What were the reasons behind the introduction of the policy of détente and why was it not sustainable?

Résumé du document

The 1970s and 1980s were characterized by a particular period in the international relations which is called 'détente'. Détente is a French term that defines a situation of 'relaxation to relieve tension', which applies to the historical time when the United States and the Soviet Union were trying to normalize their relations. Since the end of the Second World War, a conflict was occurring between the Western powers and the USSR and a fortiori between the United States and the Soviet Union. This conflict so-called 'Cold War' was not only diplomatic, but also economic, military and most of all ideological, which means that there was an ideological war between the communist world and the capitalist world. Détente can take place only if some conditions exist, such as the acceptance by the protagonists that there must be some political and economic limitations in matters of affirmation of power. Then, they would have to accept to change the national perceptions of the 'enemy', along with a partial accommodation with this 'enemy'. In this case, the realization of the détente was not perfect because a number of events jeopardized the process of détente. Why did the USA and the USSR pursue a policy of détente? In what way these reasons can explain the détente's limits?

Extraits

[...] The underlying idea was that the Soviet Union would accept the US definition of détente because they would receive in return technology transfers. The USA proposed the principle of “linkage” which can be defined as the formal acceptance of equality of status with in return the Soviet acceptance of a restraining in the Third World. They were also able to use the spectre of Sino- Americanism friendship in order to force the Soviet Union to respect the international order which was wanted by the USA. [...]

[...] He settled then his ‘Ostpolitik' with the objective of normalizing relations with East Germany and with the Eastern block in general. Crockatt R. emphasizes that the United States disagreed with this' Ostpolitik' and he quotes a declaration of Kissinger who said seemed to me that Brandt's new Ostpolitik, which looked to many like a progressive policy of quest for détente, could in less scrupulous hands turn into a new form of classic German nationalism. From Bismark to Rapallo it was the essence of Germany's nationalist foreign policy to manoeuvre freely between East and West” (Kissinger in Crockatt R., (1995), p. [...]

[...] The United States were expecting a changing in Soviet behaviour, while the USSR saw détente as a process allowing their goals to be achieved, with no hope from their part about any changes in American behaviour. On the contrary the USSR was expecting that the USA would recognize its right to support liberation movements and establish communists systems. Both sides did attach more importance to the “specific advantages they expected détente to bring for them than to the general advantages to be gained from a relaxing of international tensions” (Young J.W., Kent J., (2004), p. 399). Furthermore, both sides were scared to be disadvantaged by détente. [...]

[...] What were the reasons behind the introduction of the policy of détente and why was it not sustainable? The 1970s and 1980s were characterized by a particular period in the international relations which is called “détente”. Détente is a French term that defines a situation of “relaxation of tension”, which applies to the historical moment when United States and the Soviet Union were trying to normalize their relations. Since the end of the Second World War a conflict was occurring between the Western powers and the USSR and a fortiori between the United States and the Soviet Union. [...]

[...] But at the same time this world was becoming more and more complex and the conflicts were growing consequently. All this leads to the conclusion that the reason of détente's failure can be that détente did not affect the basis of the Cold War system which was perpetuating even during détente. Indeed the fundamental ideological gap between the two countries did not disappear and the superpowers continued to be guided by their own interests. That's why each side made the process of détente difficult. [...]