Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:12:34.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The concept of detente

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Brian White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1980 was not a good year for detente. The year began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the ensuing state of East-West relations was reflected at the year's end in a deadlocked C.S.C.E. Review Conference in Madrid. The second phase of the Conference began with a sombre declaration by the United States' delegate that ‘detente does not today exist’ though it remains ‘an objective to be sought’. The invasion of Afghanistan gave sustenance to those who had been arguing for some time that detente was merely, in the words of Senator Jackson, ‘appeasement in its purest form’. For many indeed, like Mr. Kampelman, Afghanistan signalled the final end of detente. Others could argue however that the fact that the Madrid Conference could take place at all in such a political atmosphere, thus maintaining the momentum of the ‘Helsinki process’, is a clear indication that detente is at least alive if not well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 165 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Guardian, London, 28 January 1981.Google Scholar

2. Finley, D. D., ‘Detente and Soviet-American Trade: An Approach to a political Balance Sheet’, Studies in Comparative Communism, viii (1975), p. 67.Google Scholar

3. It should also be noted that the article will focus on Western usage.

4. Hassner, P., ‘Eurocommunism and Detente’, Survival, xix, 6 (1977), p. 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Webster's Third New English Dictionary. The derivation of the word adds little to an understanding of modern political usage. See Clemens, W. C., ‘The Impact of Detente on Chinese and Soviet Communism’, Journal of International Studies, xxviii (1974)Google Scholar; Seabury, P., ‘On Detente’, Survey, xix (1973).Google Scholar

6. P. Hassner, op. cit. p. 251.

7. Finley offers a rather different classification of meanings or ‘images’ of detente; see op. cit. pp. 67–79.

8. See, for example, Windsor, P., Germany and the Management of Detente (London, 1971), ch. 1Google Scholar; Fontaine, A., History of the Cold War (New York, 1968)Google Scholar.

9. Gati, C., ‘East Central Europe: Touchstone for Detente’, Journal of International Affairs, xxviii (1974), p. 158.Google Scholar

10. P. Hassner, op. cit. p. 251.

11. Shulman, M.‘Toward s a Western Philosophy of Coexistence’, Foreign Affairs, 51 (1973), p. 36 ff.Google Scholar

12. P. Seabury, op. cit. p. 62.

13. Rosecrance, R., ‘Detente or Entente’, Foreign Affairs, 55 (1975), p. 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Hoffman, S.‘Will the Balance Balance at Home?’, Foreign Policy, (Summer, 1972), p. 61.Google Scholar Interestingly, George Kennan argues that ‘no new word’ is necessary to describe contemporary Soviet-American relations. See his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on Detente, 20 August 1974 (Hereafter S.F.R.C. Hearings).

15. Finley notes the variety of theories, including convergence and modernization, that are compatible with this ‘image’ of detente. Op. cit. pp. 67–70.

16. W. C. Clemens, op. cit. pp. 134–5. See, especially, Figure 1.

17. R. Rosecrance, op. cit. p. 481.

18. Shulman, M.Beyond the Cold War (New Haven, 1966), p. 58.Google Scholar

19. Draper, T., ‘Detente’, Commentary, (June, 1974), p. 33.Google Scholar

20. Rubinstein likens detente to the mating of two elephants ‘… a great deal of activity takes place at a very high level amidst great fanfare and bellowing, but with very little to show for a long period of time’, Rubinstein, A. Z., ‘The Elusive Parameters of Detente’, Orbis, (Winter, 1976), p. 1358.Google Scholar

21. Clemens reminds us that the Chinese use ‘detente’ pejoratively and in quotation marks to indicate the ‘sham’ nature of the relationship between the superpowers, op. cit. p. 134.

22. See, for example, Urban, G. R., Detente (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Draper, T., op. cit. and ‘Appeasement and Detente’, Commentary, (February, 1976), pp. 27–38Google Scholar; also a series of articles in Survey between 1973 and 1976.

