Introduction
A pivotal event in world history that brought the Soviet Union and the United States perilously near to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile. It was a complicated situation that put the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the United States under pressure to carry out their various foreign policy objectives. The objectives of each of the three countries’ foreign policies will be examined in this essay, along with how the Bureaucratic Politics Model would have changed the result of the crisis if any of the actors had acted otherwise. It will also go into how a nuclear conflict may have started if one of the parties had chosen a different course of action. Therefore, this essay compares the various objectives the United States, Soviet Union, and Cuba had during the missile crisis and how any change in their decisions would have compounded into a nuclear war.
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a crucial period in history and a turning point in the tensions of the Cold War. The Soviet Union’s deployment of nuclear missiles to Cuba precipitated this crisis and the ensuing tense standoff between the two giants. As a response, the United States imposed a naval blockade on the island and demanded that the missiles be removed. It is frequently believed that this conflict, also known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, was the closest the world has ever gone to a full-scale nuclear confrontation.
This essay uses the bureaucratic politics model to evaluate the decisions made by the U.S., the USSR, and Cuba in Step 3 of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The next step was the open conflict between the U.S. and the USSR. This demanded the evacuation of Soviet missiles from Cuba, enacted a U.S. arms embargo, and warned the Soviet Union that it would face a complete retaliation reaction to any missile launched from Cuba. Understanding how internal decision-making procedures, organizational structures, and external factors interacted to affect the Cuban Missile Crisis outcomes requires knowledge of the bureaucratic politics model.
Policy Objectives
United States
In this crisis, the U.S. was trying to accomplish several things. The main objective was to stop a nuclear war that would have destroyed both nations. The Soviet Union was forbidden from deploying missiles in Cuba, and any missiles that were already there were to be withdrawn, according to the United States (Mintz & Barr, 2022).
Moreover, the United States wanted to show that it was committed to the containment strategy and agreed with the Monroe Doctrine. Any foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere would be seen as a threat to the U.S. and would be resisted, according to the Monroe Doctrine, which was established in 1823 (Lebow & Stein, 1997). By forbidding the Soviet Union from putting nuclear missiles in Cuba, the U.S. hoped to show its dedication to this strategy.
Soviet Union
Protecting its ally Cuba from what it believed to be an impending danger of American invasion was the Soviet Union’s primary goal in terms of foreign policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Since Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba began in 1959, the Soviet Union has supported it militarily and economically. The stationing of Soviet missiles there was considered a means of preventing U.S. assault.
By making the U.S. negotiate from a position of weakness, the Soviet Union hoped to use the crisis to its advantage in the Cold War. During the problem, the Soviet Union tried to protect its security (Hopmann & King, 2019). Deploying missiles in Cuba was considered a strategy to defend the Soviet Union from potential U.S. attack since the Soviet Union had a long-standing policy of creating a buffer zone between itself and the U.S. (Lebow & Stein, 1997). The Soviet Union wanted to prove to the United States that it could defend its allies and stand up to them, and stationing missiles in Cuba was one way to do so. Additionally, the Soviet Union wished to convey to other nations in the area, including Latin America, that it was a powerful force that should not be disregarded.
Cuba
The closest the world has ever gotten to an all-out nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. This incident not only had a profound effect on world politics but also had a long-term impact on Cuba’s foreign policy goals. Cuba’s foreign policy goals in the years preceding and during the Cuban Missile Crisis were motivated by a desire for self-preservation and to increase its influence on the global stage. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cuban government sought to safeguard itself from the U.S. and preserve its independence (Cyr, 2022).
The Cuban government collaborated extensively with the Soviet Union to secure its security and accomplish these goals. Among these were diplomatic initiatives to mediate a crisis settlement and avert an American invasion of the island. The Cuban government also tried to get the rest of the world to embrace its cause and pressure the U.S. to change its confrontational approach (Hopmann & King, 2019). Cuba also increased its military presence to guard against any future invasion. Finally, the Cuban government used media channels to promote self-determination and mobilize its populace.
The Cuban government attempted to mediate between the U.S. and the USSR to bring about a peaceful end to the issue and strengthen its influence in the international arena. This includes actively participating in discussions, extending diplomatic assistance to both parties and attempting to sway the war’s outcome (Hershberg, 2020). Cuba also sought membership in the United Nations and increased diplomatic recognition from other nations.
To achieve this goal and cement its position as a legitimate international actor, Cuba participated in diplomatic discussions and agreements with other countries, particularly the U.S. Cuba also aimed to further its ideological agenda and improve connections with other Latin American nations (Cyr, 2022; Hershberg, 2020). This was accomplished through several actions, including giving financial and military support and participating in international meetings and conferences. Cuba’s ultimate goal was to become a significant role in world politics and to ensure its survival in a turbulent global setting.
Bureaucratic Politics Model
An analytical framework for examining how organizational structures and internal decision-making processes interact is the bureaucratic politics model (BPM). James Q. Wilson, a political scientist, created BPM in the 1970s. It is predicated on the idea that organizations are political arenas where conflicting interests compete for influence and power (Smith, 2022). The concept illustrates how an organization’s organizational structure might affect decisions and how they turn out.
