These conflicts involve major powers instigating or supporting opposing sides in a war without directly engaging each other. The United States and the Soviet Union frequently engaged in such conflicts during the Cold War, backing different factions within smaller nations to advance their ideological and strategic interests without triggering a full-scale war between themselves. A prominent example includes the Vietnam War, where the U.S. supported South Vietnam, and the Soviet Union supported North Vietnam.
The significance of these conflicts in an Advanced Placement United States History context lies in their profound impact on American foreign policy, domestic politics, and global affairs. These conflicts shaped the containment policy, fueled anti-communist sentiment within the United States, and often led to significant social and political upheaval. Furthermore, these confrontations demonstrate the limitations of superpower influence and the complexities of Cold War-era international relations. Analyzing these events allows for a deeper understanding of the Cold War’s multifaceted nature and its lasting legacy.
Understanding these events provides essential context for studying related topics, such as the Domino Theory, the Truman Doctrine, and the broader impact of the Cold War on decolonization and international alliances. The effects of these conflicts extend beyond the Cold War era, influencing contemporary geopolitical dynamics and debates regarding interventionism and foreign aid.
1. Indirect confrontation
Indirect confrontation is a defining characteristic integral to understanding the nature and impact of these engagements within the historical context of the Cold War and its relevance to Advanced Placement United States History.
-
Avoidance of Direct Military Engagement Between Major Powers
Indirect confrontation signifies the strategic decision by major powers, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union, to avoid direct military conflict with each other. This restraint was driven by the catastrophic potential of nuclear war. Instead, they engaged in conflicts by supporting opposing sides in third-party nations, mitigating the risk of escalation to a full-scale war between themselves. Examples include the Vietnam War, where the U.S. supported South Vietnam and the Soviet Union backed North Vietnam, and the Soviet-Afghan War, where the U.S. supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet-backed Afghan government.
-
Provision of Resources and Support
Indirect confrontation involved the provision of military, economic, and political resources to surrogate states or factions. This support ranged from weapons and training to financial aid and propaganda campaigns. By channeling resources to these proxies, major powers could exert influence and advance their strategic objectives without directly deploying their own troops. The Korean War exemplifies this, with the United States providing substantial military and economic aid to South Korea, while the Soviet Union and China supported North Korea.
-
Ideological Warfare
These conflicts were frequently fueled by ideological differences, particularly the competition between capitalism and communism. Major powers used proxy wars as a means to propagate their ideologies and expand their spheres of influence. This ideological struggle often manifested in propaganda, cultural exchanges, and political subversion aimed at undermining the opposing ideology. The Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba represents an effort by the U.S. to overthrow a communist regime, reflecting the ideological battleground of the Cold War.
-
Geopolitical Maneuvering
Indirect confrontation served as a tool for geopolitical maneuvering, enabling major powers to gain strategic advantages in key regions without risking direct conflict. By supporting friendly regimes or insurgent groups, they could secure access to resources, establish military bases, and counter the influence of rival powers. The Angolan Civil War, in which the U.S. and South Africa supported UNITA against the Soviet and Cuban-backed MPLA, exemplifies this strategic competition for regional dominance.
The facets of indirect confrontation highlight the complex dynamics of superpower competition during the Cold War. By understanding how major powers engaged in these conflicts without direct military engagement, students can gain a deeper appreciation of the strategic calculations, ideological motivations, and geopolitical consequences of proxy wars. These conflicts had profound effects on the nations involved and shaped the course of the Cold War, making their understanding crucial for mastering APUSH content.
2. Superpower involvement
Superpower involvement forms a foundational element in the understanding of these conflicts within the context of United States history. The actions and motivations of superpowers, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, significantly shaped the nature, scope, and consequences of these confrontations.
-
Instigation and Support of Conflicting Parties
Superpowers frequently initiated or significantly influenced proxy conflicts by providing substantial military, economic, and political support to opposing sides. This support could range from funding insurgent groups and supplying advanced weaponry to providing strategic and tactical advice. For instance, the United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua, while the Soviet Union supported the Sandinista government. These actions prolonged conflicts and exacerbated regional instability.
