When discussing the containment strategy of the United States during the Cold War, attention to its political background or political meaning can be said to have always occupied a dominant position. Such as political psychology, political culture (American mission view and the old sense of insecurity of the former Soviet Union), political interests (the struggle for geopolitical countries and spheres of influence in Eastern Europe including Britain), political figures (Stalin 1946 speech and Truman Doctrine), political slogans (such as ideological propaganda) and so on. On the one hand, containment strategy, as an American grand strategy throughout the history of the Cold War, is undoubtedly a political act of the American government, and its political interpretation is reasonable and easy to be accepted by people. On the other hand, the preference for the historical and political perspectives of the Cold War is not entirely convincing in explaining the reasons for some major historical events, especially why the Cold War ended peacefully. This paper attempts to analyze the influence of economic factors on the goal, basic means and realization conditions of American containment strategy in order to deepen the understanding of American foreign policy.
An important goal of American containment strategy is to open the market for American monopoly capital, seize commercial profits and serve it, and safeguard American economic security and prosperity under the fundamental premise of maintaining the western capitalist system and values.
The difficulty in analyzing the economic factors in American foreign policy during the Cold War lies in the fact that the development of US-Soviet relations during the Cold War is not the same as the interaction of political and economic relations between big countries we understand now, but an unbalanced interaction. This requires us to.
On the one hand, we should adhere to the basic principles of Marxism on political and economic relations as guidance, on the other hand, we should integrate theory with practice and analyze specific problems. After the end of World War II, why did the former allies, the United States and the Soviet Union, turn against each other until they were at daggers drawn? Why are the two sides just a "cold war", but they can basically live in peace until the end of the cold war despite the constant struggle? These two issues are closely related to the goal of American containment strategy. Marxism holds that the deepest foundation and root of all social phenomena lies in the economy, and the development and changes of domestic or international politics are determined by economic factors. Political problems between countries have their profound economic roots. Lenin also pointed out that if we don't study "the basic economic problems of the essence of imperialist economy", we simply don't know how to estimate the current war and politics. "If we say (or just express this idea indirectly) that treating problems politically and economically has the same value ... this is forgetting the minimum common sense of Marxism". [1](P279) Fundamentally speaking, the struggle for "power" in international relations is also to win "interests", which is the most basic starting point of state behavior. During the Cold War, the United States valued its strategic, political and military security interests more than its economic interests, and even spared no expense to compete with the former Soviet Union in the world. However, economic interests are still an important goal of American diplomatic strategy, and the United States will even wage war to get rid of the economic recession. Generally speaking, the economic factors in international relations refer to all the economic conditions that a country needs to maintain its own economic development and social prosperity, and its core and foothold are economic interests.
It can be said that the irreconcilable contradiction between the essence of American commercial capital expansion and the efforts of the former Soviet Union to establish two parallel markets after World War II is an important reason for the US government to formulate a containment strategy for the Soviet Union after World War II. This can be seen from the policies or remarks of American authorities, such as George Kennan's The Root of the Behavior of the Former Soviet Union and NSC68. The goal of the United States to contain the former Soviet Union is twofold. Maintaining the interests of the United States in political and military security is the fundamental goal of the containment strategy, and maintaining the economic security and prosperity of the United States is an important goal of the containment strategy.
The American government has always attached great importance to the security and prosperity of its own economy. The foundation of the United States is commercial capitalism, that is, it is necessary to carry out economic activities in an expanding market to increase capital. At the beginning of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the United States regarded economic and trade issues as the most important foreign affairs and regarded the threat to its own economy and trade as the greatest security threat. Former US Deputy Secretary of Commerce Garton believes that "the basic driving force of American commerce and diplomacy will continue because it is deeply rooted in American history and philosophy." For most of American history, commercial interests played a central role in foreign policy. "(American) foreign policy is keen to open markets for American businessmen. The United States seeks a way out for surplus wheat, markets for cars and airplanes, and strives to obtain raw materials such as oil and copper. Overseas business expansion is often regarded as the expansion of the American frontier and belongs to the mission shouldered by this country. " He also believes that because of the uniqueness of American society, business can promote foreign policy to a great extent. "The United States is not a traditional colonial power, and its imperialist behavior is not reflected in the military, but generally reflected in the influence and control of American banks and companies" [2]. Charles wilson, president of General Motors, gave the best explanation in his reply at the hearing of the US Senate on10.5. 1953+ 15: "I think that for many years, whatever is good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.
