1987 Political Turmoil: Global Shifts, Elections, And Historic Events

1987 was a pivotal year in global politics, marked by significant events that reshaped international relations and domestic landscapes. In the United States, President Ronald Reagan faced the Iran-Contra scandal, which revealed clandestine arms sales to Iran and the diversion of funds to Nicaraguan contras, sparking widespread controversy and congressional investigations. Meanwhile, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, signaling a major step toward nuclear disarmament during the Cold War. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher secured her third consecutive election victory, solidifying her conservative policies and influence. South Korea witnessed a democratic breakthrough with the June Democratic Struggle, leading to the end of military rule and the establishment of direct presidential elections. Additionally, the First Palestinian Intifada erupted in the Israeli-occupied territories, intensifying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and drawing global attention. These events collectively underscored the year’s profound political transformations and their lasting impact on the world stage.

Explore related products

America's First Clash with Iran: The Tanker War, 1987–88

$22.21 $28.95

A Just Society for Ireland? 1964-1987

$86.79 $99

Living the Policy Process

$24.27 $25.99

A Chronology of Post War British Politics (Routledge Revivals)

$73.99 $125.99

Revolution and Foreign Policy: The Case of South Yemen, 1967–1987 (Cambridge Middle East Library Book 21)

$71.25 $75

The Pacification of Central America: Political Change in the Isthmus, 1987-1993 (Critical Studies in Latin American Culture)

$18

Black Monday Stock Market Crash: Global markets plummeted, triggering economic and political instability worldwide

On October 19, 1987, the world witnessed a financial earthquake known as Black Monday. Stock markets across the globe experienced a catastrophic collapse, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) plunging 22.6% in a single day—a record that still stands. This event wasn’t confined to Wall Street; it rippled across continents, from Tokyo to London, as investors panicked and sold off assets en masse. The crash exposed the fragility of an increasingly interconnected global economy, where automated trading systems and portfolio insurance strategies amplified the downturn. Politically, the fallout was immediate and profound, as governments scrambled to restore confidence and prevent a full-blown economic crisis.

The crash of 1987 served as a stark reminder of the limitations of deregulation and the unchecked growth of financial markets. In the United States, President Ronald Reagan’s administration, which had championed free-market policies, faced scrutiny over its hands-off approach to Wall Street. The Federal Reserve, under Chairman Alan Greenspan, responded swiftly by injecting liquidity into the financial system and reassuring markets. However, the crash also highlighted the need for better regulatory frameworks, leading to reforms such as circuit breakers to halt trading during extreme volatility. Globally, leaders grappled with the challenge of balancing economic liberalization with safeguards to prevent future collapses.

Beyond the immediate economic shock, Black Monday had far-reaching political consequences. In Europe, the crash threatened the stability of the European Monetary System, as countries struggled to maintain currency parity amid financial turmoil. In Asia, emerging markets like Hong Kong and Singapore faced severe capital outflows, prompting governments to reevaluate their reliance on foreign investment. The crash also deepened public skepticism of financial elites, fueling populist sentiments that would resurface in later years. For instance, in the UK, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government faced criticism for its pro-market policies, which were seen as exacerbating inequality.

A key takeaway from Black Monday is the importance of global coordination in managing financial crises. Unlike the Great Depression, when nations acted in isolation, the 1987 crash prompted central banks and governments to work together to stabilize markets. This collaborative approach laid the groundwork for future crisis management, such as during the 2008 financial meltdown. However, the crash also underscored the political risks of economic instability, as leaders faced pressure to protect citizens from the fallout. For policymakers today, the lesson is clear: financial markets must be regulated with an eye toward resilience, and contingency plans must be in place to address systemic risks.

Practically speaking, individuals and institutions can learn from Black Monday by diversifying investments and avoiding over-reliance on any single market or asset class. For governments, the crash serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of complacency in financial oversight. Regular stress testing of financial systems, transparent reporting, and robust regulatory frameworks are essential to prevent history from repeating itself. While the world has evolved since 1987, the core lessons of Black Monday remain relevant: markets are powerful tools for growth, but they require careful stewardship to avoid becoming instruments of destruction.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: Reagan and Gorbachev signed treaty, reducing nuclear weapons in Europe

In 1987, the political landscape was marked by a pivotal moment in the Cold War: the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. This treaty, signed on December 8, 1987, in Washington, D.C., was a groundbreaking agreement that eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons from Europe, specifically ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The INF Treaty was not just a symbolic gesture but a concrete step toward reducing the nuclear threat and easing tensions between the two superpowers.

The Context and Negotiations

The INF Treaty emerged from years of escalating tensions over the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union had stationed SS-20 missiles targeting Western Europe, prompting NATO to respond with the deployment of U.S. Pershing II and cruise missiles. This arms buildup heightened fears of a nuclear conflict in Europe. Negotiations began in 1981 but stalled until Gorbachev’s rise to power in 1985, who sought to reform the Soviet Union and improve relations with the West. Reagan, initially skeptical, eventually embraced the idea of arms reduction, leading to a series of summits, including the 1986 Reykjavik meeting, which laid the groundwork for the INF Treaty.