-
Advancement of Ideological and Strategic Interests
Superpower involvement was often driven by the desire to advance ideological agendas and strategic interests. The United States sought to contain the spread of communism through its containment policy, while the Soviet Union aimed to expand its sphere of influence and promote communist ideology. This competition played out in proxy wars across the globe, with each superpower backing factions that aligned with their respective ideologies and geopolitical goals. The Korean War and the Vietnam War serve as prime examples of this ideological competition.
-
Escalation and De-escalation Dynamics
The involvement of superpowers introduced complex dynamics of escalation and de-escalation. Direct intervention or increased support from a superpower could intensify a conflict, leading to greater violence and regional instability. Conversely, a decision to withdraw support or engage in diplomatic negotiations could lead to de-escalation and the potential for conflict resolution. The Cuban Missile Crisis, though not a direct proxy war, demonstrated the potential for superpower involvement to escalate tensions to the brink of nuclear war and the subsequent efforts to de-escalate the situation through diplomacy.
-
Global Impact and Ramifications
Superpower involvement in these conflicts had far-reaching global consequences. These wars often led to prolonged periods of instability, human suffering, and economic devastation in the affected regions. Moreover, they shaped international relations, fostered new alliances and rivalries, and contributed to the broader dynamics of the Cold War. The Soviet-Afghan War, for example, not only destabilized Afghanistan but also had significant implications for the rise of radical Islamic groups and the subsequent geopolitical landscape of Central Asia.
These facets of superpower involvement illuminate the central role played by major powers in instigating, perpetuating, and shaping these conflicts. Understanding these dynamics is essential for analyzing the causes, consequences, and broader significance of these wars within the historical context of the Cold War and the APUSH curriculum. The strategic calculations and ideological motivations of the United States and the Soviet Union significantly influenced the trajectory of these conflicts and their lasting impact on global affairs.
3. Ideological conflict
Ideological conflict serves as a fundamental driver and defining characteristic of these wars during the Cold War era. The clash between the ideologies of communism, primarily championed by the Soviet Union, and capitalism, largely represented by the United States, provided the underlying justification and motivation for superpower involvement in numerous conflicts around the globe. These wars were not merely territorial disputes or power struggles, but rather represented battles over competing visions for societal and global organization. For instance, the Vietnam War can be viewed as a direct manifestation of this ideological struggle, with the U.S. supporting a capitalist South Vietnam against the communist North Vietnam, which received support from the Soviet Union and China. This underscores how deeply ideological differences fueled the intervention and prolonged the conflict.
The importance of ideological conflict within the context of these engagements extends beyond simple cause-and-effect. Ideology shaped the strategies, tactics, and even the narratives surrounding these wars. Both the United States and the Soviet Union framed their involvement as necessary to protect or liberate populations from the opposing ideology. This framing influenced public opinion, both domestically and internationally, and justified the expenditure of resources and the commitment of military aid. The Korean War offers another example, where the U.S. justified its intervention under the banner of preventing the spread of communism, a principle encapsulated in the Truman Doctrine. Understanding this ideological dimension is crucial for comprehending the motivations and actions of the major players involved.
In conclusion, ideological conflict is inextricably linked to the very nature of these wars during the Cold War. It provided the rationale for superpower intervention, shaped the conduct of these conflicts, and influenced their broader geopolitical consequences. Recognizing this connection is essential for a comprehensive understanding of Cold War history and its implications for contemporary international relations. The challenges in interpreting these conflicts lie in disentangling the complex interplay of ideological motivations with other factors, such as strategic interests and economic considerations. However, acknowledging the primary role of ideological competition is a crucial step in analyzing the drivers and outcomes of these pivotal historical events.
4. Third-party states
Third-party states occupy a central position within the framework of proxy conflicts. These nations serve as the battlegrounds upon which larger powers, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, indirectly waged their ideological and geopolitical struggles. Their internal dynamics and vulnerabilities often made them susceptible to external interference and manipulation.
-
Arenas of Conflict
Third-party states functioned as physical arenas where competing ideologies and strategic interests clashed. Civil wars, insurgencies, and political instability within these nations provided opportunities for external powers to intervene by supporting opposing factions. For example, in Angola, the United States and South Africa supported UNITA, while the Soviet Union and Cuba backed the MPLA, transforming the country into a theater of proxy war.
