востоке (1918 - 1920). Вооружённая борьба рабочих и крестьян против объединённых сил интервентов и внутренней контрреволюции (апр. 1918 - март 1919 гг.)”. - 1972. - p. 285.
he role of external counterrevolution should be noted too. Western powers have lost along with the Russian businessmen owned factories in the country, as well as learning about the Revolutionary Power refusal of the tsarist and the Provisional Government debts, of course, wanted to return it all. In addition, the spread of the revolution fire in Europe and other continents frightened them.
Finally, Russia's yesterday's opponents and former allies saw a convenient chance to solve their own geopolitical objectives in the situation that prevailed in the country. They shared a common goal - the weakening of the Russian opponent and, if possible, in general by crushing its elimination from the world stage. England, rather fearing advance of Russia in the historical side of "the pearl of the British Crown" - India, dreamed to reject Russian competitor away from the Central Asian region. France, while seeing Russia in contrast to Germany, however also made steps to the dismemberment of the state. Russia's neighbors - Germany, Poland and Japan - would try to grab pieces of Russian land.
That's why the Entente countries, the United States, Japan and other very soon stood in the anti-Soviet system. They had strong support for the White Movement, especially weapons and equipment, which also they had nowhere to put after the end of World War I. There were facts and direct intervention of these forces. Kane, R. Review on “Japan's Siberian Intervention, 1918-1922: 'A Great Disobedience Against the people”. The Journal of Japanese Studies, Volume 38, Number 2, Summer 2012, pp. 403-406.
2. Japanese intervention to the Far East
Russia has fallen and during this fall completely changed its appearance. Instead of the old ally there was a ghost, unlike anything that existed until then on the ground. The Entente saw a state without a nation, an army without fatherland, a religion without God. Government that had claim as the representative of a new Russia, was born in a revolution and nourished with terror. It rejected the obligations arising under the contract; it concluded a separate peace; it provided an opportunity to withdraw from the eastern front millions of Germans and throw them to the west for the final onslaught. It announced that between it and the non-communist society cannot exist any relationship based on mutual trust neither in private affairs, nor in affairs of state and there is no need to comply with any obligations. It annulled those debts which Russia had to pay, and those who owed it. Just at the moment when the most difficult period is over, when the victory was close and countless sacrifices promised finally paid off, the old Russia was swept away from the face of the earth, and instead "the nameless monster» came to power. Thus, the policy of "allies" against the Bolsheviks and the Russia was clearly defined in the first months after the October Revolution. Grigorcevich, S.S. „Американская и японская интервенции на Советском Дальнем Востоке и ее разгром (1918 - 1922 гг.).” - Moscow, 1957. - p. 200.
November 30, 1917 US Secretary of State Lansing indicates the American ambassador Francis in Russia to explore the possibility of forming the army in southern Russia for confrontation Bolsheviks. December 3 War Cabinet decided that "the UK Government is ready to support any responsible authority in Russia, which actively opposed the motion maximalists (Bolsheviks), and at the same time freely finances reasonably organs such as their willingness to help the cause of the Allied Powers ". According D.Devisa and Y.Trani, "this policy incited civil war and implies a certain kind of intervention the UK" in the internal affairs of Russia. " On December 12, Japanese warships entered Golden Horn Bay in Vladivostok - under the pretext of protection of Japanese firms and citizens. Trying to land troops encountered strong protest to the US government. And soon the British War Cabinet protocol number 298 ordered not to deny the requested money to support in the south-eastern Russian resistance to the central government, that is, the Bolsheviks, when the War Office and the Foreign Ministry consider it necessary. The same day, Britain and France have given General Kaledin 10 million pounds to create an army of 2 million people. The chief of British intelligence suggested: "Kaledin should be supported as the head of the largest remaining loyal to the Allies organizations in Russia. Either he or the Romanian king must turn to the United States with a request for sending two divisions in Russia - nominally to help in the fight against the Germans, but in fact to create a collection point of elements loyal to the former government. Determined man, even with a relatively small army can do a lot." The British ambassador was of a different opinion. Buchanan met with associates of Kaledin, identified them as adventurers. The ambassador said that the bet on the gallant general (but naive policy) threatens to turn Russia into a German colony.