The Treaty’s Impact

The INF Treaty required both sides to destroy their intermediate-range missiles within three years. By 1991, over 2,600 missiles were eliminated, significantly reducing the nuclear arsenal in Europe. This agreement marked the first time the superpowers agreed to eliminate an entire category of weapons and included on-site inspections to ensure compliance. The treaty not only lowered the risk of a nuclear exchange in Europe but also set a precedent for future arms control agreements, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). It symbolized a shift from confrontation to cooperation, fostering a new era of détente.

Challenges and Legacy

Despite its success, the INF Treaty faced challenges. Critics in both countries argued it weakened their strategic positions, and technical disputes over compliance arose. Decades later, in 2019, the U.S. withdrew from the treaty, citing Russian violations, marking its collapse. However, the treaty’s legacy endures as a testament to the possibility of diplomatic solutions to seemingly intractable problems. It remains a case study in how leadership, trust-building, and mutual interest can overcome ideological divides.

Practical Takeaways

For policymakers and diplomats today, the INF Treaty offers valuable lessons. First, arms control requires sustained dialogue and verification mechanisms to build trust. Second, leadership at the highest levels is crucial; Reagan and Gorbachev’s personal rapport was instrumental in overcoming bureaucratic resistance. Finally, while treaties may face challenges, their impact on reducing threats and shaping norms cannot be understated. As nuclear proliferation remains a global concern, the INF Treaty serves as a reminder of what can be achieved through diplomacy and shared commitment to peace.

First Palestinian Intifada: Uprising against Israeli occupation began, reshaping Middle East politics

The year 1987 marked a pivotal moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada. This grassroots uprising, characterized by widespread civil disobedience, strikes, and demonstrations, was a direct response to two decades of Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Unlike previous armed struggles, the Intifada emphasized nonviolent resistance, though it later escalated to include more violent tactics. The spark that ignited this movement is often traced back to a traffic incident in December 1987, where an Israeli truck collided with a Palestinian vehicle, killing four Palestinians. This event, compounded by years of economic hardship, political repression, and land confiscation, galvanized the Palestinian population into action.

Analyzing the Intifada reveals its profound impact on Middle East politics. It shifted the narrative from a purely military conflict to one of popular resistance, forcing the international community to acknowledge the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. The uprising also exposed the fragility of Israel’s control over the occupied territories, as the Israeli Defense Forces struggled to quell the widespread protests. This period saw the emergence of local leadership structures, such as the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising, which coordinated actions and disseminated information through clandestine networks. The Intifada’s decentralized nature made it difficult for Israel to suppress, highlighting the resilience and determination of the Palestinian people.

From a comparative perspective, the First Intifada stands in stark contrast to the armed resistance of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1970s and 1980s. While the PLO’s strategies often alienated international support due to their association with terrorism, the Intifada’s focus on nonviolence garnered global sympathy. This shift in tactics not only revitalized the Palestinian national movement but also paved the way for diplomatic breakthroughs, such as the 1993 Oslo Accords. However, the Intifada’s legacy is complex; while it brought the Palestinian cause to the forefront of global attention, it also deepened divisions within Palestinian society and led to harsh Israeli reprisals, including mass arrests, curfews, and economic blockades.

Practically, the Intifada serves as a case study in the power of civil resistance. For activists and organizers, it underscores the importance of unity, adaptability, and clear messaging in sustaining a movement. Palestinians employed tactics such as boycotts of Israeli goods, refusal to pay taxes, and mass demonstrations, which disrupted daily life in the occupied territories and pressured Israel economically and politically. However, the movement also faced internal challenges, including factionalism and the lack of a unified political vision, which ultimately limited its long-term impact. For those studying or engaging in similar struggles, the Intifada offers both inspiration and cautionary lessons.

In conclusion, the First Palestinian Intifada of 1987 was a transformative event that reshaped Middle East politics and redefined the Palestinian struggle. Its emphasis on nonviolent resistance, combined with its ability to mobilize a broad cross-section of society, demonstrated the potential of grassroots movements to challenge entrenched systems of oppression. While the Intifada did not achieve immediate statehood for Palestine, it laid the groundwork for future negotiations and solidified the Palestinian identity as a resilient and determined people. Its legacy continues to influence contemporary movements for justice and self-determination worldwide.

Explore related products

Assassination (English Subtitled)

$3.99

71: Into the Fire

$1.99

History Matters

$18.89 $27

A People's History of the United States

$17.98 $23.99

The Greatest Presidential Stories Never Told: 100 Tales from History to Astonish, Bewilder, and Stupefy – Compelling Untold Anecdotes About American Leaders (The Greatest Stories Never Told)

$15.99 $19.99

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

$12.77 $24.99

Iran-Contra Affair Scandal: U.S. officials secretly sold arms to Iran, funding Nicaraguan rebels

The Iran-Contra Affair of 1987 stands as a stark reminder of the complexities and ethical dilemmas inherent in Cold War-era foreign policy. At its core, the scandal involved a clandestine operation where U.S. officials secretly sold arms to Iran, a nation under an arms embargo, and diverted the profits to fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who were fighting the socialist Sandinista government. This operation not only violated U.S. law and international norms but also exposed the lengths to which administrations would go to combat perceived communist threats. The affair raises critical questions about the balance between national security interests and democratic accountability, as well as the consequences of operating outside legal and ethical boundaries.