-
Sources of Instability
Internal divisions and socio-economic disparities within third-party states contributed to their vulnerability to external manipulation. Ethnic tensions, political corruption, and economic inequality provided fertile ground for the emergence of internal conflicts, which external powers could then exploit to advance their own agendas. The Democratic Republic of Congo, plagued by ethnic strife and resource exploitation, became a site of various external interventions throughout the Cold War and beyond.
-
Vehicles for Superpower Influence
Third-party states served as vehicles through which superpowers exerted their influence and pursued their strategic objectives without directly engaging each other in open warfare. By providing military, economic, and political support to allied factions within these nations, the United States and the Soviet Union could extend their spheres of influence and contain the expansion of their rival’s ideology. The Korean War illustrates this dynamic, as the U.S. and its allies intervened to prevent the communist North Korea from conquering the pro-Western South Korea.
-
Consequences for Local Populations
The involvement of superpowers in the internal affairs of third-party states often had devastating consequences for local populations. Prolonged conflicts, widespread violence, and economic disruption led to immense human suffering and hindered the development of these nations. The Vietnam War, with its immense loss of life and environmental damage, serves as a stark reminder of the destructive impact of proxy wars on affected countries.
The multifaceted roles of third-party states highlight the complexities and human costs of these conflicts. By examining the internal dynamics of these nations and the ways in which they were manipulated by external powers, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of the causes, consequences, and broader significance of Cold War proxy conflicts. The legacies of these wars continue to shape the political and social landscapes of many third-party states today.
5. Limited direct engagement
Limited direct engagement is a cornerstone element defining the very essence of proxy wars. It underscores the strategic avoidance of direct military confrontation between major powers, transforming conflicts into indirect battles waged through third parties. This feature is central to understanding the dynamics and implications of such wars, particularly within the historical context of the Cold War.
-
Strategic Avoidance of Superpower Warfare
The core principle involves preventing a direct armed conflict between superpowers, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union. The threat of nuclear escalation necessitates that these nations pursue their geopolitical objectives indirectly, supporting opposing sides in regional conflicts without deploying their own troops against each other. For instance, the superpowers avoided direct military clashes in Korea and Vietnam, instead providing resources and support to their respective allies.
-
Provision of Material and Logistical Support
Instead of direct military intervention, major powers supply surrogate states or factions with military equipment, financial aid, and logistical support. This enables them to project power and influence without incurring the risks and costs associated with deploying their own armed forces. The United States’ support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed government exemplifies this strategy.
-
Covert Operations and Intelligence Activities
Limited direct engagement often involves covert operations and intelligence activities aimed at destabilizing rival regimes or supporting friendly factions. These operations may include funding rebel groups, conducting espionage, and spreading propaganda. The Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba and the CIA’s involvement in Chile demonstrate the use of covert actions to advance strategic interests without direct military confrontation.
-
Diplomatic Maneuvering and Political Influence
Major powers exert diplomatic and political influence to shape the outcomes of proxy conflicts in their favor. This includes lobbying international organizations, negotiating arms control agreements, and providing political support to allied governments. The United States’ efforts to isolate the Soviet Union diplomatically and the Soviet Union’s support for anti-colonial movements represent this type of engagement.
These facets of limited direct engagement are integral to understanding how proxy wars functioned as a critical component of Cold War strategy. By avoiding direct military clashes, superpowers sought to advance their ideological and strategic interests while minimizing the risk of nuclear war. The consequences of these indirect conflicts, however, were often devastating for the third-party states involved, leaving lasting scars and contributing to regional instability.
6. Containment strategy
The containment strategy, a cornerstone of United States foreign policy during the Cold War, directly fueled the proliferation of proxy conflicts. This doctrine, predicated on preventing the expansion of Soviet influence and communism, manifested in active intervention and support for anti-communist forces in various nations. Proxy wars became a primary instrument for implementing containment without triggering direct military confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR. For example, the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was rooted in the belief that preventing the communist North from unifying Vietnam would halt the spread of communism in Southeast Asia, aligning directly with the containment strategy. Consequently, proxy conflicts were not isolated incidents but rather integral components of a broader strategic framework.