In late December, Churchill said that after the war and started separate negotiations with Germany, the Bolsheviks should be regarded as "openly acknowledge enemies." British War Cabinet has prepared a memorandum which stated that the allies should immediately get in touch with the Bolsheviks through informal agents. It was intended to maintain ties with Ukraine, Finland, Siberia, Caucasus. The first task was defined as providing subsidies for the reorganization of Ukraine, on the content of the Cossacks and Caucasian troops. Takahara, S. „America's Withdrawal from Siberia and Japan-US Relations, The Japanese Journal of American Studies”, No. 24, pp. 87 - 103. December 23 simultaneously with the decision to support "local governments and their armies" Britain and France concluded a convention, that divided Russian in to the spheres of invasion. French zone would consist of Bessarabia, Ukraine and Crimea, and the English zone - the territories of Cossacks, the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia and Kurdistan.
Already on January 9th France launches a "convention": provides cash loan to the Soviet regime hostile Ukrainian Rada and appoints the head of its military mission in Ukraine, the official French representative in the Ukrainian Rada. Wilson signed the report of the Secretary of State Lansing (December 10) for the secret support of the British and French initiatives aimed against the Soviet regime. It was about the help for Kaledin. Since Kaledin and his supporters were not recognized de jure, the law prohibited granting of loans, so Lansing stressed the importance of avoiding publicity of the United States intentions to show sympathy for the Kaledin movement, and especially to provide its financial support. For these purposes, assistance was carried out by Britain and France. In early January, the American consul D. Poole comes to Rostov for the secret negotiations with the generals Alexeyev and Kaledin. Reihsberg, G.Y. „Японская интервенция на Дальнем Востоке. 1918 - 1922 гг. „- Moscow: Socekgiz, 1935. - p. 114.
January 18th General Staff of the High Command of the Entente armies adopted a resolution "On the need for Allied intervention in Russia": "The Bolshevik regime is incompatible with the establishment of a lasting peace. For the Entente is a vital necessity to destroy it as soon as possible ... It is necessary to urgently reach an agreement in order to establish the principles of intervention in Russia, clarify responsibilities, providing unified leadership. This agreement should be the first step in the organization of the world. "
March 5th newspaper «Daily mail» insisted on inviting Japan to Siberia and the establishment of the Asian Russia counterweight to European Russia. And on March 6th British marines landed troops at Murmansk. March 23rd Inter-Allied Naval Council considered the possibility of sending an allied military expedition to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk to protect combat reserves stockpiled in these ports. The note number 17, the Council expressed the hope that the operation of naval forces in Murmansk will continue to retain this port at the disposal of the Allies as long as possible. Then, on April 5th Japanese Admiral Kato landed troops in Vladivostok. Entente countries announced this assault as simple police caution, attributing this initiative to the Japanese admiral. April 7th the French military mission received instructions "do not contribute to the Russian army, it will become a threat to public order and can be resisted Japan." 11
It is noteworthy that in the camp of the Allies there was unanimity regarding the intervention in Russia; in particular, US President Woodrow Wilson actively campaigned against it. In addition, there still weren't enough of the significant White Guard units, which could be used for successful intervention and for its formal legalization. It was necessary to finish the First World War, and Russia could play role in this.
In contrast with the February Revolution after October Revolution the new government was not recognized by "allies". Even to negotiate with the Bolshevik government they better preferred through their representatives.
Britain recalled its ambassador from Russia. Americans had three lines fought concerning Bolshevik Russia. First line was articulated by the head of the military mission Judson and leaders of the Red Cross mission, who believed that the Bolsheviks took power, and stopped being German spies and became defencists and their half-acknowledge could help to restore the front. General Consul Summers, on the other hand, called for clear and publically refuse to recognize the Soviets. As a result, the third point of view won - Smalser, R. „The Siberia expedition 1918 - 1920: “An early operation other that war”. Naval War college - 1976. p. 40.Ambassador Francis, offered to do nothing while waiting for the inevitable day by day fall of the Bolshevik regime. Yakushkin, Y. „Английская интервенция в 1918 - 1920 гг.” - Moscow; L: State printing, 1928. - p. 106.
