During cold war There were no contractual legal relations between the CMEA and the European communities. Following logic political confrontation, the EEC refused to recognize the CMEA as an equal partner and sought to conclude trade agreements with individual socialist countries. The situation changed radically after in March 1985, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the leader Soviet state became M.S. Gorbachev. The restructuring of the country's socio-political system that he began opened the way to its rapprochement with the West. In foreign policy, the importance of the European direction has noticeably increased, including in the context of the put forward concept of a “common European home.”
Quotes
The Soviet leadership in its foreign policy has always kept in view the issues of our relations with the countries of Western Europe. I would even say in the spotlight. And this is understandable. You and I live in this Europe. I think that Western European countries are no less interested in developing relations with the Soviet Union...
We live in the same house, although some people enter this house from one entrance, others from another entrance. We need to collaborate and improve communication in this house.
Speech by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee M. S. Gorbachev on French television on September 30, 1985
...without taking Europe into account, not a single issue can be resolved. Even in our internal issues We need it for perestroika. And in foreign policy, Europe is not beyond
changes. We cannot do without a partner like Western Europe.
Speech by M.S. Gorbachev at a Politburo meeting on March 26, 1987.
As for my speech where I first put forward the idea of a Pan-European House, the West noticed this, although they are trying to hush it up.
From M. S. Gorbachev’s message about
results of the visit to Czechoslovakia (9-
April 11, 1987) at the Po meeting
Litburo April 16, 1987
In June 1988, the USSR and the European Communities established official relations, and in December 1989 they signed an Agreement on Trade and Commercial and Economic Cooperation. But its implementation never began, since the USSR collapsed in December 1991. On political map Russia reappeared in the world, and the European Communities transformed into the European Union. Political and legal framework for relations between Russia and the EU
In December 1991, the presidents of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine signed an Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth Independent States, and Russia declared itself the legal successor of the USSR. The European communities immediately declared recognition of the new states that had arisen on the territory of the USSR and their readiness to establish relations with them diplomatic relations. At the same time, the question arose about an adequate legal basis for relations, which the new agreement could lay.
Agreement on partnership and cooperation. In the first half of 1992, Brussels and Moscow exchanged drafts of a new agreement. Negotiations began in November 1992 and lasted about a year and a half.
On June 24, 1994, on the Greek island of Corfu, where the regular session of the European Council was held, the President of the Russian Federation, heads of state and government of 12 member countries of the European Union, the President of the Council of the EU and the Chairman of the EU Commission signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement for a period of 10 years.
The agreement created the legal basis for long-term cooperation between Russia and the EU and its member states. Russia does not have such a high-level agreement with the United States, much less with Japan. Ratification of the PCA took more than three years; it came into force on December 1, 1997. The agreement covers three important areas of relations - political, trade, economic and cultural.
The PCA established partnership relations between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU and its member states, on the other. The very concept of “partnership” is not deciphered, but in the Preamble and Art. 1 and 2 the partnership criteria are fixed:
a) “strengthening the political and economic freedoms that form the very basis of the partnership”;
b) “respect for democratic principles and human rights, defined in particular in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, constitutes an essential element of the partnership” (Article 2);
c) assistance " international peace and security, as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes,” and cooperation for these purposes within the UN, CSCE and other forums.
To implement the agreement, a system of cooperation institutions was created. It includes: meetings of the President of the Russian Federation, the President of the Council of the EU and the President of the European Commission (summits), held twice a year; ministerial meetings within the Cooperation Council (in 2003 transformed into the Permanent Partnership Council); meetings of high-ranking officials. Political dialogue between European and Russian parliamentarians carried out within the framework of the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (Articles 6-9). Over time, many specialized working groups have been added to these.
In the area of trade, the parties extended the most favored nation treatment previously granted to each other in relation to tariffs. For five years, Russia was given the right to have a more preferential trade regime with states that arose on the territory former USSR(v. 5). Trade relations between the Russian Federation and the EU are regulated by certain GATT/WTO rules even before Russia joins this organization.
The Union of Right Forces proclaimed a broad program economic cooperation covering more than 30 areas, including entrepreneurial activity, investments, science and technology, Agriculture, energy, etc. The document provides for the development of cultural interaction with the aim of strengthening ties between people through the free exchange of information, mutual learning of languages and cultures, and access to cultural values.