The containment strategy shaped the U.S. approach to these conflicts in several ways. It justified substantial military and economic aid to anti-communist regimes, even those with questionable human rights records. It also led to covert operations aimed at destabilizing communist or socialist governments, as evidenced by the CIA’s involvement in Chile. Moreover, the doctrine dictated the parameters of U.S. involvement, ensuring that while support was extensive, direct military engagement against Soviet forces was avoided. This pragmatic approach, prioritizing strategic objectives over ideological purity, often resulted in complex and morally ambiguous situations, influencing both domestic politics and international relations. For example, US support for authoritarian regimes in South America was justified with its effort in the containment strategy.
In conclusion, the connection between the containment strategy and proxy wars is one of cause and effect, with containment serving as the primary driver behind U.S. involvement in these conflicts. The understanding of this connection is crucial for APUSH students, highlighting the strategic logic underlying U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War and its profound impact on global affairs. Challenges in analyzing this relationship stem from the inherent complexities of evaluating the long-term consequences of containment and the ethical considerations associated with supporting authoritarian regimes in the name of strategic necessity.
7. Cold War context
The Cold War provided the overarching framework within which proxy wars occurred. This period of geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, and their respective allies, fundamentally shaped the nature, frequency, and significance of these conflicts. These proxy wars were not isolated events but rather manifestations of the broader struggle for global influence between two dominant superpowers. The ideological, strategic, and economic dimensions of the Cold War profoundly influenced the dynamics and outcomes of these conflicts, making it impossible to understand them in isolation.
-
Ideological Competition
The ideological competition between communism and capitalism served as a primary driver for proxy wars. Both the United States and the Soviet Union sought to expand their spheres of influence by promoting their respective ideologies. This led to interventions in nations where the existing political order was unstable or contested, resulting in conflicts where each superpower supported opposing sides. For example, the Korean War saw the US backing South Korea against the communist North Korea, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. This ideological struggle permeated virtually every aspect of these conflicts, from the rhetoric used to justify intervention to the strategies employed on the battlefield.
-
Geopolitical Strategy
The Cold War geopolitical strategy of containment, adopted by the United States, aimed to prevent the spread of communism. Proxy wars became a key instrument for implementing this strategy without directly engaging Soviet forces. By supporting anti-communist forces in vulnerable nations, the US sought to contain Soviet influence and prevent the domino effect of countries falling to communism. The Vietnam War exemplifies this approach, where the US intervened to prevent the communist North Vietnam from unifying the country, fearing it would lead to the communist takeover of Southeast Asia. These strategic calculations significantly influenced the scale and intensity of proxy conflicts.
-
Nuclear Deterrence
The existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented direct military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. This created a strategic environment in which proxy wars became a safer, albeit still dangerous, way to pursue their interests. By engaging in conflicts through third parties, the superpowers could avoid a direct military clash that might escalate to nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis highlighted the perils of direct confrontation and reinforced the reliance on proxy warfare as a means of managing the Cold War rivalry.
-
Economic and Military Aid
Economic and military aid played a crucial role in shaping proxy conflicts. Both the United States and the Soviet Union provided substantial resources to their respective allies, enabling them to sustain prolonged conflicts. This aid often included weapons, training, financial assistance, and logistical support. The Soviet Union supported communist regimes and insurgent groups in countries like Cuba, Angola, and Vietnam, while the US provided similar support to anti-communist forces in nations such as South Korea, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. This flow of resources prolonged conflicts and exacerbated regional instability.
These facets of the Cold War context underscore the complex interplay between global superpower rivalry and localized conflicts. These wars cannot be understood without considering the overarching ideological, strategic, and economic factors that shaped their emergence, evolution, and consequences. The dynamics of the Cold War transformed regional disputes into proxy battlegrounds, leaving a legacy of instability and conflict that continues to influence international relations today. Understanding this context is critical for comprehending the significance of these conflicts in United States and global history.
