End of the Cold War

(1985 - 1991)
T2W4 Tutorial 1, Mon, 11 April
 Introduction to the
Historical Debates on the
End of the Cold War
Sources taken from Sources
Package
 Historical Debates
• Western Triumphalist SOT: West won the Cold War.
Containment paid off; Reagan’s mixture of renewed
tensions (1st term) and negotiations (2nd term) paid off.

• Soviet Initiative SOT: USSR took concrete means to end

the Cold War, to focus on domestic rebuilding. Crucial role
of Gorbachev.

• People Power SOT: The peoples of West and East bloc put
pressure on their leaders to end the nuclear arms race +
oppression in Eastern Europe respectively. [SBS 14]

• Long Term trends SOT: End of CW as the culmination of

long term trends.
Which ones are “Great Man History”?
 Historical Debates
• 1) Western Triumphalist SOT

• A) Centrist: The Policy of Containment succeeded in bringing

USSR to its knees.

• B) Rightist: Reagan’s role (active) was crucial in ending the Cold

War. Put pressure on USSR to end the Cold War. Ramped up
the tensions (e.g. SDI) so as to bring about USSR’s quick
surrender.

• USSR as the secondary + more passive player that was

responding to US policies.

• Sources that support this: #75 Reagan’s 1987 Berlin Speech

-> harbinger of the collapse of the Berlin Wall?
 “Because we remained strong, the
Soviets came back to the table. Because
we remained strong, today we have
within reach the possibility, not merely of
limiting the growth of arms, but of
eliminating, for the first time, an entire
class of nuclear weapons from the face of
the earth.”
–# 75 p. 231 Reagan, Berlin Wall Speech, June 12, 1987.
 Historical Debates
• 2) Soviet Initiative SOT

• Gorbachev’s role was crucial in putting an end to the Cold War. Took
the initiative to end the Cold War so as to focus on domestic rebuilding.

• Very different from his predecessors. Took bold steps to reach out to
the West, cut down the arms race, and to change the direction of
USSR’s foreign policy “New Political Thinking” + Withdrawal from
Afghanistan.

• USA as the secondary player, as it was USA that was responding to

Gorbachev’s initiatives.

• Sources that support this: #74 The Reykjavik Summit, Oct 1986 ->
USSR’s initiatives were more radical compared to USA’s; #76
Gorbachev’s New Thinking on International Relations, 1987; # 78
Gorbachev’s Statement on Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan,
Feb 8, 1988; # 79 Gorbachev’s UN Address, Dec 1988.
 “Yes, we remain different as far as our social
system, ideological and religious views and way
of life are concerned. To be sure, distinctions
will remain. But should we duel because of
them?… It is no longer possible to draft a
policy on the premises of the year 1947, the
Truman Doctrine and Churchill’s Fulton Speech.
It is necessary to think and act in a new
way…the new political outlook calls for the
recognition of one or more simple axiom:
security is indivisible. It is either equal
security for all or none at all. ”
– #76 p. 233 Gorbachev, “New Political Thinking” From Perestroika,
published 1987.
 “Universal security in our time rests on the
recognition of the right of every nation to
choose its own path of social development, on
the renunciation of interference in the
domestic affairs of other states, on respect
for others in combination with an objective
self-critical view of one’s own society. A
society may choose either capitalism or
socialism. This is their sovereign right.
Nations cannot and should not pattern their life
either after the US or the Soviet Union.”
–# 76, p. 234 Gorbachev, “New Political Thinking” From Perestroika,
published 1987.
 Not merely rhetoric!

“Seeking to facilitate a speedy and successful

conclusion to the Geneva Talks between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Government of
the USSR and the Republic of Afghanistan have
agreed to set a specific date for beginning the
withdrawal of Soviet troops - May 15, 1988 -
and to complete their withdrawal within 10
months.”

–# 78, p. 239 Gorbachev’s Statement on Soviet Withdrawal from

Afghanistan, Feb 8, 1988.
 Not merely rhetoric!
“It is obvious, for instance, that the use or threat of force
no longer can or must be an instrument of foreign
policy…the new phase also requires de-ideologising
relations among states…The Soviet Union has taken a
decision to reduce its armed forces …by 500,000
men. The numbers of conventional armaments will also
be reduced. This will be done unilaterally… By
agreement with our Warsaw Treaty allies, we have
decided to withdraw by 1991, six tank division from
East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary…Soviet
forces stationed in those countries will be reduced by
50,000 men and their armaments by 5,000 tanks.”
–# 79, p. 241 Gorbachev’s UN Address, Dec 1988.
 Gorbachev’s policies
Perestroika (since 1985)
“Restructuring” (of society, mainly economic)
Allowing for a measure of decentralisation + market-forces

New Political
Glasnost (1986) Demokratizatsiya (1987) Thinking (1987)
“Openness” Infusion of democratic elements (Foreign Policy)
Liberalised into the Soviet Union’s political Abandon
information flow. To process. Wanted Marxist-Leninist
expose corruption multi-CANDIDATE elections, idea of
+ hindrances to though unintentionally led to irreconcilable
multi-PARTY elections. conflict btw
Perestroika.
Capitalism +
Communism.
http://countrystudies.us/russia/17.ht
m
 Historical Debates
• 3) People Power SOT

• Role of citizen activism and peace peace movements in ending the

Cold War

• (i) West: Anti-nuclear weapons peace movements since early

1980s. -> Had put pressure on Reagan to cut back on strident
rhetoric + pursue steps towards reducing arms race. See #66
Reagan’s Arms Control Proposals, Nov 1981 (“zero-option”
proposal)

• (ii) East: Eastern European protests and civil society pushing for
change, since 1956 Hungarian Uprising. Demonstrations ->
implementation of Brezhnev Doctrine -> drain on USSR’s finances.

