Legacy Reflected From Castro's Cuba to Today

Perhaps the only example of superpowers breaking the rule of not entering each other's "backyards" was seen in Cuba.

After Fidel Castro, who was closer to the Soviet worldview, overthrew Fulgencio Batista and seized power in Cuba, in a way that the United States could not foresee, in 1959, the US-Cuban relations deteriorated. Because, during the Batista period, as the American capital owned 80% of Cuban public institutions, 90% of its mines and 40% of sugar, all the balances on the island suddenly changed against the USA.

After that, just like in Berlin, Cuba was seen for a while as a zone of tension between the East and West Bloc. The root cause of the Cuban crisis stemmed from the USA's desire to overthrow Cuba's new leader, Fidel Castro (who came to power with a socialist revolution by overthrowing the dictator Batista in 1959).

In April 1961, relations were strained as a result of the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs Landing by the United States, which was based on the use of refugees who escaped from Cuban rule and took refuge in the United States. In the spring of 1962, Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to place nuclear-capable missiles on Cuban soil.

The fact that the existence of the missiles in Cuba was confirmed by aerial photographs on October 16, 1962, started the application of the American blockade on Cuba as of October 22, 1962. The United States has also brought to NATO's attention developments in this region, which is outside the Alliance's area of ​​responsibility. Thereupon, in the Paris NAC declaration in December 1962, it was emphasized that the Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba were threatening world peace. It was further stated that the Alliance supports the policy towards the solution that the United States is pursuing.

As a matter of fact, the USA, backed by NATO support, had the opportunity to resolutely implement its policy of promptly dismantling the nuclear missiles stationed at Cuban bases under the control of Soviet technical personnel. In order to strengthen this policy, the United States officially declared that it blockaded all offensive military material being shipped to Cuba by the Soviets.

During this crisis, the USA, on its own initiative, implemented a naval blockade against Cuba in a region outside the NATO responsibility area (under the Tropic of Capricorn) specified in the NATO deed. However, the Soviet threat by deploying their missiles to the US territory and therefore NATO by deploying them in an out-of-area region has removed the boundaries of the concept of out-of-area in NATO. So much so that the security of NATO (especially Turkey) has become directly related to the missiles in this extra-area region. The conflict between the two superpowers turned into a missile bargain, dismantling the Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba; It is conditional on the withdrawal of Jupiter missiles deployed in Turkey by the United States as assigned to NATO. This crisis situation, which broke out all of a sudden, was considered important in terms of showing that the "destiny" of Europe and Turkey is directly related to the balance between these two superpowers. This exchange will have negative effects on the Turkish view of NATO, in a broad sense, on NATO solidarity and morale. The secret agreement regarding the placement of Jupiter missiles carrying nuclear warheads in Turkey was signed on 25 October 1959 in Paris. While these missiles were fully ready for use in July 1962, after the Cuban Crisis, the deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey in 1963 was terminated with the unilateral decision of the USA, with the knowledge of İsmet İnönü.

In this period of tension, the USA tried to avoid giving the negative impression that "it could sacrifice its allies for its own interests, if necessary". In the balance (or imbalance) that has emerged, the evaluations that if the USA attacks Cuba based on its right of self-defense, the Soviets may similarly use their right to attack Turkey by using the missiles deployed in Turkey as an excuse, and a NATO-Soviet war may ensue. , caused cold winds to blow over the alliance.

In fact, the missiles deployed over Turkey were not of great military value. Under John F. Kennedy, the USA began to evaluate the withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy before the Cuban crisis. When the Cuban Crisis broke out, Kennedy; He made the Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey the subject of bargaining for the purpose of 'exchange' against the Russian missiles in Cuba, but the term 'mutual disassembly' was not used explicitly. However, when this proposal was finally accepted by Khrushchev, mutual disassembly and displacement for the dismantling of the missiles was carried out. The approach, which sees Turkey's security as a part of the bargain in order to reinforce the security of the USA, undermines the integrity of NATO and the trust of the member states of the USA (especially Turkey). 

It was important to the ace. Despite this, the Kennedy Administration, playing its cards at risk, stipulated the withdrawal of missiles from Cuba in order to withdraw missiles from Turkey.

In this crisis that lasted for 13 days in October 1962, Washington could not find the necessary "time" to operate the mechanisms that would enable it to act shoulder to shoulder and in solidarity with its allies. However, among the allies, only England acted in solidarity in any case, and information channels with England were kept open at all times.

The US Administration refrained from meeting with Turkey, which is at the heart of the problem. The rationale for this is: “if these issues are opened for discussion with the Turks and Turkey's trust in the US is shaken, this could eventually weaken the US's hand and reduce its bargaining power” and “especially if Turkey opens this situation up for discussion on NATO platforms, NATO solidarity could have been shaken”. Although the US administration conducted its negotiations with the Soviets in secrecy, the governments of the Alliance countries made statements declaring that they were constantly behind the United States.