Long-term strategies. Relations between Russia and the EU have been influenced from the very beginning by two divergent forces. On the one hand, the development of cooperation was facilitated by the objective and long-term interest of the parties, and on the other hand, it was hampered by objective and subjective factors.
In August 1998, a monetary and financial crisis broke out in Russia. The government announced the cessation of transactions with government short-term bonds and introduced a 90-day moratorium on redemptions Russian companies and banks of their obligations to foreign partners. The ruble has depreciated almost 4 times. The EU accepted the statement of error economic policy Russian authorities, which, in his opinion, undermined confidence in Russia as an economic partner.
Nevertheless, in December 1998, the European Union began to develop a “global strategy” towards Russia. The European Union's collective strategy towards Russia was approved by the European Council at a session held on June 3-4, 1999 in Cologne. In the document, the EU invited Russia to establish strategic partnership relations. His long term goals were called: the formation of a common free trade area with the prospect of integrating Russia into the European economic space, as well as close cooperation between the parties in order to strengthen stability and security in Europe and beyond.
The Russian delegation at the Russia-EU summit (Helsinki, October 22, 1999) presented a response document - “Strategy for the development of relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union for the medium term (2000s).” “The main goals of the strategy,” the document declared, “are to ensure national interests and increase the role and authority of Russia in Europe and the world by creating a reliable pan-European system of collective security... The strategy involves the construction united Europe without dividing lines, pursuing a course towards an interconnected and balanced strengthening of the positions of Russia and the European Union within the framework of the world community of the 21st century.” The document for the first time formulated an official view on the question, discussed in Russian political and scientific circles, of whether Russia should strive to join the EU. “As a world power located on two continents, Russia must retain the freedom to determine and pursue its domestic and foreign policies, its status and advantages as a Eurasian state and largest country CIS, independence of positions and activities in international organizations».
Both strategies recognized the need for a partnership between Russia and the EU in the interests of peace and security, the development of economic and cultural cooperation in Europe, as well as strengthening the constructive role of Europe in the world. Their adoption completed the first stage of the partnership between Russia and the EU.
Spaces for in-depth cooperation. Further development of relations between Russia and the EU was suspended at the end of 1999 as a result of military operations in Chechnya. But in 2000 it resumed with new strength. By this time
Russia overcame the consequences of the 1998 financial crisis and demonstrated positive economic dynamics. After the election of V.V. Putin, the President of Russia (March) clearly outlined a trend towards political stabilization and strengthening of the country's international positions.
In June, relations with Russia were discussed at a session of the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal). Its final document emphasized the need to build a “strong and healthy partnership.” In July 2000 V.V. Putin approved the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. In the “Regional Priorities” section, Europe was given second place, after the CIS. At the end of 2000, the parties adopted a Joint Action Plan to combat organized crime and signed an agreement on scientific and technical cooperation.
Quote
Relations with the European Union are key; Russia will strive to develop intensive, sustainable and long-term cooperation with him, devoid of market fluctuations.
Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, 2000.
During 2000-2005 The EU and Russia have adopted several decisions and long-term programs at the highest political level designed to fill the concept of strategic partnership with concrete content. Although these documents did not have legal force, they expanded the political and legal basis of relations.
In the fall of 2000, the Russia-EU summit initiated a dialogue in the energy sector, the most important strategic sector of the modern economy. At the May 2001 summit, Russia and the EU agreed to establish a high-level group to develop the concept of a Russia-EU Common European Economic Space (CEES). In May 2003, at the summit in St. Petersburg, the concept of creating four common spaces between Russia and the EU was adopted - economic; freedom, security and justice; external security; science, education and culture. In May 2005, at a summit in Moscow, “road maps” (joint action plans) for their formation were approved. The construction of four spaces is considered by both parties as the main direction of partnership and practical cooperation between Russia and the EU for a long period, perhaps for the next 20-25 years.
Good to remember. Legal and political basis for relations between Russia and the EU
The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the European Community and its member states, on the other hand, was signed on June 24, 1994 on the island of Corfu. It came into force on December 1, 1997.
