Changeable Relations between the USA and the Soviet Union - Essay Example

Conflict Resolution Conflicts have been in existence since time in memorial. Graham (2006, 23), indicates that conflicts amongst states normally arise as a result of having different opinions and ideas. In order to resolve the conflicts, the involved states or individuals usually come together whereby they base their different opinions on a solid ground. Eventually, peace occurs as a result of slow accumulation of agreements, settlements and treaties negotiated over certain issues. Therefore, conflict resolution is a vital element if the world is to achieve a peaceful environment. This paper will highlight on the conflicts which existed between United States and Soviet Union and the consequences of agreements which took place. The relations between the two states; United States of America and Soviet Union were aggravated by a mixture of complex interrelated economical, ideological and political factors. Consequently, shifts between guarded cooperation and bitter superpower opposition took place over the years. The discrete disparities in the political systems of the two states barred them from achievement of a mutual understanding on important policy issues. This almost led them to a point of war. Peterson (2007, 43), states that the government of United States was at first hostile to the leaders of Soviet Union for removing Russia from World War I. This was greatly opposed to an ideologically state based on communism. Despite the many efforts United States embarked on, (coming up with a famine relief program in USSR, establishment of commercial ties with Soviet Union) diplomatic relationships were not established until 1933. Josephine (2007, 78) explains that the World War II played a major role in trying to bring the two states into alliance with a goal of overcoming Nazi Germany. However, the Soviet Union had suffered massive material and human losses during the war; around 20 million people died while a large number of cities, towns and villages were destroyed. As a result, the economic status and infrastructure of Soviet Union was devastated. For almost three decades of nuclear race and superpower conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union stayed far apart. However, in early 1970s the Soviet Regime declared a policy of detente and sought after an increase in economic collaboration and disarmament discussions with the West. New tensions between the two states were created in 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and took a stand on human rights. The tensions continued to exist until the remarkable democratic changes which took place between 1989 and 1991. This led to an extraordinary new friendship between Soviet Union and the United States While the agreements between the United States and Soviet Union have not been renounced, the extent of implementation still varies. The Arms control agreements were easily implemented as well as adhered to. This is attributed to the fact that the arms control agreements lay on the recognition of military equality between the U.S. and the USSR, a position the Soviet Union was eager to have documented. However, in 1986 the United States stated that it would not submit to the SALT II agreement. In addition, the two states did not renounce the basic principles agreement in 1972, therefore it was never implemented. In 1950s, the public in United States portrayed a strong disapproval of the Soviet Union. That hostility declined gradually through the 1960s leading to a warm public opinion by the Americans in 1970s. The warm public opinion occurred as the U.S. and the Soviets arrived at de-escalation agreements and the Soviet Union embarked on its campaign for peaceful coexistence. The United States public view of the USSR later worsened at some point in the early 1980s. Meyer (2004, 76), attributes the decline to cynicism after détente, the increase of political conservatism in the United States and resistance to the Soviet attack of Afghanistan. The spending of Soviet military gradually increased through the 1960s and 1970s. Spending went up despite the arms control accords and détente. The military spending was a very major element of the Soviet Union domestic economy. Spending declined in the mid 1980s, as a program of glasnost was embarked on by Gorbachev's administration. The United States military expenses have also been greatly influenced by domestic concerns and other conflicts. Expenses for the Korean and Vietnam Wars gradually increased with time. Later on, the United States spending dropped after the Vietnam War. Michael (2003, 45), states that Soviet exports to United States were low during the 1960s but later on rose in the initial stages of détente. On the other hand, the American exports to Soviet Union decreased following the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan. The grain exports increased after the two states signed in the grain agreement in 1963. Exports to the Soviet Union also increased during détente until through the 1970s. Thomas (2007, 98) notes that the behavior between Soviet Union and United States were paralleled to each other. Cooperative behavior appeared to rise with de-escalation discussions and agreements. Thomas (2007, 99) also states that cooperation rose during détente in the early stages of 1970s. On the other hand, conflictive behavior went up as détente broke down and the two superpowers fought for power in the Third World. In contrast of the popular opinion of the time, the Soviet Union has not been disposed to demand changes of American domestic policies. Consequently, the United States has pressured the Soviet Union to modify its domestic policies on the topic of emigration, human rights, and democratization. Kriesberg (1998, 29), identifies that agreements are usually implemented and endure for a prolonged period of time despite the change in leadership and international conditions. Therefore, statist approach would not be appropriate in understanding the consequences. A populist approach would therefore be considered as the most appropriate perspective since it points out at the importance of conciliatory rituals and gestures such as the formal signing of a treaty in generating public support. In conclusion, agreements appear to have a positive snowballing effect. While the entire process may be interrupted by stages of tension or growth, usually de-escalating relationships tend to grow towards greater cooperation and economic exchange, and more shared approval. However, military spending is normally an exception. On the overall, agreements usually add to an accommodating progress between antagonists, but the international framework and domestic progress in each society are the main constraints. References Graham, Freeman. 2006. Constructive conflicts among States. 2nd ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Jackson, Richard. 2000. “Successful Negotiation in International Violent Conflict”. Journal of International Peace 9 (6): 12-37. Josephine, Katherine. 2007. “From the Cold War to a new Era”, Journal of American Sociology 6 (3): 23-24. Kriesberg, Louis. 1992. International Conflict Resolution: The U.S. – U.S.S.R. and Middle East Cases. New Haven: Yale University Press. Meyer, Austin. 2004. “American Diplomacy and U.S-Soviet Union conflicts”, International Journal of politics 8 (34): 4-6. Michael, Duncan. 2003. Peace Making in United States and Soviet Union. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Peterson, Ian. 2007. “The Evolution of Conflict Management in American State”, American Sociological Association 23 (3): 34-36. Thomas, Gregory. 2007. The United States and Soviet Union. Washington: Anvil press. Read More