Activities of representatives and ambassadors of Britain, France, and the United States could not be better characterized as they were by Churchill. However, he wrote about US policy in post-war Europe, but the principles, the essence of this activity do not change from the change of the place of application: in post-war Europe or the post-revolutionary Russia, "strutted among the masses of disorganized and angry people and ask them what they think about this or what would they want - the surest way to rekindle the mutual struggle. When people help in such matters, they do not understand and which they almost are not interested, they will naturally reinforce themselves sublime and impartial moods. "Let's get acquainted with all the facts before making a decision. Learn situation. Clarify the wishes of the population. «How wise and correct it sounds! And yet, before the Commission, which in the end were nothing but American officials, drove a third of the way through its surveyed area, almost all interested nations armed insurrection ... ". In the case of Russia it is also very wise and proper the words of "allies" and of the Winston Churchill sounded and commitment to democratic principles and obligations, but the result was the same as in post-war Europe.
Preparation of armed intervention in the Far East was completed in the early spring of 1918. By this time the Allied powers finally agreed to provide the initiative to Japan, the use of the Czechoslovak Corps for counter-revolutionary rebellion, about the supply of all necessary Whites. Although there was a strong "rivalry between Japan and America," as well as between other countries, the fear of the Bolshevik government forced them to unite and to work together to armed intervention. By agreement of governments the US and Japan last was given the freedom of action in the Far East. Japanese troops were to carry out the role of the main strike force, which took part in the intervention countries. United States and Britain had hoped to shift the blame for the outbreak intervention on Japan. The US government provoked Japan to the statement, strongly encouraged the Japanese military leadership in the armed aggression and at the same time sought by its ally coordinated actions that in reality meant control of the United States. Anti-Soviet policy of the United States perfectly understood and fully taken into account Japan's militarists. They are quite satisfied with the American plan recognizing the need for intervention in the Japanese army. The Japanese government has justified the need to fight against Russia in the Asian continent to its traditional policy, allegedly caused by the historical development of the country. The essence of the foreign policy concept of Japanese imperialism was that Japan should have a foothold on the continent.13„Японская интервенция 1918 - 1922 гг. в документах/ Центрархив”. Public historical library. - Moscow, 1934. - p.236.
By the end of 1918, the number of intervention in the Far East (Including Siberia), has reached 150 thousand people, including Japanese - more than 70 thousand, Americans - appx.11 thousand, Czechs - 40 thousand as well as a small contingent of British, French, Italians, Romanians, Poles, Serbs and Chinese. This figure does not include the numerous White Guard units, which are operated entirely through the support of foreign countries.
The High Command of the occupying forces in the Far East, in agreement with Japan, was carried out by the Japanese General Otani and his staff, and then the General Ooi. US, Japan, Britain, France and Italy, making intervention in the Far East, acted in concert. But the joint actions of these powers against the Soviet government does not mean that the conflict between the United States and Japan declined. On the contrary, mutual distrust and suspicion of their efforts. The US imperialists did their best efforts to ensure that, using Japan, while limiting predatory appetites of its partner and making sure to capture as much as possible. However, Japan aggressively sought dominant position in the Far East and was trying to take all the strategic points of the edge.14 Svetachev, M.I. „Империалистическая интервенция в Сибири и на Дальнем Востоке (1918-1922 гг.)”. - Novosibirsk, 1983. - p 334.