8. Geopolitical influence
Geopolitical influence stands as a critical element in understanding the impetus and consequences of these conflicts. The pursuit, projection, and maintenance of this influence by major powers, particularly during the Cold War, fundamentally shaped the landscape and dynamics of such engagements. Examining how this influence manifested in practice is essential for a comprehensive analysis.
-
Strategic Positioning
Geopolitical influence directly relates to a nation’s ability to strategically position itself in key regions through alliances, military presence, and economic leverage. These wars often occurred in areas where major powers sought to establish or protect their strategic assets, such as access to resources, trade routes, or military bases. The Soviet-Afghan War, for example, involved the Soviet Union’s attempt to maintain influence in Central Asia, bordering its own territory, to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and secure its southern flank.
-
Ideological Expansion
The spread of ideology served as a primary tool for expanding geopolitical influence. Major powers supported factions or regimes that aligned with their ideological beliefs, using proxy wars to promote their political systems and values. The Vietnam War exemplifies this, with the United States seeking to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union supporting the communist North Vietnamese government. Such ideological battles were integral to the broader competition for global dominance.
-
Resource Control
Access to and control over vital resources, such as oil, minerals, and strategic waterways, were significant drivers of geopolitical influence. Proxy wars often erupted in regions rich in natural resources, as major powers sought to secure their access to these resources or deny them to their rivals. The Angolan Civil War, for instance, was partly fueled by competition for control over the country’s diamond and oil reserves, with various external actors supporting different factions to gain a foothold in the region.
-
Balance of Power
Maintaining a favorable balance of power was a central objective in the pursuit of geopolitical influence. Major powers used proxy wars to counter the influence of their rivals and prevent any single power from dominating a particular region. The Korean War, where the United States intervened to prevent North Korea from conquering South Korea, can be seen as an effort to maintain the balance of power in East Asia and prevent the expansion of Soviet influence. These conflicts often served as a means of calibrating power dynamics on a global scale.
These aspects of geopolitical influence underscore how the quest for power and strategic advantage drove the instigation, escalation, and resolution of these conflicts. Understanding these dynamics provides crucial insights into the underlying causes and consequences of such wars, highlighting their significance within the broader context of Cold War history and international relations.
9. Domestic impacts
Domestic impacts, in the context of proxy wars, encompass the wide range of effects experienced within the participating nations, particularly the United States. These impacts serve as crucial components in understanding the broader significance of proxy wars, illustrating the direct and indirect consequences of foreign policy decisions on the home front. A primary domestic impact stemmed from the economic costs associated with funding and supporting proxy conflicts. Resources allocated to military aid, covert operations, and intelligence gathering diverted funds from domestic programs, influencing budgetary priorities and potentially hindering social welfare initiatives. For example, the substantial financial investment in the Vietnam War led to increased inflation and social unrest within the United States, contributing to the Great Society programs being underfunded.
Furthermore, these conflicts generated significant political polarization and social divisions. Public opinion regarding interventionist foreign policies often fractured along ideological lines, leading to protests, debates, and challenges to governmental authority. The anti-war movement during the Vietnam War era is a prime example, demonstrating how opposition to a proxy conflict can mobilize large segments of the population and exert considerable pressure on policymakers. Moreover, proxy wars impacted national identity and cultural narratives. The successes and failures of these engagements influenced perceptions of American power, moral standing, and the role of the United States in global affairs. The Watergate scandal, stemming in part from the Nixon administration’s efforts to suppress dissent and maintain secrecy related to the Vietnam War, further eroded public trust in government and fueled disillusionment with foreign policy objectives. The effects include social movements, economical challenges and the change of political narrative
In conclusion, the domestic impacts of proxy wars are integral to a comprehensive understanding of their significance. They reveal how foreign policy decisions reverberate within the nation, shaping economic realities, political landscapes, and social attitudes. By recognizing these multifaceted impacts, it becomes possible to assess the true costs and consequences of proxy conflicts and their lasting legacy on American society. The challenges associated with analyzing these impacts lie in disentangling the complex interplay of factors that contribute to domestic change, but their importance in understanding the complete picture of proxy wars cannot be overstated.
Frequently Asked Questions about Proxy Wars (APUSH)
The following questions address common points of confusion surrounding proxy wars, especially within the context of Advanced Placement United States History.