There is no difference between the two sides. [3](P4 18) william williams concluded that for liberal internationalists, the US government always bears a very important responsibility, that is, "to protect and expand the market where the principle of free competition can operate. Like mercantilism, classical liberal economics leads to expansionist foreign policy. " [4] The influence of free trade and commercial expansion on American foreign policy is most obviously reflected in the "open door" policy formulated by the American government at the end of 19 and the beginning of the 20th century. American foreign policy during the Cold War can still be regarded as a continuation of this "open door" policy. The focus of American-style "open door" foreign policy is not to exclude the interests of other countries within the host country, nor to implement closed monopoly, but to rely on strong economic strength, under the banner of free trade and fair competition, with an eye to breaking the protectionist bastion of nation-states or imperialism and turning the world into a new open business empire controlled by the United States. After World War II, the strategic goal of the United States is to try to establish such a new world order led by the United States. In the "American century" designed by the United States, it is absolutely not allowed to establish a "sphere of influence" that runs counter to the traditional "open door" policy of the United States. In other words, the fundamental contradiction between economic system and economic interests makes the foreign policies of the United States and the former Soviet Union extremely sharp after the war.
As far as the former Soviet Union is concerned, "in the early post-war period, the foreign strategy of the former Soviet Union was to try its best to maintain wartime alliances, safeguard world peace, protect the territorial awards and various compensations already obtained, and preserve its sphere of influence and vested interests." [5](P444) Stalin's view of the world system and related theories formed in the late World War II and the early post-war period are the basis of the foreign policy of the former Soviet Union. Stalin's basic views on the world situation after World War II are as follows: first, the economic shock of World War II led to the disintegration of the unified capitalist world market, which determined the further deepening of the universal crisis of capitalism in the world; Second, the decisive role of the former Soviet Union in World War II was the direct cause of the collapse of the capitalist world market; Third, the post-war world situation is developing in favor of socialist countries, and the socialist system has developed from one country to several countries, thus forming a socialist world market parallel to the capitalist world market and an oriental group opposed to capitalism; Fourth, the emergence of two opposing world systems after the war will narrow the scope for capitalist countries to seize world resources, so the capitalist "production growth will be carried out on the basis of narrowing, because the production of these countries will be reduced", and the capitalist world system will inevitably decline. Under the guidance of this policy theory, the former Soviet Union refused to ratify the Bretton Woods Agreement in June 5438 +0945+February, and did not allow Eastern European countries to join the International Monetary Fund. [6](P 103) At the same time, in order to counter the political influence of the Marshall Plan, the former Soviet Union strengthened its economic ties with Eastern European countries and restricted its economic exchanges with the West by implementing the Molotov Plan, and by 1949 it officially developed into a Soviet-Eastern economic group (mutual economic association). The former Soviet Union exercised very strict control over eastern European countries, shifted the trade direction of eastern Europe from the west to the former Soviet Union, and weakened or even cut off the traditional economic ties between eastern Europe and the west. In this way, as a direct economic consequence of the US-Soviet diplomatic strategy, two opposing world systems and two isolated and opposing economic groups have emerged in Europe. As far as Stalin's view on the post-war world situation and the starting point of the theory of two parallel markets are concerned, whether it is to protect the victory of the war or to continue the traditional Russian empire expansion tradition; Whether it is to promote the world socialist revolution or just to establish a socialist system within its sphere of influence; Whether Stalin has his far-reaching strategic considerations or the American government misinterprets it, it has its own interpretation rationality and can also find historical or theoretical basis. However, as far as the influence on the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union at that time was concerned, these remarks and the diplomatic behavior of the former Soviet Union under its guidance greatly deteriorated the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and objectively accelerated the arrival of the Cold War.
The reaction of the United States is very strong. Since the meeting of foreign ministers of the five countries in September 1945, the United States has implemented a tough policy of escalation towards the former Soviet Union. 1946 On February 22nd, that is, 13 days after Stalin's public speech in Moscow, George Kennan sent an 8000-word telegram to the State Council, USA, which made a comprehensive analysis of the "theory, intention, policies and practices" of the post-war former Soviet Union and the countermeasures that the United States should take, and put forward the policy assumption of comprehensively "containing" the former Soviet Union.