The “Collective Strategy of the European Union towards Russia” was approved by the European Council in June 1999. The “Strategy for the development of relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union for the medium term (2000-2010)” was presented at the Russia-EU summit in October 1999.
« Road maps“The construction of four spaces of in-depth cooperation between Russia and the EU was adopted in May 2005 at the summit in Moscow. Common spaces: economic; 2) external security; 3) freedom, security and justice; 4) science and education, including cultural aspects.
The prospect of a new agreement. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force on December 1, 1997, was concluded for a period of 10 years. At the same time, it was established that it could be automatically extended annually if neither party announced its denunciation in advance. Thus, the original ten-year term of the PCA ended on November 30, 2007, but the agreement continues to apply.
The PCA played a crucial role in the establishment of constructive interaction between Russia and the EU. It paved the way for a qualitatively new dialogue between recent adversaries in the Cold War - partnership and cooperation. Within the framework of the PCA, a political and legal framework for relations was created, their principles and goals were defined. Over the years of the agreement, the parties have accumulated great experience collaboration, significantly raised the bar for mutual understanding and mutual trust.
The agreement created a system of joint bodies (institutions) for cooperation between Russia and the EU, which were entrusted with the main tasks for implementing the PCA. These joint bodies monitor the implementation of the PCA, develop new recommendations, resolve emerging disputes and conflicts, and stimulate dialogue on a wide range of issues.
At the same time, the PCA does not reflect either the changes that have occurred in Russia, the European Union and the world, or the new tasks of cooperation. Over the past years, the foundations of a market economy and institutions of political democracy have been created in Russia, the Economic and Monetary Union began to operate in the European Union, mechanisms for a common foreign policy and defense emerged, and its membership increased from 15 to 27 states. Finally, Russia and the EU proclaimed a qualitatively new level of relations - a strategic partnership based on the concept of building four common spaces.
Discussion of the future contractual basis of our relations began back in 2004. top level This topic was first raised by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin during a meeting with the Chairman of the European Commission J.M. Barroso in April. After this, the discussion on the “problem of 2007” became widespread. The London EU-Russia summit, held on October 4, 2005, made a decision in principle to begin negotiations on a new agreement.
Their official start was planned for the end of 2006. EU member states were ready to issue the European Commission a mandate to conduct negotiations. However, Poland vetoed the opening of negotiations until its trade dispute with Russia was resolved. (In 2005, Russia imposed an embargo on meat imports from Poland because it did not meet Russian quality standards.) Lithuania later joined in, demanding that Russia restore oil supplies to the Mazeikiai refinery via the Druzhba pipeline. The dispute between Poland and Russia was eventually settled, and Lithuania was persuaded to lift its veto. The official decision to open negotiations was made at the Russia-EU summit, held in June 2008 in the Siberian city of Khanty-Mansiysk.
From July 2008 to the end of 2010, 11 rounds of negotiations took place. They are difficult. The Russian and EU delegations will have to find mutually acceptable compromises on a number of issues, primarily such as: the format of the new agreement - will it be a comprehensive document, like the PCA, or a short basic agreement, which will be further supplemented by sectoral agreements; long-term strategy for energy cooperation; EU and Russian relations with border CIS countries, especially Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus; understanding and practical implementation of the values of democracy and market economy.
Serious changes took place in relations between the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe. Economic and political crisis in these countries, the decline in the authority of the ruling parties caused the growth of opposition in them. The situation in the USSR and the course towards the “renewal of socialism” led to the activation of opposition forces and the intensification of their confrontation with governments. From the first days of his stay in power, M. S. Gorbachev announced the USSR’s refusal to interfere in the affairs of its allies in the Warsaw Warsaw War. At meetings with the leaders of these countries, he explained the reasons, essence and ways of the “perestroika” being carried out in the Soviet Union. Attempts were made to change the forms of economic cooperation with the ATS states, focusing on direct contacts between enterprises.
At first, the leaders of the ATS countries supported the new political course M. S. Gorbachev. However, the deepening of the “perestroika” processes, personnel changes they were rejected by the Soviet party and state apparatus. In the GDR and Romania, the volume of published information about the transformations in the Soviet Union sharply decreased.