23. See Larrabee, S., ‘Moscow, Angola and the Dialectics of^Detente’, The World Today, 32, 5 (1976), p. 181.Google Scholar

24. Conquest, R.et al., ‘Detente – An Evaluation’, Survey, (Spring/Summer, 1974), 20: 2–3, p. 1.Google Scholar

25. Quoted in Draper, T., ‘Detente’, op. cit. p. 39.Google Scholar

26. S.F.R.C. Hearings, 19 September 1974. Reprinted in Kissinger, H. A., American Foreign Policy (New York, 1977), p. 144.Google Scholar

27. S.F.R.C. Hearings, 18 September 1974.

28. Korbel, J., Detente in Europe (Princeton, 1972), p. 36.Google Scholar

29. See Girling, J. L. S., ‘Realism or Ideology? Carter's Foreign Policy’, The World Today, (November, 1977), p. 423.Google Scholar

30. See, for example, C. Gati, op. cit. p. 158.

31. For conflicting views, see Korbel, J., ‘Detente and World Order’, Journal of International Law and Policy, vi (1976), pp. 9–18Google Scholar and West, D., ‘Detente in Trouble – or is it?’ New Zealand International Review, (Jan./Feb. 1978), pp. 29–33.Google Scholar

32. Draper, T., ‘Detente’ op. cit. pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar

33. Weede, E., 'Threats to Detente: Intuitive Hopes and Counter-intuitive Realities, European Journal of Political Research, v (1977), pp. 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. S.F.R.C. Hearings, August, 1974.

35. C. Gati, op. cit. p. 168.

36. Etzioni, A., ‘The Kennedy Experiment’, Western Political Quarterly, xx (1967), p. 370.Google Scholar Etzioni and others regarded U.S. detente policy as the conscious testing of certain psychological theories of conflict resolution. See also Etzioni, A., The Hard Way to Peace (New York, 1962)Google Scholar; Osgood, C. E., An Alternative to War or Surrender (Urbana, 1962)Google Scholar; W. C. Clemens, op. cit. p. 139.

37. S.F.R.C. Hearings, September, 1974.

38. See Urban, G. R. (ed.), Detente, op. cit. pp. 263–264.Google Scholar More recently, it has become more difficult to differentiate the Kissinger and Brzezinski positions on detente. There appears to have been some stealing of clothes. See Schweigler, G., ‘Carter's Detente Policy: Change or Continuity?’ The World Today (March, 1978).Google Scholar For the ‘new’ Kissinger line, see his evidence to the Senate Hearings on the SALT II treaty. Guardian, London, August 1979.Google Scholar

39. Adam Ulam pinpoints the August 1953 speech by Malenkov as initiating Soviet detente policy. ‘Detente under Soviet Eyes’, Foreign Policy, 22, (Fall, 1976), p. 149.Google Scholar There is some debate about the significance of ‘peaceful coexistence’ in Leninist thought prior to 1953. Marantz, Contrast P., ‘Prelude to Detente: Doctrinal Change under Kruschchev’, International Studies Quarterly, xix (1975), pp. 501–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and R. Conquest et al., ‘Detente’, op. cit.

40. For a useful overview of Soviet detente policy, see Shulman, M. D.‘Towards a Western Philosophy of Coexistence’ op. cit. p. 40 ffGoogle Scholar; see also Vernon, G. D., ‘Controlled Conflict: Soviet Perceptions of Peaceful Coexistence’, Orbis, xxiii (1979).Google Scholar

41. Northedge, F. S., Descent from Power: British Foreign Policy 1945–73. (London, 1974), p. 265.Google Scholar Clearly, a detente policy coexisted uneasily with the more central collective defence policy.

42. See his Memoirs, in particular, Pointing the Way 1959–1961 (London, 1972).Google Scholar

43. See Schlaim, A., ‘Britain's Quest for a World Role’, International Relations, (May, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. See J. Korbel, op. cit. pp. 36–37.

45. Macmillan, H., At The End of the Day (London, 1973), p. 158.Google Scholar Anthony Sampson pays tribute to Macmillan's role in the negotiations which led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty. ‘Macmillan had succeeded, through the years of distrust, in keeping the lines open, and keeping the object in sight; and he had argued the case passionately and effectively’. Sampson, A.. Macmillan: A Study in Ambiguity (London, 1967), p. 235.Google Scholar

46. Macmillan, H., The End of the Day, op. cit. p. 151.Google Scholar

47. Urban, G., Detente, op. cit. p. 264.Google Scholar

48. Macmillan, H., At The End of the Day, op. cit. p. 158.Google Scholar

49. P. Marantz, op. cit. p. 526.

50. Shulman, M., ‘Towards a Western Philosophy of Coexistence’, op. cit. p. 35.Google Scholar

51. Ball, G. W., Diplomacy for a Crowded World (London, 1976), p. 85.Google Scholar

52. G. D. Veraon, op. cit. p. 211.

53. Senator Frank Church warned that U.S. administrations were in danger of overselling the idea of detente, generating quite unrealistic expectations which cannot be realized. See S.F.R.C. Hearings, August, 1974.

54. Draper, T., ‘Appeasement and Detente’, op. cit. p. 34.Google Scholar