Second, the basic means of American containment strategy: combine inducement and pressure on the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Western allies, and comprehensively use economic containment or economic assistance to serve the United States' grand strategy of containing "capitalist expansion".
The containment strategy of the United States during the Cold War is a complex system with many sub-strategies. It emphasizes all means except war to achieve strategic goals. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate and implement corresponding sub-strategies according to the changing situation, so as to make its strategic objectives concrete and realize them through these sub-strategies. [7] The application of economic means or economic strategy in American foreign policy during the Cold War is an important part of the basic means for the United States to realize its containment strategy, which runs through the whole process of the Cold War and is an important content of the East-West Cold War. It mainly has the following performances:
(1) Economic containment. Containment strategy, as a major strategy of the United States during the Cold War, emphasizes all means except war and the comprehensive use of various national forces to achieve strategic goals, among which trade control strategy is the embodiment of containment strategic means. Trade control strategy is an important economic containment strategy formulated by Truman administration and implemented by successive American administrations. Its purpose is to prevent the growth of its economic and military strength by regulating the trade between the United States and its western allies and the group of socialist countries led by the former Soviet Union and prohibiting the export of strategic materials to socialist countries, and finally achieve the goal of containment strategy. 1947 12 17 the newly established national security Council adopted the document "export control to the Soviet union and eastern Europe" at its fourth meeting, pointing out: "the national security Council believes that the security of the United States needs to immediately and indefinitely stop exporting all materials that are short of the United States and materials that are conducive to enhancing the military potential of the former Soviet union." [8](p 5 12) 1949 On February 20th, the U.S. Congress passed the Export Control Act, which stipulated that one of the purposes of American export control was to promote American foreign policy and help fulfill the international responsibility of the U.S. government. Require the US government to cooperate with its allies as much as possible to implement export control; Use the economic resources of the United States and its advantages in trade with * * * countries to promote the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. [9](P 104) This finally determined that trade control should be carried out by the Congress in the form of legislation. According to this strategy, the U.S. Department of Commerce has formulated a strict export license system, stipulating that all materials exported from the United States to socialist countries and western European countries must be approved by the U.S. government. The United States government forced the establishment of traditional trade relations with the former Soviet Union through threats and inducements.
Western European allies joined the ranks of trade control. At the beginning of 1950, the western countries * * * established the "Coordinating Committee on Export Control of Producers" (referred to as "Paris Coordinating Committee"), and formulated a strict export control list and put it into practice. Due to the strict trade control of the former Soviet bloc, the trade between East and West dropped sharply. For example, at 1948, US exports to the former Soviet Union were still more than US$ 27 million, but at 1952, it dropped sharply to only US$ 15000. After that, with the change of the cold war situation, the trade relationship between the East and the West was tight and loose, but the United States never relaxed its control over strategic materials that could promote the economic and military strength of the former Soviet Union. Batumi, as a powerful tool for the United States to pursue its trade control strategy, was dissolved in 1994 after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. America's economic containment strategy excluded the former Soviet bloc from the trend of world economic development, which greatly delayed the economic development of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
(2) Economic sanctions. The economic sanctions strategy implemented by the United States aggravated the difficulties of the former Soviet Union and delayed its development. For example, NATO, led by the United States, imposed an embargo on the large-diameter oil pipeline from 1962 to 1965 to the former Soviet Union, which not only delayed the construction of the friendship pipeline, but also seriously affected the oil transportation of the former Soviet Union and, to a certain extent, affected the import of machinery and means of transport from the former Soviet Union to the West. 1982, the Reagan administration imposed economic sanctions on the former Soviet Union on the pretext of Poland, and deliberately cut off most of the technologies needed by the former Soviet Union to build a new natural gas pipeline in Siberia and cooperate with Japan to develop energy plans. This has a great influence on the foreign exchange income of the former Soviet Union. The former Soviet Union lost $654.38+0.5 billion, or $20 billion. In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration also secretly implemented a "Saudi Action" plan, that is, by trying to increase Saudi oil production, the oil price in the international market plummeted, thus greatly reducing the foreign exchange income of the former Soviet Union, a major exporter of crude oil. According to a secret report of the Central Intelligence Agency, if the oil revenue per barrel drops by 1 USD, the former Soviet Union will lose 50-65,438 billion USD every year. At the same time, the drop in oil prices has also caused some Middle Eastern countries to reduce the purchase of weapons from the former Soviet Union due to the decrease in income, thus reducing the foreign exchange income from arms sales of the former Soviet Union. An official of the former Soviet Union said: "The drop in oil prices is destructive, and it wiped out tens of billions of dollars." [10] The sharp drop in foreign exchange income brought serious difficulties to the economy of the former Soviet Union, which greatly affected the Soviet Union's import of western equipment, industrial materials and agricultural products, and dozens of large-scale projects were forced to stop work due to lack of funds.