In the fall of 1989, mass protests took place against the existing regimes and for the restoration of democratic freedoms in the GDR, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. Somewhat earlier, as a result of free elections, the ruling party in Poland was removed from power. The previous regimes collapsed in Hungary, Yugoslavia and Albania. In former socialist countries there has been a change in party and state structures. Dozens of new political parties and public organizations entered the political arena there. Democratic authorities were established. The transition to market economy and privatization of industrial enterprises. In some countries, these measures led to a sharp deterioration in the economic situation. The collapse of the existing order in Yugoslavia led to a crisis of national relations and the disintegration of the country into several states. In 1990, the unification of East and West Germany took place.
The transition of Eastern European countries to parliamentary democracy led to the collapse of the socialist community. The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact Organization ceased their activities (spring 1991). The level of economic cooperation between the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe decreased significantly. If at the end of the 80s their share in the foreign trade turnover of the Soviet Union exceeded 50%, then in the early 90s it dropped to 16%.
The loss of the USSR's previous positions in Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany exacerbated political struggle between supporters and opponents of the new political course.
Princess Sophia - the forbidden ruler
She became the first woman on the throne in the history of our country. And she paid for it with imprisonment in a monastery, a lonely death and long oblivion. Chroniclers and rulers of Russia hid the truth about it for many centuries. Therefore, only a few know what this great woman really was like - Princess Sofya Alekseevna from the Romanov family...
Neighborhood with Mordovians and Polovtsians
From the east and south, the Murom-Ryazan principality surrounded in the form of an arc vast lands Mordovians and Polovtsians. The neighborhood of savages, of course, could not but have a significant influence on the internal and external development principalities: relations towards them were generally hostile. Less often, chronicles mention wars with the Mordovians, more often about the Polovtsians. Until the 13th century. we are actually one...
1917 - third year of the war
The main events in Europe were not military, but political. They deployed in Russia. Within one year, during the war, two revolutions took place in Russia: the February and October. Causes February Revolution: defeat of troops on Western Front in 1914-1916, economic crisis and the growth of the strike struggle of workers and peasants...
The cooling in relations between the USSR and the USA, which began at the turn of the 70s and 80s, also affected general condition international relations. Many positive decisions achieved during the period of detente became a thing of the past. Delays in disarmament negotiations began again, and the interference of great powers in regional conflicts increased, which did not at all contribute to their resolution. States intensified propaganda campaigns directed against each other. First, the United States and its allies, and then the USSR, boycotted the 1980 and 1984 Olympic Games. Anti-Soviet hysteria in the United States and anti-American hysteria in the Soviet Union created an unfavorable atmosphere for any contacts.
In the 1980s, the arms race continued to intensify. In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a program to use outer space to ensure the security of the United States and its allies. From a technical point of view, the program was far from reality. It was assumed that special lasers would be placed in space, capable of destroying Soviet missiles at the moment of their launch. Major corporations and research laboratories received government funding to improve military technology. Ronald Reagan actually started a new round of the arms race, provoking Moscow to an adequate response. As is known, the economy of the Soviet Union could not maintain the pace set by the Americans for long. Soviet leaders tried to seize the initiative on the diplomatic front, putting forward new peace initiatives, but the West practically did not react to them. They began to roll out in Europe nuclear missiles medium and short range, which, in turn, pushed the development of the anti-war movement in Western Europe.
In 1982 and 1983, relations between the USA and the USSR became increasingly tense. Moscow accused Washington of interfering in Poland's internal affairs. With the arrival of R. Reagan in The White house, the Americans stepped up their assistance to the trade union association “Solidarity”, which organized protests and actively fought against the government of W. Jaruzelski. The US actively supported the Vatican: Pope John Paul II (Pole by nationality) actually allowed the use of authority catholic church, very influential in Poland, and its organizational capabilities to support the protesters. In turn, Reagan announced the introduction economic sanctions against Warsaw and announced the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe. The first missiles appeared at the bases of Great Britain and Germany in November 1983.
The United States also launched an economic war against the USSR, trying to prevent the construction of a Soviet gas pipeline to Europe. The gas pipeline was fundamentally important both for the Soviet Union, which needed foreign exchange earnings, and for the Western European allies, who needed Russian gas. To build a pipeline, Moscow needed pipes large diameter, which were not produced in the Soviet Union at that time. The Americans hoped that limiting the supply of American equipment would have a negative impact on the gas pipeline construction project. However, Western European firms put the interests of business, not politics, at the forefront. The construction of the gas pipeline was successfully completed. However, the early 1980s were characterized by a very brutal trade war between the USA and the USSR.