Although the removal of the Jupiter missiles was included in the plans made before the crisis, no definite decision was made by NATO on this issue. If this issue were brought up for discussion within the Alliance, Turkey would be ready to object. However, the elimination of tension after the Khrushchev-Kennedy decision has minimized the 'complaints' of the Turkish side. Because the disappearance of the Soviet imminent missile threat in one way or another, relieved Turkey the most.

The biggest benefit of this crisis was the "Partial Ban Treaty of Nuclear Weapons Tests" signed on 5 July 1963 between the USA and the Soviet Union. In order to overcome such crises, the two states decided to initiate a hotline application. The Cuban Crisis, in which the two great states tested their will not to fight, has therefore been accepted as the historical turning point of the softening between the blocks.

De Gaulle supported the USA despite the fact that information channels were not operated during this period. However, after the crisis, the French will begin to put their "Grand Plan" into action. The first major step was taken by England, which applied to become a member of the European Economic Community and was seen by France as the Trojan horse of the USA, and was vetoed by France on 14 January 1963, disrupting Kennedy's vision of strengthening the European Leg of the Alliance. France; In order to gain military and economic freedom, he ended the Algerian War, which brought a great burden to him, and recognized the independence of Algeria, but the French troops, who participated in the Algerian War and were expected to come under NATO command again, were not allowed to serve under NATO. . This was one of the first signals that France was leaving the military wing of NATO.

In the same period, the American proposal for the deployment of American Tactical Nuclear Bombs to France was made by de Gaulle, where the policy of "representation at the minimum level in NATO" was adopted and, again, due to the policy of keeping only its own nuclear weapons on the territory of France, the United States; He evacuated seven NATO Air Bases in France and moved these bases to England and Germany. In this context, the "Big Lift" military exercise was conducted in 1963, in which the US forces' ability and ability to reinforce Europe was tested.

Meanwhile, the USA, which always uses the tactic of keeping the war in remote areas, felt that it was under direct threat for the first time with the Cuban Missiles Crisis and took the risk of the risky Bay of Pigs Landing. In the following period, the failures in the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam led the United States to nuclear supremacy strategies and diplomatic encirclement tactics rather than direct conventional interventions.

De Gaulle declared that France was leaving NATO's military structure in 1966 and asked NATO to transfer its headquarters in France to another country by 1 April 1967. De Gaulle underlined that France did not leave the political wing of NATO. From this point on, France began to express its views, seeing itself as independent from the leadership of the United States in the Alliance.

This exit of France was seen negatively at first as NATO gave the appearance of an organization that started to disintegrate against the Warsaw Pact, but then France's emergence as a different voice within the Alliance was appreciated by the remaining members of the Alliance other than the USA. has been. However, the absence of France and its contradictory political departures despite the USA did not bring any benefit beyond harming the cohesion within the Alliance. So much so that other members have become more dependent on the US leadership. In this period, Germany started to come to the fore with its economic development and its contribution to the financial issues within the Alliance, while the British 

Turkey and France have gained a strategic importance in NATO with their nuclear weapons. The fact that France voluntarily left the Alliance, naturally increased the importance of Germany and its influence on European countries for other European countries.

Today, the Franco-German harmony within the European Union emerged in the Cold War environment to balance the Anglo-Saxon harmony in a way and brought the idea of the European Union to life. This conflict in the Atlantic Basin continues to be important nowadays in the realization of the German ambivalence in the Russia-NATO crisis, the reservations of France, the aggressive policies of the British and the imperial policies of the USA that benefited all three countries.

References:

Akalın C. (2011). ABD ve Türkiye-2 Yumuşama Yılları. Kaynak Yayınları. 1. Baskı. İstanbul.

Bostanoğlu B. (2008). Türkiye-ABD İlişkilerinin Politikası, İmge Kitabevi, 2. Baskı, Ankara.

Cook D. (1989). Forging the Alliance, Arbor House/William Morrow, New York.

Davutoğlu A. (2001). Stratejik Derinlik, Küre Yayınları, İstanbul.

McGhee G. (1992). ABD-Türkiye-NATO-Ortadoğu, (Çev. Belkıs Çorakçı). Bilgi Yayınevi, 1. Basım, Ankara.

NATO Enformasyon. (1971). NATO Bilgiler ve Belgeler, NATO Enformasyon Servisi, Brüksel.

Sherwood E.D. (1999). Allies in Crisis, Meeting Global Challenges to Western Security, Yale University Press, New Haven & London.