Three elements make up the BPM: the organizational structure, the political climate, and the decision-making process. The political environment comprises the outside variables that affect decision-making, such as stakeholder values, views, and interests. The duties and responsibilities of organizational members, the power hierarchy, and the rules and regulations that direct decision-making are just a few examples of the internal components that make up the organizational structure (Smith, 2022). The process of making a decision, including goal-setting, developing alternatives, and choosing the best one, is called the decision-making process. The model strongly emphasizes the significance of comprehending the interactions between these players to comprehend why particular decisions are taken and how they might be changed or overturned.
Application of the Bureaucratic Politics Model in Step 3
The Bureaucratic Politics Model could be used to describe how nuclear war might have broken out in the Cuban Missile Crisis if any of the parties had behaved differently in Step 3. The step, in this instance, referred to President Kennedy’s public confrontation. It included a call for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, a U.S. embargo on the shipment of Soviet weapons, and a threat to the Soviet Union that any missile launched from Cuba would be met with a complete retaliatory response (Allison, 1969).
The President, the Secretary of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the National Security Council (NSC), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Soviet leadership were among the bureaucratic actors involved at this point in the crisis (Mintz & Barr, 2022). These actors had different goals and interests and diverse views on handling the situation. For instance, the CIA and JCS pushed for more reasonable strategies while the President was heavily pressured to take a tough stance against the Soviet Union.
If any of these actors had adopted a strategy different from the one chosen in Step 3, the results could have been disastrous. For instance, the U.S. President adopted a firm and softer stance. The President’s challenging position made it obvious to the Soviets that the U.S. would not accept any aggressive actions and that the U.S. was prepared to act decisively if required (Cyr, 2022). By adopting a more conciliatory stance, the President would have shown that he was amenable to dialogue and open to finding a diplomatic solution. While the Soviets might have responded by escalating the situation further if the President had adopted a more conciliatory stance, this is possible.
The Soviet Union might have retaliated by escalating its force deployment to Cuba or stationing more nuclear weapons there (Cyr, 2022). This might have sparked a deadly arms race or an all-out nuclear conflict. To guarantee that the Soviets recognized the gravity of the situation and that the U.S. was prepared to move decisively if required to avert a nuclear war, it was crucial for the President to adopt a firm attitude at Step 3.
The Soviet Union initially refused to comply with the United States request to remove the missiles. As a result, a period of heated discussions followed, and the missiles were eventually taken down. Nuclear war might have broken out if the Soviet Union had disregarded U.S. demands and moved forward with the missile deployment.
The U.S. might have retaliated with a military strike because it saw the missile placement as an intolerable danger to its national security (Hopmann & King, 2019). Such a dispute might have had disastrous repercussions and even sparked a full-scale nuclear exchange. A nuclear war could only have been avoided because of the diplomatic skill of the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the crucial Cuban Missile Crisis.
Cuba could have provoked the United States with its move and been met with a military strike if it had adopted a more assertive attitude and openly resisted its demands. This might have sparked a full-scale nuclear conflict. The United States could destroy Cuba with an atomic assault thanks to its massive nuclear arsenal.
In 1962, Cuba also obtained several atomic weapons made by the Soviet Union, though the precise amount is unknown (Mintz & Barr, 2022). The Cuban government could use the weapons in retaliation, which may have resulted in a nuclear exchange and subsequent escalation. The world as a whole, not just Cuba and the U.S., may have suffered dramatically due to this.
Conclusion
Due to the threat of nuclear war, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis marked a turning moment in world history. The three primary participants in this conflict—the Soviet Union, the United States, and Cuba—had different foreign policy objectives. The U.S. sought to avert nuclear conflict, defend its allies in the Western Hemisphere, project power, and preserve its good name. The Soviet Union desired to safeguard its security, demonstrate its might, and deepen its ties with the United States while defending its ally Cuba.
Last but not least, Cuba sought to uphold its independence, expand its influence, and further its revolutionary ideals. The bureaucratic politics model was applied to determine how the nuclear war would have started if any parties had acted differently in Step 3. Obviously, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Cuba’s diplomatic skills were essential in preventing a nuclear conflict, and the world must continue to work towards peaceful solutions to intergovernmental disputes.
Bibliography
ArLLsoN, Graham T. “The American political science review.” The American Political Science Review 63, no. 3 (1969): 689-718.
Cyr, Arthur I. 2022. “The Cuban Missile Crisis after Sixty Years.” Orbis 66 (3): 296–314.
Hershberg, James G. 2020. “Soviet-Brazilian Relations and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Journal of Cold War Studies 22 (1): 175–209.
Hopmann, P. Terrence, and Timothy D. King. 2019. “From Cold War to Détente: The Role of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.” Change in the International System, 163–88.
Lebow, Richard, and Janice Stein. 1997. “5. Back to the Past: Counterfactuals and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics, 119–48.
Mintz, Alex, and Kasey Barr. 2022. “Rethinking Group Dynamics.” The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology, 656–73.
Plokhy, Serhii. Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis. WW Norton & Company, 2021.
Smith, Hayden J. 2022. “Bureaucracy, the Bureaucratic Politics Model, and Decision Making during Crisis.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.