HY320 – The Cold War End Game
Essay Plans
1. ‘To what extent did détente collapse because of….’ Discuss.
2. No common aim – much of the failure in its conception
*Robert Gilpin has described how in the absence of shared values and interest there was little chance of
success*
- For both sides détente about gaining advantage over the other
o USSR = recognition as superpower status/US equal + spread communism abroad
1972 – B said détente could not halt ‘historical progress’
o US = contain Soviets, defend own position and peace with honour in Vietnam
*Hanson describes how US thought linkage between trade and Soviet foreign policy prevent 3 rd world
involvement but USSR thought it would increase as USSR more attractive ally
- Therefore, much of the collapse lies in the aims of both sides at the start
- Contradictory and incompatible – meaning détente would not last
- When both believed their aims had been met – no longer desire to pursue détente
3. Vague no clear code of conduct (FLAWS IN DESIGN) – weak, status quo stayed same, basic
dynamic of CW stayed the same
*Garthoff describes failure to define a clear code of conduct when rules being agreed*
- rules of détente vague
o e.g. 2 powers agreed to do “utmost best to avoid military confrontation’ – vague, easy to
ignore does not include consequences should military confrontation arise
o Rules described how they do not affect any obligations to other countries already assumed
by the USA or USSR – vague as does not state the countries themselves
- Rules lacked clarity, open to interpretation and could be easily violated
ALSO
- Missed opportunity – détente did not go far enough e.g. Larson – 1972 – could have agreed on
MIRV ban rules did not go far enough to create change
4. ‘violating its rules’ or acting aggressively (vague)
Argument – because rules were so vague was easy to violate
HOWEVER – both sides did not care enough about consequences of their actions/how they would be
perceived
- Basic principles of 1972 and the Prevention of Nuclear war in 1973 committed both superpowers to
act with restraint and settle differences by peaceful means
o Intervention in 3rd world could be seen as violation
Third World
USSR – more expansionist from mid 70s
Orthodox view of collapse of détente argues failure of USSR to adjust foreign policy in line w spirit of
détente
- 1975 – involved in Angolan civil war – provided military aid, advisors, airlift assistance to Cuban
troops – supported MPLA
- Following this, provided aid and advisors to Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen
- Afghanistan invasion 1979 – further violation of BPA
o For USSR dreaded Islamic fundamentalists – endanger security of Southern border because
of growing Muslim population in USSR
o But threatened US oil interests in Persian Gulf and complicated task of rescuing Americans
held hostage in Iran
, In response – US grain embargo on USSR, boycott summer Olympics in Moscow,
expulsion of Soviet diplomats in UN and asked senate to delay further considerations
of SALT treaty while USSR in Afghanistan
Porter argues USSR calculated in involvement – only got involved in ones they would win but used ideology
to justify it – shows importance of obtaining unilateral advantage
US
- During Angolan civil war provided FNLA with initial $300,000 in 1974
- Supported Pinochet Coup in Chile in 1973 – against freely elected government Allende (angered
Soviets)
- 1977 Carter stated “aggressively challenge” in a peaceful way of course Soviet union for influence in
areas – mentioned Iraq, Somalia, Algeria
*Bowker argues US remained the more active and dominant in 3rd World*
- US report published in early 1980s found USSR international position weaker than in K’s time (Egypt,
Somalia and Sudan – all abandoned USSR in 70s and rest of allies impoverished)
BOTH
- Both involved in proxy war in Middle East – armed allies and threatened each other
o USSR – Egypt and Syria w arms
o US – Israel war material
- Undermined détente massively – both sides continued to ‘obtain unilateral advantages’ at expense
of each other
LARSON – conflict over 3rd world aggravated propensity of both sides to apply double standard to the act
of the other (US violated BPA in Middle East/USSR did in Africa)
ARMS
Calls to limit armaments and avoid military confrontation
USSR
- Deployed SS-20 nuclear forced in Europe despite US calls for them to be removed
US
- Following SS-20s increased military power – NATO allies increased military spending by 3% per year
- By 1979 NATO dual track decision – deployment of S27 Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe
Increased threat of nuclear confrontation
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
- USSR viewed US involvement in their internal affairs as a violation of the principle of parity and
equality under détente
- Jackson-Vanik amendment – Soviets had to increase emigration quota of citizens from Soviet Union
in order to maintain MFN status v unpopular
o Soviets reacted by cutting no of emigrants from 35,000 in 1973 to 20,000 in 1974
o Cancelled 1972 trade agreement
*Njolstad – détente suffered blow after Nixon resigned as Carter began to condemn lack of personal
freedom in USSR *
- 1977 Carter invited Bukovsky (dissident) to White house
- different understandings – Carter moralist and called for ‘new and genuine détente’ where
controversial issues included
- Seen as a threat to internal political authority by USSR
5. Not caring about détente framework
- US continued to use China (knowing annoyed Soviets)
o Deng Xiaoping visit to US in 1979
*Hanhimaki argues ‘triangular diplomacy’ crucial element in US new approach to the CW*
- US deep cuts proposal – undermined – both sides cut force levels by some 20-25%, but soviets get
rid of more than half their heavy missiles
Lack of commitment on both sides
, 6. miscalculated reactions
7. US domestic factors
- No longer viable
o Senator Jackson appealed to Congressional ratification
- Public disapproval
o 1977-78 polls showed majority of Americans believed US falling behind USSR in power and
influence (détente intended to cope with US relative decline)
- Rise of conservatism in US from mid 70s
o After Watergate scandal and Vietnam – American elite wanted a more predictable
environment
o Same concern about détente but different cure
Essay Plans
1. ‘To what extent did détente collapse because of….’ Discuss.