The intervention of Japan, completing its plan of gaining dominance in Asia, despite the intervention together with the Americans, intended to capture the Far East and Siberia itself. United States, in turn, did everything to get such positions in the Far East from which it would be possible to control Japan and subordinate its actions to American interests. The difficulty for the intervention was the signing of the Soviet Republic of peace treaties with Latvia (April 16, 1920), Lithuania (July 12), Finland (14 October). On March 16th, 1921 was signed a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, and on March 18th signed a truce with the last of the nearby enemies of Soviet Russia - Poland. From the beginning of the intervention in the Entente countries appeared increasingly strong movement of solidarity with Soviet Russia, which began with the many workers refusals from loading military cargo for intervention, in 1919 real uprisings started, for example, of the 55th Infantry Regiment under the Tiraspol or of the French fleet sailors in the Black sea. After a couple of months the Entente convinced of the ineffectiveness of their troops in the south. The soldiers did not want to fight and revolutionized. As a result of the intervention failed. There are some reasons that can explain why allies didn't act more aggressively. Firstly, they could not purely with financial considerations. Russia is not Spain and Finland. Devastated by World War "allies» economies could not bear another large-scale war. Second, democratic principles, unlike Nazi Germany and Italy for England and especially the United States already were not a dead letter. Winston Churchill, in this regard in original way criticized Lloyd George for his hesitation with respect to intervention in Russia. Third, the people of the interventionist-countries and progressive policies, including the US president, acknowledged the progressive nature of the Russian revolution and somehow it had substantial support.
With the end of the official intervention the "allies" war against Russia didn't end, it was only to acquire new forms, which clearly shines through the old principles of "cheap imperialist policy." These new forms stood out on the surface in the form of open aggression in the Polish-Soviet war.
In fact, not the entire West was on the way of intervention need. Woodrow Wilson, for his part, quite frankly sought to avoid it. Wilson became a clear opponent of Churchill, who talked about the need for intervention as inevitable. Official intervention in the Soviet Republic collapsed. The reasons are many. It is peace treaty signing, and the active movement of solidarity with the new country, and others, no less important circumstances. However, the intervention coupled with the civil war, brought the Soviets a lot of unfortunate consequences: loss of life, poverty, famine, epidemics. Defeated in the intervention, the West did not leave a thought away with Soviet Russia. This time, his plans were even grander - Russia's involvement in the war with Poland, Japan, Germany.15 Senyavskaya, E.S. „Противники России в войнах XX в.” - Moscow, "Russian political encyclopedia" (ROSSPEN), 2006. - p. 288.
3. Assessment of the events based on the theory of international relations
Theory of International Relations - a discipline in which international relations are considered from a theoretical point of view. This discipline traces and analyzes the general patterns of international relations as a concept. Ole Holsti describes the operation of the international relations theory as a pair of colored sunglasses that allow us to see them as different color painting of the world, but not the entire reality. For example, a realist might neglect certain phenomenon in international relations, while the constructivist can find the same phenomenon is very important. Three of the most popular theory in international relations - is realism, liberalism and constructivism.
Theories of international relations can be divided according to the principle: "positivist / rationalist" theories that focus on the analysis from the perspective of the state, and the "post-positivist / reflectivity" involving more advanced concepts, in addition to the points of view of the state, on safety (taking into account cultural, economic, social factors of doing international politics). It is noteworthy that contrary to the ideas of the theory in international relations is very often co-exist with each other in geopolitics. For example, constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, and others. However, by far the most common schools of international relations are realism and liberalism. There is a growing number of adherents and social constructivism.17
Realism or political realism is the dominant discipline from its inception. This theory is based on the writings of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Thomas. Early realism can be described as a reaction to the interwar idealistic thinking. Begining of the Second World War was seen as evidence of lack of realistic idealist thinking. There are many areas of realism, but the basic principles remain statism, survival, self-reliance and self-improvement.
Realism makes several key conclusions: national unitary state, conduct foreign policy, as a player in the anarchic international system, based on a geographical basis. Anarchic international system is capable of regulating the interaction between countries. Any nation-states are the primary players in the international arena. Consequently, as the highest organizational form the states are in constant competition with each other. The government is behaving in any way acting as an autonomous rational actor, pursuing its own interests and with the main aim - to maintain and strengthen their own security, and as a consequence of the sovereignty and survival. Realism claims that the pursuit of own interests, states are accumulating resources and further nature of the interaction is determined by the amount of accumulated resources. It determines the level of power of the state. The power of the state, in turn, is determined by the military, economic and political empowerment.