(3) Economic assistance. "America's behavioral motives have never been purely commercial. It doesn't go very far on the road of mercantilism like France and Japan. American commerce and trade have always been linked with open markets, which are linked with political freedom, which is accompanied by democracy, and democracy is accompanied by peace. " [2] During the Cold War, the United States believed that an open trading system, including Europe, would help these countries resist imperialism and the former Soviet Union. What the United States is most worried about is that the former Soviet Union used Europe's weakness for economic infiltration. "People think that just as the Great Depression led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, it is very important to promote the liberal capitalist world order on the economic front to ensure peace and reduce the threat to national security." [3](P 16) Thus, Marshall Plan came into being. "Marshall Plan" is an economic plan, which comes down in one continuous line with the "open door" free trade policy of the United States, but it was given new content in the cold war between the United States and the former Soviet Union, that is, on the basis of economic assistance, in the process of helping western Europe to revive, western Europe and the United States formed a pluralistic economic and political dependence, brought western Europe into the global anti-* * strategic system of the United States, and strengthened their economic strength against the former Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan also disintegrated and alienated the relationship between the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Under the pressure of the former Soviet Union, Eastern European countries kept consistent with the former Soviet Union in resisting the Marshall Plan. With the passage of time, the economic gap between eastern and western European countries is getting bigger and bigger, and the contradiction between eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is getting bigger and bigger, which lays the foundation for the final division of the socialist family in eastern Europe of the former Soviet Union. In order to attract more "comrades-in-arms" to contain the former Soviet Union, the United States put forward the "fourth plan" to provide technical assistance to third world countries. Truman said in his memoirs, "The Fourth Plan is a concrete manifestation of our assistance to countries threatened by * * * rule. The fourth plan is to ensure that these countries are properly improved in terms of clothing, food and housing, which is a supplement to the policy of preventing capitalism from expanding in the free world. " [1 1] The aid to Greece and Turkey is an outstanding example of the United States using economic means to serve the containment strategy during the Cold War. In this incident, the American authorities believe that only through economic and financial assistance can we "nip the bud of totalitarian rule bred by suffering and poverty", which is "fundamental" [11] (p 71) In the early 1960s, the United States formally institutionalized foreign aid through the Foreign Aid Law. Although the bill has been revised many times since then, it has not changed the fact that foreign aid is a tool for the United States to achieve its strategic goal of containment.
Third, the realization conditions of the US containment strategy: relying on economic strength, while isolating the former Soviet Union diplomatically, it forced the former Soviet Union to launch an arms race to bring down its economy, which eventually led to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union.
The comparative change of economic strength between countries determines the development trend of international political structure. How the economic strength changes largely determines the inevitability and way of the end of the Cold War. The confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union is first based on the military strength of both sides. Just like the struggle between great powers in history, the ultimate factor that determines victory or defeat is economic strength, not the number of nuclear weapons and troops. Historically, the strength of economic strength largely determines the way the United States handles international relations. During the cold war, economic strength had the same influence on the strategy of the United States to contain the former Soviet Union. Stimulated by the huge "war bonus" of World War II, the economic strength of the United States has made a qualitative leap, which enabled the United States to win over western European allies and "middle zone" countries with economic assistance as bait, maintained the unity of the western world, increased the weight of containing the former Soviet Union, and achieved the goal of isolating the former Soviet Union diplomatically. On the contrary, Eastern European countries, as allies of the former Soviet Union, experienced a process from "hot potato" to "economic burden" during the Cold War. Under the CMEA system, eastern European countries became the targets of unequal economic relations in the former Soviet Union, which greatly reduced their attraction to eastern European countries and laid the foundation for drastic changes.