In the Third World, Moscow and Washington continued to expand their sphere of influence. After the US intervention in Lebanon (1983), the USSR increased the volume of military supplies to Syria. Moscow still led fighting in Afghanistan, where the Soviet army was opposed by the Mujahideen, supported and armed by the Americans through the territory of neighboring Pakistan. In Latin America, the arena of confrontation became Nicaragua and El Salvador, where, through the territory of Cuba, Soviet material and financial assistance was received to the forces fighting the regimes receiving support from the United States. IN South-East Asia Kampuchea and Laos were at the center of the confrontation, where the interests of different countries collided - the USSR, Vietnam, China, and the USA. Tensions between Beijing and Moscow complicated the situation in the region. In 1983, in the skies over the territory of the Soviet Union, a Soviet fighter shot down a Korean passenger plane that violated the border of the USSR and did not respond to requests from air traffic control services. The death of the plane, which, as it later turned out, had civilians on board, was used by the West to fan anti-Soviet hysteria.
The first half of the 80s became one of the most tense periods in Soviet-American relations. Started by Reagan " crusade" against communism met with an adequate reaction from the leaders of the USSR. They stopped all contacts, interrupting all negotiations on current issues of disarmament and security in Europe. The Soviet Union announced that “the period of detente was buried by America.” Even the liberal-minded A. Yakovlev, characterizing Soviet-American relations, spoke of the lowest level of trust that has ever existed in their entire history. The situation changed only in 1985, when both sides agreed to resume all negotiations on the issue nuclear weapons.
In March 1985, M.S. became the General Secretary of the CPSU. Gorbachev. Already in mid-1985, he was trying to intensify diplomatic relations between countries, and came out with a number of initiatives to limit the arms race. In November 1985, the first of four summits between President Reagan and Gorbachev took place, where a breakthrough was achieved and relations between the two countries were brought out of stagnation. In October 1986, in the capital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Gorbachev tries to convince the president to end the “star wars” program. In December 1987, a historic document was signed in Washington banning an entire category of weapons - short-range missiles. Moreover, a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of this agreement was developed. The last summit meeting took place in Moscow from May 29 to June 2, 1988. It confirmed the readiness of the leaders of the two powers to meet on a regular basis, even if the results of the meeting did not result in specific agreements.
Improved relations with the United States have become key point Gorbachev's foreign policy strategy. The development of glasnost and pluralism was greeted with delight in the West. The fashion for the Soviet Union began. At this time, Moscow begins to curtail its “international” assistance to third countries. At the same time, a scandal erupted in Washington, called Irangate, or Iran-Contra. It turned out that administration officials were involved in the illegal use Money for the secret financing of subversive operations in Central American countries. Thus, a situation was created where the various warring parties in the Third World countries stopped receiving help from their “patrons”. Conflicts, devoid of the background of ideological confrontation between two centers of power, have become local from “international”.
In 1989, the Oval Office of the White House was occupied by former vice president in the administration of R. Reagan - G. Bush, who assembled one of the most professional foreign policy teams in modern history USA. Washington began to reassess its policy towards the USSR.
At the end of the twentieth century, the end of the period of existence of the Eurocentric world became increasingly obvious. Since antiquity international connections closed or concentrated on Europe. Everything that happened in Europe, thanks to its economic, military and intellectual power, was reflected in the rest of the world. We are currently witnessing the emergence of a new trend where events in, for example, the Asia-Pacific region influence events in Europe. The potential of the Asia-Pacific region is enormous; two-thirds of the planet's population lives here, it provides two-thirds of the world's GDP and more than a third of the world's trade turnover. It was not Europe, but Asia that accounted for the highest growth rates of American trade (the volume of US trade turnover with its countries was about $400 billion) and investment. However, despite this, Western Europe remained of paramount importance for the United States at the turn of the 80s and 90s.