Some realists believe that states are inherently aggressive and territorial expansion is limited only by the states opposing each other. Other realists (attacking / defending realists) believe that states are constantly busy with their safety and the question of its existence. In terms of defense, there is a dilemma about security, where the gain security of the State generates more instability, as the enemy will increase in response to their own military forces to achieve parity in the future dominance.16 Cigankov P.A.” Международные отношения: теории, конфликты, движения, организации:учебное пособие. Изд. 3-е, перераб. и доп.” -- Moscow: Alfa -M : INFRA - M, 2011.--p. 335.
Events of Japanese intervention in the Far East in terms of realism can be assessed as follows - if the October Revolution of 1917 won a majority in the Soviets, Russian Social Democratic Labour Party of Bolsheviks came to the utopian theory of the world socialist revolution and revolutionary war against the capitalist states on the basis of the principle of proletarian internationalism, the desire of the Soviet government to obtain diplomatic recognition of Europe Asia, among which an important place occupied by Japan, shows that the foreign policy of the Soviet leadership became clearly manifest elements of realism, as expressed in the implementation of the concept of "peaceful coexistence" with other countries. Such conclusion is made, because during foreign intervention Soviets signed peaceful treaties with neighbor countries - Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland etc. But still it was a temporary rate calculated for the period until the victory of the world revolution, since, in accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the collapse of capitalism after its highest stage of imperialism was seen as a fatal inevitability, and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union as the vanguard of the Communist International was designed to contribute to the achievement this goal as the aging of class contradictions, primarily between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This led to a dualism in the foreign policy of the Soviet state, including in relation to Japan. Craving its ruling circles and the leadership of country, to prevent the violation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of their countries and at the same time, illegal conduct subversive activities one state against another reflects the contradictory nature of the main foreign policy and the Soviet Union and Japan.
Russia entered a double game, trying to catch two birds with one stone - to protect itself and to harm another in order to get what they want. This is a very tricky position where it is needed understand when and where it's right to show off a different side to reprove in front of everyone. Despite the new socialist views, Russia has acted on the basis of realism. First took care of the sovereignty safety, despite the entire weakening, which was caused by a coup, First World War and civil war, Russia took on the defensive position against former allies. This position was supported not only by military force, which was very exhausted, but also by diplomatic techniques and tricks that ultimately helped secure the country from the occupation of Japan and the US, as well as to maintain diplomatic relations with its nearest neighbors in Europe. Perhaps such a move can be seen as mundane as Russia was working for the future, looking after new lands for further expansion with minimum effort. As the state with a new political system should strengthen its position on the geopolitical level. Therefore, Russia's actions in this crisis can be viewed as an example of the political realism theory.
The theoretical school of liberalism, as well as being one of the oldest in the theory of international relations and on major positions opposite to realism. One of the basic principles of this theory is the need to reform political systems of states, with a view to democratic governance within each country contributed to the establishment of peace and cooperation on the planet. The international community must realize that the need for international institutions to prevent armed conflict.
Liberals stressed the need to develop values, aimed at uniting mankind; forming anti-war installation: to promote the idea of ??free international trade; argued for "open diplomacy". Countries, as liberalists believe, is not guided only by short-term profit maximization. Big benefits provides a mutually beneficial cooperation.
Liberalism is largely associated with the name of the 28th US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the foreign policy of openness and diplomacy, as well as the orientation of the foreign policy of democratic principles, cooperation and morality.
The forerunner of liberalism was "idealism." Idealism or utopianism, critically considered realistic. In international relations, Idealism (also called "Vilsonianizm" associated with the American president Woodrow Wilson) - a political school which professes the principle of subordination of foreign policy to the needs of domestic politics. To clarify the picture, it can be given the following example: an idealist may sincerely believe that the fight against poverty in the country must be accompanied by the fight against poverty abroad. Wilson was the forerunner of liberal idealism, which has received wide recognition after the Second World War.