From the point of view of why the Cold War ended, it can be said that the gap in economic strength between the United States and the Soviet Union is also the most important factor that ultimately leads to different outcomes between the two sides. The arms race provoked by the United States relying on its economic strength has crushed the economy of the former Soviet Union, and the excessive militarization of the economy has become a "straw" to crush the economy of the former Soviet Union. Economic predicament is the fundamental driving force of Gorbachev's reform and a precursor to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. It can be said that the former Soviet Union proved the fatal influence of the economic strength gap on the disintegration of the former Soviet Union from the opposite side. During the Reagan administration, the five-year plan directive of the US Department of Defense pointed out that national defense construction should be regarded as a form of "economic and technological war" against the former Soviet Union. The Star Wars program is part of this strategy. Schwaetzer, an American scholar, believes that the Reagan administration's influence on the economy of the former Soviet Union by strengthening national defense is completely intentional. [10] After World War II, the per capita military expenditure in the United States was $75. By 1982, the per capita military expenditure was as high as $855, an increase of 10 times. The arms race has had a serious impact on the American economy, but it should be said that the former Soviet Union suffered the most economically. According to the data of the Statistical Yearbook of the former Soviet Union, 1987, the gross national product of the former Soviet Union was equivalent to 64% of that of the United States, and the per capita national income was 57% of that of the United States. According to the figures published in Statistical Digest No.7 1990, the GNP of the former Soviet Union was only 54.3% of that of the United States, and the GNP per capita was 46.6% of that of the United States. If calculated by purchasing power parity, the relevant figures are 39.67% and 34.06% respectively. Bolotin, an economist of the former Soviet Union, published an article in the 26th issue of 199 1 Arguments and Facts, arguing that the GNP of the former Soviet Union in 1987 was only 38% of that of the United States, and the GNP per capita was only 30% of that of the United States. These statistics may be different from the actual situation due to the influence of methods and political tendencies, but it is a fact that the economic strength of the former Soviet Union is quite different from that of the United States. Due to the lack of economic strength, the arms race has caused serious consequences to the social economy of the former Soviet Union. In order to be on an equal footing with the United States in nuclear weapons and surpass NATO in the number of chemical weapons and other conventional weapons, the former Soviet Union directly spent 12% to 13% of its gross national product on national defense in the mid-1980s (6.5% in the United States), and defense expenditure accounted for 45% to 50% of the national budget (25% to 27% in the United States). The economy of the former Soviet Union has become a typical war preparedness economy. The excessive militarization of the economy has greatly hindered the improvement of people's living standards, and the sharp contradiction between the stagnation of economic development and the growing material and cultural needs of the people has become an important reason for the disintegration of the former Soviet Union.
Based on the above analysis, we can draw the following conclusions: First, as a continuation of American diplomatic tradition, pursuing and safeguarding economic and commercial interests is an important goal of American diplomatic strategy during the Cold War. The traditional American open-door policy and the principle of protecting the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union after the war are two completely opposite ideological and theoretical systems, which are important sources of national interest conflicts in practice. Historically, the opposition between these two principles not only promoted the arrival of the cold war, but also was the driving force and the most essential thing of the cold war. Second, as an important tool of American diplomatic strategy during the Cold War, economic means not only kept the flexibility of American policy, but also became an effective tool to contain the former Soviet Union. Objectively, it also had a wide impact on international political relations, and became an important factor for peace in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, but it was disastrous for the former Soviet Union. Third, economic strength is the basis of the country's foreign strategy. Without the strong economic strength as the backing, no matter how brilliant the diplomatic and military strategy is, it will not escape the fate of failure. History has proved that capitalism cannot destroy and overwhelm socialism through war. On the contrary, socialism achieved greater development after the war, and World War II was an obvious example. The lessons of history urge the west to change its strategy, pay more and more attention to the growth of its own economic strength while maintaining strong military pressure, and try to contain and bring down socialist countries with economic and scientific and technological advantages in order to achieve the strategic goal of "peaceful evolution" of the socialist system.