America's share in the world economy began to slowly decline; the EU has overtaken the United States in this indicator. But during the presidency of George W. Bush, these trends only became “visible” to politicians. Foreign policy inertia required an initial solution to European problems, which were indeed very acute. The Cold War began in Europe and was supposed to end there.
At the end of the 80s, “velvet revolutions” took place in Eastern European countries. In 1988, radical changes took place in Hungary: 76-year-old János Kádár resigned, after which the new leader announced the beginning of radical reforms in the economic and political life of the country. In October 1989, the Hungarian Socialist Republic gets rid of the word “socialist”. Democratization in Hungary directly affected the interests of the GDR: through its territory, East Germans were able to penetrate into the Federal Republic of Germany and ask for political refuge. Thousands of “defectors” destabilized the situation on the border. Moscow could no longer influence events, as it did in the 50s and 60s. The collapse of the socialist camp and the emergence of new actors on the European stage became a reality and forced the leaders of the USA and the USSR to begin developing a new strategy for Europe. It was necessary to give a clear answer to questions about the future of NATO, the OSCE, and the Department of Internal Affairs and to respond to the changed configuration of forces in the region.
In October 1989, Gorbachev visited East Berlin to participate in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the formation of the GDR. At this time, East Germans did not stop protesting, demanding radical reforms. Gorbachev personally approved the course for reforming the GDR. However, the processes were no longer controlled by either Berlin or Moscow. On November 9, the Berlin Wall fell, dividing Berlin into West and East. For the first time since 1961, East Germans were able to freely cross the border into West Germany.
In November, Czechs and Slovaks observing the events in Germany took to the streets and forced the Communist Party to give up power. The “coup” in Czechoslovakia went down in history under the name “ velvet revolution" The former dissident V. Havel, who came to power, refused to fulfill the foreign policy obligations of a “member of the socialist camp.” He closed training camps for terrorists, stopped selling plastic to terrorist groups and countries such as Libya and Syria. Prague was the first socialist country to normalize relations with Israel. At the beginning of 1990, Moscow agreed to Prague’s demand to withdraw its troops from the country’s territory.
Unlike Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria and Poland, the Romanian revolution turned out to be bloody. The authoritarian regime of N. Ceausescu did not want to give up its positions without a fight. However, within a few months, in all the countries of Eastern and Central Europe that were in the sphere of influence of the USSR, the communists lost power. Gorbachev did nothing to stop this process. Unfortunately, Moscow was unable to negotiate favorable terms for itself, effectively losing ground in the region.
After the Paris Summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in November 1990, which was quite difficult for American diplomats, a meeting of the heads of state of NATO countries was to take place in Rome in November 1991. It was supposed to adopt a new “strategic concept” and complete the process of forming a “renewed alliance”, which was reached in preliminary agreement at the London meeting in July 1990. In December 1991, the famous meeting took place in Maastricht (Netherlands) where an agreement on economic And political union countries of Western Europe. The European Council will transform into the European Union. In July 1992, at the OSCE summit, an agreement was reached on the participation of this organization in resolving conflicts that threaten the security of Europe.
The pace of “construction” of new institutions on the European continent amazed both the academic community and politicians. In the heat of the ensuing discussions, awareness of the fragility and instability of the changes that were taking place was very often lost. Moreover, during the debate between Europeans and Americans, in our opinion, the sense of reality was lost. Few people understood why and for what purpose the “old institutions of the Cold War period” were built or modified. It is difficult to disagree with one of the direct participants in the development of US European policy, Robert Hutchings. Assessing this period from the point of view of the formation new system security in Europe, he wrote that all the participants in those discussions were more like engineers who discussed the problems of organizing production and forgot that international relations and diplomacy require radically different mechanisms for solving problems. The institutions and mechanisms developed in the heat of euphoria have shown their ineffectiveness both in preventing the emergence of security threats in Europe and in creating long-term, reliable, trusting relations between the West and Russia.
In mid-February 1989, the Bush administration began developing a new national strategy, which would be designed to take into account the changes that have occurred in the world. At the same time, in order to conduct consultations on key issues international politics went on a trip to the capitals of the Western European allies Secretary of State D. Baker. Most of the allies, with the exception of Great Britain, expressed a desire to see significant changes in US foreign policy, taking into account the serious changes taking place both in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. The leaders of France and Germany took a special position. They advocated concessions on the part of the alliance on the issue of tactical nuclear weapons.