Liberalism argues that state preferences, not state capabilities are the primary determinants of behavior. In contrast to the realism, where the state is seen as a unitary player, liberalism allows pluralism in the actions of the state. Therefore, preference will vary from state to state, depending on the culture, economic system or political regime. Liberalism also believes that the interaction between states is not limited to the problem of national security, but also the interaction through trading companies, organizations and individuals. As a consequence, instead of the anarchic system of international relations, the concept of a more complex device of Defense. For example, the film industry by individual countries may spread its culture around the world - that there is a direct sign of strength of culture in international relations. Another inference in this theory is that the general benefits achievable provided cooperation and interdependence - a pledge of peace.17 Cigankov P.A. „Международные отношения: теории, конфликты, движения, организации: учебное пособие для студ. вузов. Изд. 2-е, перераб. и доп. „--Moscow: Alfa -M : INFRA - M, 2007.-- p. 319. - URL: http://www.znanium.com/bookread.php?book=246855
As it was previously mentioned in the essay, exactly Woodrow Wilson categorically opposed the military intervention of the Soviets by the Entente - the union which, in consequence of two catastrophic world wars, became the basis for the establishment of an international institute for peace and resolution of armed conflicts - purely liberal organisation. Woodrow Wilson, tried in vain to turn the outdated concept of the leaders of the major powers, so accustomed to war and fight for the scraps of land. In the current situation in the Far East, he believed that efforts should be consolidated and favored a peaceful solution to the problem, which was growing in the new Russia. Unfortunately, while his views were too new, and in this situation he could not pacify the warlike spirit allies. Early in 1918, he issued his principles for peace, the Fourteen Points, and in 1919, following armistice, he traveled to Paris, promoting the formation of a League of Nations, concluding the Treaty of Versailles. The intervention to the Far East become a kind small start for growth of liberalistic theory.
That is Russia in the events of the 20s of the XX century was at the origins of liberalism and its principles. Despite strained relations with the West it was the head of the Western country - a sworn enemy of Russia, who defended the rights of Russia for its development, thus demonstrating a new vision of how the state should play in the world political arena. Wilson thus did not justify the events of the Civil War and the new government of Russia, being a brilliant politician and diplomat he looked far into the future and understood that Russia could become a major ally in the formation of the International Institute for the Protection of the World.
A key principle of constructivism - a belief that foreign policy is influenced uncontested ideas, shared values, culture and social identity. Constructivism argues that international reality is based on the social values ??that give new meaning to the material world (ideas close to socialism). This theory emerged on the basis of the controversy surrounding the scientific method of international relations and the role of theory in the formation of new international forces. Constructivism criticizes traditional statistical approach of liberalism and realism in the analysis of international relations, focusing on the fact that international relations - it is a social construction. While realism in international relations is concerned mainly with security and material force, and greater liberalism refers to the interdependence of economic factors and domestic policy states, constructivism is most focused on the analysis of the role of ideas in international relations.
The failure of the realists and liberals in predicting the end of the Cold War dramatically increased the authority of the Constructivists. Constructivism criticizes traditional statistical approach of liberalism and realism in the analysis of international relations, focusing on the fact that international relations - it is a social construction. While realism in international relations is concerned mainly with security and material force, and greater liberalism refers to the interdependence of economic factors and domestic policy states, constructivism is most focused on the analysis of the role of ideas in international relations. Under the "ideas" constructivists meant goals, threats, fears, identities and other elements perceived reality that affect the state and non-state objects of international relations. Constructivists believe ideological factors often have goals and outcomes in the long term, and this is an advantage over the materialist theory (realism, liberalism). For example, constructivists point out that the increase in the US Army will probably be negatively perceived in Cuba or Russia (historically hostile to the state), while in Canada and the UK (historical allies of the US), it will be perceived positively. Therefore, the perception of the same phenomenon in international relations may vary depending on the conditions in which states are. Moreover, constructivists do not consider the consistency of constant anarchy in international relations, proving the extreme volatility of the subjectivity of the phenomenon and the words of Alexander Wendt: 'anarchy - this is what makes it of the state. " Constructivists also believe that social norms are formed and change foreign policy over time is much more important than national security (basic concept of the realists).18 Azizov U. B. „Конструктивизм в международных отношениях : интерпретация Николаса Онуфа, Фридриха Кратохвила и Александра Вендта.” Saint-Petersburg: Aleteya, 2015.
