During the , there arose social movements throughout the world. The Thai people rose up and toppled their military government, but civilians were able to take control for only three years; October 1973-October 1976. The democratic process was important, even though it only lasted a short while.
The had an impact on Thai politics, economy, society, and culture. Vietnamese communism was a threat to Thailand. The national interest centered on this issue of American military bases and facilities being built in Thailand. The American military stationed itself there, and many American soldiers arrived. Collaterally, the Thai military government received aid and support from the US. The Americans constructed the infrastructure from Bangkok to the rural areas to support their military strategies. The special demands of the enriched the Thai economy. American culture thoroughly invaded Thailand. Americanization destroyed Thai culture and tradition. Many nightclubs and bars were opened in places where there had been nothing of that sort before, and the resulting prostitution aroused anti-American sentiment among Thai people.
The anti- movement prevailed all over the world, but it was difficult for the Thai to organize a similar movement. Thailand had been under the military dictatorship for a long time. There was no freedom of expression, and Thai intellectuals, including students, could not criticize the establishment.
Much anti-war sentiment however existed, stemming from anti-American nationalism. The anti-war movement for the Thai involved writing, talking and discussing. This movement criticized the US for supporting the Thai military government for its own benefit. The Thai military government could not have lasted without American support, and Thai intellectuals and students accused the Americans of propping up that government. The anti- movement was connected to the anti-government movement.
My essay will show four major factors which led to the anti- movement in Thailand. First, there was magazine journalism. The role of Seven Inslitutes and Social Science Review were important. They opposed the at the beginning. Second, Thai people living abroad played important roles. Some of them watched the anti- movement, and some joined. They sent information on the war to Thailand, some writing essays opposing the in Thai magazines. Third, the rise of student activism promoted the anti- movement. Students formed small political groups on their campuses, providing books on the , holding discussions and demonstrations against American policy toward Vietnam. Fourth, the counter culture reflected anti-war sentiment. It used art for the improvement of society under the military dictatorship, and this art raised the political and social consciousness of the Thai people. There were poems, novels, non-fiction and plays dealing with the , and they were accepted by people from every walk of life. These four factors shared anti-American nationalist sentiment against the American bases and soldiers in Thailand that supported the Thai military government. It was Thai nationalism, influenced by the anti- movement in the US, that helped the movement in Thailand.

抄録全体を表示

The U.S. withdrew the troops from South Vietnam and the ROK on the basis of the Nixon Doctrine, implemented détente that supported relaxing international tension by U.S.-China reconciliation, and pursued peaceful coexistence on the premise of the status quo in Asia. This is the reason why I focus on the

which had been the background that caused structural changes of the Cold War in East Asia. And, the was the first test case that the U.S. and South Korea cooperated in the actual combat since the formation of the alliance. The experience in Vietnam was the opportunity for the ROK government to know the possibility and the degree of the support from the U. S. in times of emergency.

However, few previous studies have ever been done on the

from South Korean viewpoints of the U.S.-ROK alliance. In that sense, the questions caused by the foreign policy of the U.S. must be demonstrated as follows; first, as a divided country like South Vietnam, what did the ROK government think about the U.S. support in combat? Secondly, while peace negotiations went on, what was considered necessary by the South Koreans? Thirdly, after Paris Peace Accords, what were South Korean views on it and how did the ROK government respond to the problem by its policy? Lastly, how did Koreans feel about the fall of Saigon and what was the difference between the U.S. and South Korea on the Korean Peninsula issues of post- ?

The purpose of this paper is to explore further into the

, associated with the ROK and the U.S.-ROK alliance, based on the diplomatic archives. Especially, I would like to focus attention on the question of how the ROK government dealt with Vietnam’s situation in the process of US withdrawal and what happened to its way between self-defense and the alliance since then.

Through the whole analysis, the following conclusions were obtained; the first is South Korea became aware of partnership from the patron-client relationship and the transferring of operational control of South Korean forces because of the

. The second is unilateral US withdrawal plan and the end of the war by negotiations decreased reliability of US military commitment in ROK. Nevertheless, South Korea also reconfirmed that the alliance was indispensable to the national security. The third is the U. S. reduced the possibility of direct intervention in conflict on the Korean peninsula after the . One final point is the was a factor to accelerate self-defense policy in Seoul.

抄録全体を表示

The article deals with the impact of the on the major trends of international relations in the mid-1960s as well as the influence of interactions among the major countries on the war. Charles de Gaulle of France, in his attempt to pursue a more independent policy, played a sigificant role in setting in motion those forces that promoted polycentrism in the Western world. France's recognition of China in January 1964 as well as its efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union in the mid-1960s was part of de Gaulle's desire to play a more assertive and important role in world politics. The provided him with a unique opportunity to achieve such a goal by acting as a mediator between the United States and the Communist countries. However, France's mediating role was increasingly regarded by Washington policy makers as an obstacle to the U. S. objectives in Vietnam and the free world. Thus de Gaulle's assertion of more independence within the free world. France was not alone in criticizing the expansion of U. S. war efforts as the other Western allies did not consider Vietnam as crucial to their national interests. In this sense, the war contributed to further decentralization within the Western world.
Communist China played the role in the Communist world that France did in the Western world. China's challenge to the Soviet leadership in the international Communist movement contributed to the decentralization of power in the structure of world politics. The contributed to such a trend as the war exacerbated the rivalry between Moscow and Peking. The U. S. escalation of the war ran counter to Washington's expectations as both China and the Soviet Union intensified their assistance to Hanoi but it also wided the conflict between the two communist countries because both of them wanted to increase their influence on Hanoi in their increasingly bitter struggle for leadership in the international Communist movement at the expense of the other. The intensification of the Sino-Soviet conflict put Norht Vietnam's leadership in a very difficult position as they needed their material and political support in winning the war against the United States and South Vietnam. The way out of the difficulty was to maintain an equidistance from Moscow and Peking. Thus the war, the Sino-Soviet conflict, and the subsequent polarization of the Communist world are all closely interrelated.
The war in Vietnam and the U. S. escalation of the war efforts also contributed to ‘freezing’ the U. S. -Soviet detente that had been explored by Nikita Krushchev after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It was ironic for the United States that, on the one hand, the escalation of the war left no choice for Moscow and Peking but to increase their support to Hanoi and made the U. S. war efforts increasingly costly but, on the other hand, it aggravated the Sino-Soviet conflict to the point where by late 1966 both China and the Soviet Union began to look upon each other as more threatening than the United States. Even though China and the United States considered each other as the major enemy and the U. S. -Soviet relations remained frozen as long as the continued, there emerged signs by late 1966 that began to move Moscow and Peking toward improving relations with Washington. It was the ongoing that kept Moscow and Peking from moving away from assistance to Hanoi as well as from improving relations between Washington, on the one hand, and Peking and Moscow, on the other, throughout the 1960s. The war also contributed to the erosion of the Cold War bipolar structure.

抄録全体を表示