Question 1: What precisely constitutes a proxy war in the context of APUSH?
A proxy war, within the APUSH framework, is a conflict where major powers utilize third-party states or factions to wage war indirectly against each other. These powers provide support, such as funding, arms, and training, but avoid direct military engagement between themselves.
Question 2: What were the primary motivations for engaging in these conflicts during the Cold War?
The principal motivations included the containment of communism, expansion of geopolitical influence, and protection of strategic interests. Superpowers aimed to advance their ideological agendas and secure resources without triggering direct military confrontation.
Question 3: How did these conflicts influence domestic policies and societal attitudes within the United States?
Proxy wars often led to increased military spending, which impacted domestic programs and economic priorities. They also fueled social and political divisions, influencing public opinion on foreign policy and governmental authority.
Question 4: What were some significant examples within the APUSH curriculum?
Notable examples encompass the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet-Afghan War. These conflicts illustrate the dynamics of superpower rivalry and the devastating consequences for the involved third-party states.
Question 5: How did these conflicts impact third-party states?
Third-party states often experienced prolonged periods of instability, violence, and economic devastation. These wars exacerbated internal divisions and hindered long-term development, leaving lasting social and political scars.
Question 6: What is the lasting legacy of these conflicts on the global stage?
The legacy includes the reshaping of international alliances, the proliferation of regional conflicts, and the rise of new geopolitical actors. The consequences of proxy wars continue to influence contemporary international relations and debates regarding interventionism and foreign aid.
Understanding these key aspects of proxy wars provides a foundational understanding of Cold War dynamics and their continuing impact on global affairs. Key takeaways from this FAQ is Cold War period, indirect fighting and how its effects influenced many countries.
With this knowledge in hand, the subsequent sections will delve into specific proxy conflicts and their profound implications.
Examining “proxy wars apush definition”
Effective engagement with the concept within the APUSH curriculum necessitates a rigorous approach that integrates both factual knowledge and analytical skills.
Tip 1: Emphasize the strategic context. The decision to engage indirectly rather than directly reflects the Cold War’s nuclear constraints. Examples include the United States involvement in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Tip 2: Analyze motivations beyond mere containment. Investigate economic interests, resource control, and power projection. The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, for instance, was tied to its strategic positioning and access to Central Asia.
Tip 3: Evaluate domestic impacts. Focus on economic strains, political polarization, and societal divisions that these engagements engendered. The Vietnam War spurred significant anti-war sentiment and political upheaval in the United States.
Tip 4: Understand third-party state dynamics. Recognize that these nations were not merely pawns but had internal agency and complexities. Conflicts frequently exacerbated existing tensions and had lasting consequences on their societies.
Tip 5: Contextualize within the broader Cold War. Avoid treating these conflicts in isolation. They represent facets of a global ideological and geopolitical struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Tip 6: Consider long-term consequences. Proxy wars often had unintended and enduring effects, contributing to regional instability and shaping contemporary international relations. The Soviet-Afghan War, for instance, contributed to the rise of radical Islamic groups.
Tip 7: Refine critical thinking skills. Evaluate the justifications and consequences of these interventions, considering ethical dimensions and alternative perspectives.
These considerations highlight the multifaceted nature of these conflicts. Mastery demands a comprehensive understanding of historical context, strategic calculations, and profound consequences.
With these insights, proceed to explore related topics, further enhancing comprehension of this complex subject.
Conclusion
The preceding exploration of “proxy wars apush definition” has elucidated the concept’s multifaceted nature, highlighting its prevalence during the Cold War and its lasting impact on global politics and domestic affairs. These conflicts, characterized by indirect confrontation between major powers through third-party states, were driven by ideological competition, geopolitical strategy, and the pursuit of strategic resources. Their consequences extend beyond the battlefield, shaping domestic policies, social attitudes, and international relations.
A continued examination of these engagements remains essential for a comprehensive understanding of twentieth-century history and its relevance to contemporary geopolitical dynamics. Further inquiry into the causes, consequences, and ethical dimensions of these wars is encouraged, fostering a more informed perspective on the complexities of international conflict and the responsibilities of global powers.
