Nixon And Brezhnev : The Era Of Detente

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

In the years 1953-61 some might say that the cold war tensions were eased by peaceful coexistence, with super power negotiations and key agreements paving the way for better relations. Despite this, the stronger argument suggests that ultimately, cold war tensions were not eased, the cold war continued for another 30 years. This was due to failure to negotiate anything of substance at conferences such as Geneva 1955 and the lack of change in superpower attitude with Eisenhower’s new look policy and the USSR’s approach to Hungary.

Ronald Reagan expresses his views by saying, “For the first time in history, the language of ‘arms control’ was replaced by ‘arms reduction’”. President Reagan goes on to declare that the complete elimination of nuclear missiles took conventional wisdom, patience, determination, and commitment. Reagan was thankful for the treaty, and he believed that this treaty would create a working relationship between the Soviets and the United States. He wanted this relationship to take on other urgent issues such as, strategic offensive nuclear weapons, the balance of conventional forces in Europe, the destructive regional conflicts of the world, and the respect for the human and natural rights granted by God to all people. Similarly, General Secretary Gorbachev’s opinion of the treaty was equivalent to Reagan’s. He claimed, “We can be proud of planting this sapling, which may one day grow into a tree of peace.” Gorbachev felt that this treaty was the birth of a relationship between the US and Soviet Union. He thought that they had reached a breakthrough in the Cold War. The General Secretary also states, “...move together toward a nuclear-free world, which holds out for our children and grandchildren and for their children and grandchildren the promise of a fulfilling and

According to Tony McConnell, Nixon was the first president to consider a basic income and was the originator of the Environmental Protection Agency (28). Just like any other president, Nixon made his own policies and impacts on America. Another noteworthy topic of Nixon’s legacy is his foreign policy. McConnell notes that “it could only have been… [Nixon] to make common cause with the Chinese against the Soviet Union” (29). Nixon established nuclear arms control with Russia during the Cold War and establish the diplomatic openings with

and its allies and the group of nations led by the Soviet Union. Direct military

January 1969, Richard Nixon entered the executive office picking up the pieces Lyndon Johnson who had left while the Vietnam War was still in effect. Many Americans had the expectation that Nixon would be the “peaceful president”, visualizing he would put an end to this war in Southeast Asian and bring back home our troops. A policy Nixon redefined was the American role in the world by suggesting to limit the U.S resources and commitments. Therefore, Nixon’s set his efforts to end the war since the withdrawal from Vietnam was not an immediate option. Also, Nixon had his radar on Moscow and China because according to George C. Herring, they felt that they must release the United States from the war in a way that would uphold United States credibility with their friends and foes alike. During Nixon’s term in office, he tries a number of different strategies in his effort to end the war, but to this day, one can see that Nixon only prolonged the war when it could have ended earlier.

Nixon used his power of executive agreements manipulatively in a strategy that he called, linkage politics; this is a term for strategically organizing the United States relationships with communist powers (Small 1999, 63). Nixon knew that he must settle the Vietnam War with honor because it was a stake in Southeast Asia. Using his theory of linkage politics he saw that the end of the Vietnam War would affect negotiations with China and Russia (Small, 1999 65). He first tried to make an executive agreement with Russia, by explaining to them his idea of “strategic parity. This was an idea that because both nations had enough weapons to completely demolishes the other, neither should start war, and peace would continue. Like Eisenhower’s attempts, Nixon was unable to make an agreement with the USSR and talks continued to be slow (PBS Nixon 2002, 2).

U.S. Leaders in the Cold War As World War II ended in 1945, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began a decades long struggle for global supremacy known as the Cold War, which lasted until 1991. During this 46 year period of time, the United States had the following Presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. For the purpose of this essay I’m going to focus on three of the more influential Presidents: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. All three of these Presidents played crucial, but very different roles during the Cold War.

In 1972, President Nixon engaged in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with Soviet Secretary General Brezhnev in his attempt to ease tension with USSR through diplomatic détente.

In conclusion, President Nixon and Soviet leader Brezhnev developed detente from 1969 to 1979 because of the overwhelming fear of a possibility of a nuclear war. The cost of the arms race had taken an immense toll on the economic stability of both the United States and the Soviet Union, causes both leaders to adopt a more pragmatic view of the Cold War. The European countries involved in the Cold War were also taking steps to relax tensions between the countries divided by the iron curtain. This caused both nations to develop this period of detente and establish treaties through the Arms Limitations

In the minds of many Americans Ronald Reagan is the president that ended the Cold War, but is this view accurate? They claim Reagan's unprecedented military spending forced the Soviets to crumble. However, many critics of the president's outspending theory claim that the Russian economy would have imploded without such spending, and a military buildup of that kind did nothing but delay peace. Although, Reagan's willingness to negotiate was a clear factor in ending the Cold War, his aggressive arms race may have done more to forestall peace than abet it. The ascendance of Mikhail Gorbachev to power, the stagnating economy of Russia, and the personal friendship forged between Gorbachev and Reagan were the clear factors that contributed to

Both leaders were able to come to a “firm but fair” strategy which showed the people of their countries their “willingness to cooperate if the other side behaves cooperatively” (Knopf 2004). According to Knopf (2004), this type of strategy proves to be more successful than trying to force compliance through military intimidation. Although, President Reagan’s efforts to strengthen United States policy has received greatest attention for ending the Cold War, according to Knopf (2004), “it took three other factors to lead to the end of the Cold War” which included “grassroots activities in several countries, the coming to power of Gorbachev, and the willingness of Presidents Reagan

The Cold War, which started sometime in the 1940’s, was a large quarrel between the United States and the Soviet Union. This dispute involved a lot of propaganda and threats of nuclear warfare. Despite all of the trouble though, after over forty years of fighting, the two leaders of these countries (Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev) would finally work out a solution. However, although they did reach an agreement, there were many differences between these two men.

When discussing Eisenhower, Gaddis details the massive retaliation policy adopted by Eisenhower and John Dulles. “The New Look’ as it is referred to, was instead of building up the military by providing more men, instead it would be cost effective to build up arms, and threaten nuclear attacks if the Soviets attempted to influence other areas across the globe and spread communism. With Kennedy and Johnson both, the return to NSC-68 and Vietnam are covered by Gaddis. With more military and economic support for preventing communism, troops were spread to places in Vietnam specifically and across the globe attempting to resist communist forces in many places. This ‘flexible response’ was in essence reducing the power of the army as a whole. The defeat in Vietnam and the flexible response method used by Kennedy and Johnson was judged harshly by Gaddis. The final administration covered by Gaddis was the Nixon presidency. This period, known as Détente, signals a return to Kennan’s approach to an extent while combining policies from the Kennedy and Johnson diplomacy. Nixon and Kissinger worked towards establishing international rules of conduct in which the Soviets and China would soon follow promptly and the balance of powers in the world would provide for stability.

The Los Angeles times, a major United States newspaper, released a column discussing the kitchen debate on July 27th, 1959. Prior to meeting with Khrushchev, Vice President Nixon had planned to defend the West by standing firm in the dispute over the division of Berlin. Nixon stated that the dispute was “helpful because it provided an opportunity for frank complete discussions in a calm and objective atmosphere.”1 The article quotes a Nixon press stating, “there naturally were major differences of opinion but the discussions at all times were calm,” supporting the idea that the debate failed to result in any solutions regarding strained east – west relations. Although their interaction was describes as “calm,” there were various blunt remarks