In the spring in Hamtramck, Michigan, President George W. Bush announced the United States' readiness to “accept” changes to the status quo on the European continent. "The United States has never accepted the legitimacy of a divided Europe. We do not recognize spheres of influence if this denies the sovereign right to self-determination. The Cold War began in Eastern Europe, and it must end there." The President's speech announced the United States' readiness to support the process of political and economic reforms in the countries of Eastern Europe, and also expressed confidence that such changes would also be beneficial to the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev recognized the inevitability of the collapse of the socialist camp; moreover, many Western leaders saw real steps by Soviet leaders towards improving relations with the West. The decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, the officially positive reaction to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the change of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev’s visit to Rome and historical meeting with the Pope in 1989 testified to a real transformation of the Soviet foreign policy course. The leader of the USSR was forced to admit that the situation in the country required a change in foreign policy. The country's resources and capabilities to implement previous policies in the international arena were limited.
In 1989, Gorbachev announced a long-term strategy to improve relations with the West. It was proposed to intensify negotiations on the issue of arms control, agree on a reduction in the size of the Soviet army, and recognize the right to self-determination of the countries of Eastern Europe. The subject of discussion should also have been issues of human rights, settlement regional conflicts, conditions for the participation of the USSR in solving global problems. During Gorbachev's period in power, the ideological aspect of Soviet-American relations actually lost its importance.
Americans, like Soviet leaders, were concerned about the reduction of conventional weapons in Europe. The elimination of the Soviet military presence became a necessary condition providing American assistance to the process of Eastern European liberalization, primarily this applied to Poland and Hungary. In March 1989, a US Department of Defense study based on classified intelligence data showed that Soviet troops, located in Eastern Europe, refused to maintain a regime of “constant combat readiness”. This meant that the army of the Warsaw Pact countries was not preparing to be the first to begin hostilities in Europe; moreover, the USSR consciously went about easing tensions in the region. Thus, already at the beginning of 1989, senior administration officials knew that NATO troops had a significantly increased time to prevent an attack on the continent. Soviet army in Eastern Europe abandoned the offensive strategy in the European theater of operations.
In a series of official speeches in the spring of 1989 in Texas, Boston University, the Coast Guard Academy, and at press conferences in Europe, President Bush outlined his vision of US foreign policy strategy in a changing world. The essence of the new approach was the official recognition of the diminishing role of the United States in the world and the increased influence of new centers of power - Western Europe and Japan. The President proposed abandoning the Soviet-American confrontation and trying to integrate the Soviet Union into the community democratic countries. It was then that the need to strengthen the system was announced international security, the strategy of collective security began to take on its first shape. IN European Union The US President saw an effective mechanism capable of transforming the politics and economy of Eastern European countries and leading to the creation of a “common European home.”
In the first half of 1989, Washington officially recognized the emergence of a new center of economic and political integration in Western Europe, capable of sharing with the United States the burden of responsibility for security in the region. During this period, new directions in US foreign policy were announced: intensification of the negotiation process on the reduction of conventional weapons in Europe and programs to provide assistance to countries of the collapsing socialist camp.
In the fall of this year, a serious struggle unfolded in US political circles over foreign policy issues in relation to the changes taking place in Europe. A new impetus to the debate was given by the publication on January 4, 1990 by the New York Times newspaper of the final part of the article “The Ultimate Crisis of the Soviets” signed “Mr. Academy of Sciences and Arts. The article attracted attention by the very fact of its appearance under a pseudonym, apparently intended to serve as a reminder of the article “The Origins of Soviet Behavior,” published in 1947 in the journal Foreign Affairs and which, as is known, became the philosophical justification for the US turn to strategy. containment" of the Soviet Union. But the main thing is the set of ideas contained in the article, which in many ways ran counter to both the general concept of the Bush administration’s policy and the scope of its practical actions.
In the most condensed form, the essence of the position of the author of the article can be reduced to the following points. Firstly, they talked about the doom of perestroika in the USSR and the futility of any help that the West could offer Moscow. Secondly, the constructive role of the West in relation to the countries of former socialism was seen as easing the burden of the arms race and at the same time promoting the gradual formation of private business structures in the Soviet economy, economic and political pluralism generally. The USA, according to the author, could contribute to the creation of free economic zones(on IMF terms) in such regions of the USSR as the Baltic states, Armenia or the Far East.
