Individual Discussion Postings #7: The Rise and Fall of Detente

Based on the assigned readings, what are some of the main accomplishments and failures of detente? What is their historical significance? Which interpretation of detente – Hoff’s or Garthoff’s – do you personally agree more with and why?

Detente, limited cooperation of the U.S. with the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China within a general environment of rivalry, helped reduce international tensions and maintained U.S. leadership in global politics. The process, means, or climate is believed to have created a geopolitical equilibrium by increasing U.S. leverage to counter the Soviet Union and China, while containing radical revolution globally (Textbook, p.392). One of the key accomplishments of detente was the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), which resulted in the SALT I agreement in 1972. The agreement helped curb the arms race by limiting the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) that the superpowers could possess. It began honest negotiations to place limits on nuclear weapons (Textbook, p.396). Another accomplishment was the Helsinki Accords of 1975 at the Conference on Security and Cooperation, where delegates from 35 nations accepted the permanence of existing European boundaries, including modifications in Germany and Eastern Europe. The attendees endorsed human rights for all Europeans (Textbook, p.398). However, detente also faced a number of failures, especially in the Middle East. The detente did not address the needs of Palestinian Arabs, who still demanded a homeland, as Israelis entrenched themselves in occupied territories, where they built farms and houses. Conflicts escalated and the U.S. continued shipping weapons to Arabs and Israelis. When Sadat denounced Moscow for Washington in 1976, it became clear that detente had failed it was back to containment. Soviets and Palestinians were excluded from Mideast diplomacy, preventing a full Arab-Israeli settlement (Textbook, p.402). The historical significance of detent is its demonstration of the potential for diplomatic engagement to reduce superpower tensions and its limitations in the achievement of long-term conflict resolution. It showed that dialogue and agreements could temporarily ease hostilities, but the underlying ideological and geopolitical conflicts remained unsolved as Washington was not honest in its motives.

Personally, I find Garthoff’s interpretation of detente more compelling. Garthoff argues that detente failed primarily because it was unable to address the fundamental differences between the superpowers and was undermined by the actions of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. American leaders led by Henry Kissinger considered it a way of managing the emergence of Soviet power into world politics in an age of nuclear parity, and Soviet leaders saw it as a way of managing the transition of the U.S. from its former superiority to a more modest role in global politics in an age of nuclear parity. Each regarded itself as the manager of a transition of the other (Garthoff, p.481). While Hoff highlights Nixon’s innovative strategies and the initial successes of detente (Hoff, p.471), Garthoff providers a more comprehensive analysis of why these efforts did not produce sustainable resolution of Cold War tensions – emphasizing structural and ideological challenges.

References

(Textbook) Paterson, T. G., Clifford, J. G., Brigham, R., Donoghue, M., Hagan, K. J., Kisatsky, D., & Maddock, S. J. (2015). American foreign relations: A history, Volume 2, Since 1895 (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Garthoff, R. L. (2005). Why detente failed. In Major problems in American foreign relations, volume II: Since 1914 (7th ed., pp. 480-489). Wordsworth, Cengage Learning.

Hoff, J. (2005). Nixon’s innovative grand design and the wisdom of detente. In Major problems in American foreign relations, volume II: Since 1914 (7th ed., pp. 471-480). Wordsworth, Cengage Learning.