To understand the mechanics of the scandal, consider the following steps: First, arms were sold to Iran, a nation labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism, in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Second, the proceeds from these sales were funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua, bypassing congressional restrictions on funding anti-Sandinista forces. This dual-track operation was orchestrated by key figures in the Reagan administration, including National Security Advisor John Poindexter and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. The scheme unraveled when a plane carrying weapons to the Contras was shot down in Nicaragua, sparking media investigations and congressional inquiries. The subsequent revelations led to public outrage and a series of hearings that exposed the extent of the deception.

Analytically, the Iran-Contra Affair highlights the dangers of unchecked executive power and the erosion of institutional checks and balances. While the Reagan administration argued that its actions were necessary to combat Soviet influence in Central America and secure the release of hostages, the means justified neither the ends nor the violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the Boland Amendment. The scandal also underscored the role of the media and Congress in holding the executive branch accountable, as investigative journalism and bipartisan oversight played pivotal roles in uncovering the truth. However, the affair left a lasting legacy of distrust in government institutions and raised questions about the ethical boundaries of foreign policy.

From a comparative perspective, the Iran-Contra Affair can be juxtaposed with other instances of covert operations during the Cold War, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion or the CIA’s involvement in Chile. In each case, the U.S. government pursued controversial policies to counter perceived communist threats, often with unintended consequences. What sets Iran-Contra apart is the direct involvement of high-ranking officials in illegal activities and the blatant disregard for legislative oversight. This contrasts with earlier operations, which were often carried out by intelligence agencies with limited presidential knowledge. The scandal serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of prioritizing short-term geopolitical gains over long-term democratic principles.

Practically, the Iran-Contra Affair offers several takeaways for policymakers and citizens alike. First, transparency and accountability are essential in foreign policy decision-making. Covert operations, while sometimes necessary, must be conducted within legal frameworks and subject to oversight. Second, the scandal underscores the importance of public vigilance and media scrutiny in preventing abuses of power. Finally, it reminds us that the fight against ideological adversaries must never compromise the values and laws that define a democratic society. By studying the Iran-Contra Affair, we gain insights into the challenges of balancing national security with ethical governance, a lesson as relevant today as it was in 1987.

South Korean Democratization: Protests forced end of military rule, leading to democratic elections

In 1987, South Korea stood at a crossroads, its political landscape dominated by decades of military authoritarianism. The year began with President Chun Doo-hwan, a former general, in power, and the nation under a state of emergency that had stifled dissent since the 1979 coup. Yet, by year’s end, mass protests would force the regime to concede to democratic reforms, culminating in the nation’s first free presidential election in December. This transformation was not inevitable; it was the result of strategic organizing, widespread public mobilization, and a series of calculated risks taken by both activists and political elites.

The catalyst for change emerged in January 1987, when Seoul National University student Park Jong-chul died during police interrogation. Authorities initially claimed he had choked on his own vomit, but evidence of torture surfaced, sparking outrage. This incident, followed by the suspicious death of another student, Lee Han-yeol, during a June protest, galvanized public sentiment. What began as student-led demonstrations evolved into a nationwide movement, with labor unions, religious groups, and middle-class citizens joining the call for democracy. The protests, centered in Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Plaza, were met with tear gas and riot police but persisted, showcasing the power of collective action.

The turning point came in June 1987, when Roh Tae-woo, Chun’s handpicked successor, announced the "June 29 Declaration." This concession promised direct presidential elections, the restoration of civil liberties, and the release of political prisoners. While Roh was himself a military figure, his declaration was a tactical retreat in the face of unstoppable public pressure. The opposition, initially skeptical, seized the opportunity, fielding Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung as candidates in the December election. Roh won, but the election marked the end of military rule and the beginning of South Korea’s democratic era.

South Korea’s democratization in 1987 offers a blueprint for nonviolent resistance. Key to its success was the movement’s ability to unite diverse groups under a single demand: an end to dictatorship. Organizers employed tactics such as mass rallies, strikes, and symbolic acts of defiance, while avoiding violence that could delegitimize their cause. Equally critical was the regime’s internal divide; moderate factions within the government recognized the cost of continued repression and pushed for reform. This interplay of grassroots pressure and elite bargaining underscores the complexity of democratic transitions.

For nations today grappling with authoritarianism, South Korea’s 1987 experience provides actionable insights. First, sustained public mobilization, fueled by clear grievances and moral outrage, can force even entrenched regimes to yield. Second, movements must remain disciplined and unified, focusing on achievable goals rather than ideological purity. Finally, transitions often require compromise, with reformers within the system playing a pivotal role. South Korea’s journey from dictatorship to democracy in 1987 remains a testament to the resilience of people and the possibility of change through collective action.

Frequently asked questions