• See #80 The Opening of the Berlin Wall, Nov 1989 + [SBS 14]
 Historical Debates
• 4) Long Term Trends SOT

• There had been long term improvements in East-West

relations since early 1960s (after CMC), and hence Reagan’s
era was an aberration (exception to the norm).

• 1980s discussions on reduction of arms race demonstrates

continuity from 1960s + 1970s Detente.

• E.g. 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty; 1968 Non Proliferation

Treaty

• E.g. 1970s Detente: Soviet-US economic agreements (e.g.

grain sales to USSR); Ostpolitik of West German Chancellor
Willy Brandt etc.
 Milestones
(Summits - once a year high-level meetings
between leaders of USA + USSR)
 Geneva Summit 1985
• #73: The Geneva Summit, Nov 1985 [1st Summit btw R + G]

• No tangible breakthroughs, but generated significant progress

on the personal relations front.

• Building a rapport + mutual respect (intangible achievement?)

between two very different individuals (background + beliefs).
Sowed the seeds for subsequent negotiations?

• Both desired to limit the arms race (both in space + earth), and
emphasised the need to strengthen peace.

• Note in 73B and 73C, both talked about the need to move from
rhetoric to reality. [Where is this seen?]
Reykjavik Summit, 1986
• #74 The Reykjavik Summit, Oct 1986 [2nd Summit between R + G]

• Initially appeared that both sides were prepared to give quite a bit:-

• USSR took the initiative to make specific and sweeping proposals: (i) 50%
cut in all strategic arms, (ii) elimination of intermediate-range weapons from
Europe, (iii) abide by ABM Treaty for more than 10 years. [G wanted to
treat this as a package]

• In response USA: Abolish all strategic missiles in the 10 years.

• In response USSR: Eliminate all nuclear weapons (not just missiles!), by

1996.

• BUT Reagan refused to confine his Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) to

lab testing. pp. 228 last 3 paras

• [Does this undermine the Western Triumphalist SOT (Right-wing) that it

was Reagan that played the major role in the Cold War?]
 Washington
•
Summit,1987
#77 The INF Treaty, Dec 1987 @ The Washington Summit [3rd Summit between R
+ G]

• Following failure of Reykjavik Summit, Gorbachev decided to “unpack his

package” and to negotiate a separate INF Treaty. This allowed the talks to move
ahead, regardless of Reagan’s decision on SDI. G desperately wanted to cut
down on defense expenditure, given the slow pace of economic reforms
within USSR.

• USSR proposed the elimination of US and Soviet intermediate-range missiles in

Europe.

• USA counter-proposed to eliminate ALL intermediate range weapons (including

USSR’s missiles in Asia) - “global zero-zero”

• December, Gorbachev travelled to Washington to sign the new INF Treaty.

• Agreed to eliminate all missiles with range of 500 - 5500km, including US

Pershing II and Soviet SS-20 missiles within the next 3 years. Tangible milestone
even though it only reduce the nuclear stockpiles by 4%.
 Moscow Summit, 1988
• Moscow Summit May 1988: [4th Summit between R + G]

• The May 1988 summit meeting was a victory of style over

substance. Both Reagan and Gorbachev kept up positive fronts in
their public statements, but in fact, the meeting had been a great
disappointment for both sides.

• No further progress on arms limitation was made, and Reagan’s

efforts to push the human rights issue met a frosty response from
Gorbachev.

• The summit indicated that despite the progress made in improving

U.S.-Soviet relations in the past years, serious differences still
existed.

• http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reagan-gorbachev-sum
mit-in-moscow-ends
 Malta Summit, 1989
• Malta Summit, December 1989 [1st meeting of George Bush Sr +
Gorbachev]

• The Malta summit is regarded by many as the official end of the

Cold War, although little of substance was actually agreed.

• “Q. President Gorbachev, President Bush called on you to end the cold
war once and for all. Do you think that has been done now?

• A. In the first place, I assured the President of the United States that the
Soviet Union would never start a hot war against the United States of
America. And we would like our relations to develop in such a way that
they would open greater possibilities for cooperation. Naturally, the
President and I had a wide discussion, where we sought the answer to
the question of where we stand now. We stated, both of us, that the
world leaves one epoch of cold war, and enters another epoch. This
is just the beginning. We are just at the very beginning of our road, long
road to a long-lasting, peaceful period.”