2. No common aim – much of the failure in its conception
*Robert Gilpin has described how in the absence of shared values and interest there was little chance of
success*
- For both sides détente about gaining advantage over the other
o USSR = recognition as superpower status/US equal + spread communism abroad
1972 – B said détente could not halt ‘historical progress’
o US = contain Soviets, defend own position and peace with honour in Vietnam
*Hanson describes how US thought linkage between trade and Soviet foreign policy prevent 3 rd world
involvement but USSR thought it would increase as USSR more attractive ally
- Therefore, much of the collapse lies in the aims of both sides at the start
- Contradictory and incompatible – meaning détente would not last
- When both believed their aims had been met – no longer desire to pursue détente
3. Vague no clear code of conduct (FLAWS IN DESIGN) – weak, status quo stayed same, basic
dynamic of CW stayed the same
*Garthoff describes failure to define a clear code of conduct when rules being agreed*
- rules of détente vague
o e.g. 2 powers agreed to do “utmost best to avoid military confrontation’ – vague, easy to
ignore does not include consequences should military confrontation arise
o Rules described how they do not affect any obligations to other countries already assumed
by the USA or USSR – vague as does not state the countries themselves
- Rules lacked clarity, open to interpretation and could be easily violated
ALSO
- Missed opportunity – détente did not go far enough e.g. Larson – 1972 – could have agreed on
MIRV ban rules did not go far enough to create change
4. ‘violating its rules’ or acting aggressively (vague)
Argument – because rules were so vague was easy to violate
HOWEVER – both sides did not care enough about consequences of their actions/how they would be
perceived
- Basic principles of 1972 and the Prevention of Nuclear war in 1973 committed both superpowers to
act with restraint and settle differences by peaceful means
o Intervention in 3rd world could be seen as violation
Third World
USSR – more expansionist from mid 70s
Orthodox view of collapse of détente argues failure of USSR to adjust foreign policy in line w spirit of
détente
- 1975 – involved in Angolan civil war – provided military aid, advisors, airlift assistance to Cuban
troops – supported MPLA
- Following this, provided aid and advisors to Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen
- Afghanistan invasion 1979 – further violation of BPA
o For USSR dreaded Islamic fundamentalists – endanger security of Southern border because
of growing Muslim population in USSR
o But threatened US oil interests in Persian Gulf and complicated task of rescuing Americans
held hostage in Iran
, In response – US grain embargo on USSR, boycott summer Olympics in Moscow,
expulsion of Soviet diplomats in UN and asked senate to delay further considerations
of SALT treaty while USSR in Afghanistan
Porter argues USSR calculated in involvement – only got involved in ones they would win but used ideology
to justify it – shows importance of obtaining unilateral advantage
US
- During Angolan civil war provided FNLA with initial $300,000 in 1974
- Supported Pinochet Coup in Chile in 1973 – against freely elected government Allende (angered
Soviets)
- 1977 Carter stated “aggressively challenge” in a peaceful way of course Soviet union for influence in
areas – mentioned Iraq, Somalia, Algeria
*Bowker argues US remained the more active and dominant in 3rd World*
- US report published in early 1980s found USSR international position weaker than in K’s time (Egypt,
Somalia and Sudan – all abandoned USSR in 70s and rest of allies impoverished)
BOTH
- Both involved in proxy war in Middle East – armed allies and threatened each other
o USSR – Egypt and Syria w arms
o US – Israel war material
- Undermined détente massively – both sides continued to ‘obtain unilateral advantages’ at expense
of each other
LARSON – conflict over 3rd world aggravated propensity of both sides to apply double standard to the act
of the other (US violated BPA in Middle East/USSR did in Africa)
ARMS
Calls to limit armaments and avoid military confrontation
USSR
- Deployed SS-20 nuclear forced in Europe despite US calls for them to be removed
US
- Following SS-20s increased military power – NATO allies increased military spending by 3% per year
- By 1979 NATO dual track decision – deployment of S27 Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe
Increased threat of nuclear confrontation
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
- USSR viewed US involvement in their internal affairs as a violation of the principle of parity and
equality under détente
- Jackson-Vanik amendment – Soviets had to increase emigration quota of citizens from Soviet Union
in order to maintain MFN status v unpopular
o Soviets reacted by cutting no of emigrants from 35,000 in 1973 to 20,000 in 1974
o Cancelled 1972 trade agreement
*Njolstad – détente suffered blow after Nixon resigned as Carter began to condemn lack of personal
freedom in USSR *
- 1977 Carter invited Bukovsky (dissident) to White house
- different understandings – Carter moralist and called for ‘new and genuine détente’ where
controversial issues included
- Seen as a threat to internal political authority by USSR
5. Not caring about détente framework
- US continued to use China (knowing annoyed Soviets)
o Deng Xiaoping visit to US in 1979
*Hanhimaki argues ‘triangular diplomacy’ crucial element in US new approach to the CW*
- US deep cuts proposal – undermined – both sides cut force levels by some 20-25%, but soviets get
rid of more than half their heavy missiles
Lack of commitment on both sides
, 6. miscalculated reactions
7. US domestic factors
- No longer viable
o Senator Jackson appealed to Congressional ratification
- Public disapproval
o 1977-78 polls showed majority of Americans believed US falling behind USSR in power and
influence (détente intended to cope with US relative decline)
- Rise of conservatism in US from mid 70s
o After Watergate scandal and Vietnam – American elite wanted a more predictable
environment
o Same concern about détente but different cure