Situation when Russia during the World War I „changed its colour” and had made severe steps, that changed history of XX century is considered to be the clash of three theories - realism, liberalism and constructivism. Russian State become new country with new ideology, which could be predicted taking into account world's development, events and popularity loss of imperialism. Russia became socialistic state without asking its allies, it started to follow constructivism theory - everyone should be the same, only idea and shared values make sense, equality as community engine etc.
Because of the change of outlook, so to speak, which caused unstable and unpredictable situation in the country, as well as drastic actions in relation to the international community, for example, the abolition of debts and a complete change of government, the allies were seriously concerned, at first about the future of the Union and the further threatening events in the country, and secondly, on how to have time to take on his current situation. Aggressive intervention in the most attenuated of the country, the collapse was the occasion of a military alliance that has shown potential conflicts of interest and views.
On the other hand the elements of constructivism it can be counted on the behavior of the former allies of the Entente. They saw the moment when the force „justice” can be achieved by dividing the territory, resources and influence on one of the unatractive part of the vast country, which according to them, was falling apart. Since one of the main constructivism principles is idea and shared values.
The positions of Russia in the Far East were fragile and vulnerable, and there was a potential threat to foreign penetration in the region. In connection with the revolutionary events of 1917 created favorable conditions for the start of the intervention. The main rival of Russia was Japan. The alliance between them, which existed in the First World War, was formal and fragile. States that participated in intervention in the Far East in their actions were guided by their selfish and predatory aims. Helping anti-Bolshevik forces was not their primary purpose and was intended only to justify the presence of foreign troops on the territory of Russia. Their help was of mainly economic in nature, since they did not want to get involved in fighting against the Soviet troops, not to open real motives of the intervention. Despite the concerted efforts of the interventionists, the contradiction between them persisted, because they all persueded their own aims.
These events certainly were a turning point in the development of international relations between the countries-leaders. The behavior of the leaders in time of war, revealed the true priorities of each on the world stage. United in the fight against Germany in World War I, each participant was hiding a stone behind. Intervention has become another brick in the wall imaginary of fight against greed and common sense.
The study of the history of the development of Russian foreign policy doctrine, and its heritage and miscalculations. Analysis of the achievements of Russia in the field of international relations. Russia's strategic interests in Georgia and the Caucasus.
курсовая работа [74,6 K], добавлен 11.06.2012
The reasons of the beginning of armed conflict in Yugoslavia. Investments into the destroyed economy. Updating of arms. Features NATO war against Yugoslavia. Diplomatic and political features. Technology of the ultimatum. Conclusions for the reasons.
реферат [35,1 K], добавлен 11.05.2014
Integration, globalization and economic openness - basical principles in attraction of capital inflows. Macroeconomic considerations. Private investment. Problems of official investment and managing foreign assets liabilities. Positive benefits from capit
курсовая работа [52,4 K], добавлен 25.02.2002
The Soviet-Indian relationship from the Khrushchev period to 1991 was. The visit by Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to the Soviet Union in June 1955 and Khrushchev's return trip to India in the fall of 1955. Economic and military assistance.
аттестационная работа [23,4 K], добавлен 22.01.2014
Russian Federation Political and Economic relations. Justice and home affairs. German-Russian strategic partnership. The role of economy in bilateral relations. Regular meetings make for progress in cooperation: Visa facilitations, Trade relations.
реферат [26,3 K], добавлен 24.01.2013