At the same time, Secretary of State D. Baker made several official statements, the content of which indicated that the administration was continuing to search for new concepts and ideas. At the Berlin Press Club on December 12, 1989 and at the Council on Foreign Relations on March 30, 1990, it was first stated that the new US national strategy would be aimed at using the fruits of peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe, creating mechanisms and maintaining institutions that ensure the continuation of changes taking place. In these speeches we find relatively brief but detailed definitions of the main strategic directions of the American national security doctrine. In the following months, no member of the administration revised the conceptual provisions presented by Baker in late 1989 and early 1990.
“Beyond containment lies democracy,” by declaring this, D. Baker actually gave a signal for the beginning of fundamental changes in the nature of the American national strategy. It was proposed to focus on " new mission- the spread and consolidation of democracy in the world." Instead of focusing American foreign policy on containing Soviet military expansion and influence, the United States, according to Baker, should have concentrated its efforts and resources to achieve "new" goals: the creation of an "international democratic communities." Essentially, the long-term goal of the United States was the formation of a regional political order, in which " free man and free governments" will form the "building blocks" future system security. The implementation of these tasks was envisaged primarily in Europe, which had just experienced a “shock” caused by the “fall of the Berlin Wall.” Such close attention to the Old World is due to the importance that Europe represents for US security. It should also be taken into account that the events that swept through the countries of the socialist camp forced politicians to pay more attention to this region. In addition, it was to Europe that leading experts and analysts strongly recommended that we pay close attention even before the presidential inauguration ceremony.
In these speeches, Baker described the process of democratization as a key mechanism for creating a new Europe in the context of the end of the Cold War. The spread of liberal values and institutions would, as the Secretary of State believed, have a stimulating effect at the domestic and international levels. Democratization, according to some experts, served as the main deterrent to the growth of international conflicts.
The confrontation between the two rivals in the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, unexpected for most analysts, and the strengthening of the US position. However, it is hardly correct to evaluate the end of the Cold War in terms of victory and defeat, no matter how many would like it to be. Rather, it should be said that another stage in the development of international relations has ended. The 90s opened up before former opponents new opportunities to realize your historical ambitions.
1. Exacerbation of international tension in the first half of the 80s.
2. Perestroika in the USSR and changes in relations between East and West.
3. The system of international relations at the turn of the century.
At the turn of the 70s and 80s, detente gave way to a new aggravation of international tension. This was caused by the actions of the USSR to strengthen its position in the world. In 1975 - 1979 The USSR strengthened its position in Africa at the expense of Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia, in Asia - at the expense of Cambodia, in America - at the expense of Nicaragua. Deliveries have increased noticeably Soviet weapons to Syria and Libya. In 1978, the USSR stationed in Europe new class SS-20 missiles, which changed the balance of nuclear forces in Europe in favor of the USSR. In December 1979, the USSR sent its troops into Afghanistan and established a pro-Soviet regime there. All these actions of the USSR were regarded by the US authorities as a desire Soviet leadership to world domination. The United States responded to Soviet actions by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics and imposing a ban on the supply of food and modern equipment to the USSR. President Carter did not dare to take more decisive action.
Relations between the USA and the USSR worsened even more after R. Reagan came to power in the USA, who believed that Carter was behaving too softly. Reagan sharply increased spending on weapons production, hoping to economically exhaust the USSR, whose economic situation was constantly getting worse. In 1983, the United States began developing the SDI program, which provided for the creation of a nuclear missile shield in space to protect the United States from Soviet missiles. At the same time, the United States began work on the creation of the Stealth stealth aircraft. In 1981 - 1984 The United States increased the production of nuclear and conventional weapons and increased military assistance to the opposition in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola and Mozambique.
The USSR responded to these actions by the USA by deploying its missiles in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, and in 1983 it interrupted negotiations with the USA on reducing strategic weapons and began to build up its military potential. In addition, a real ideological war broke out between the USA and the USSR. Both sides accused each other of striving for world domination and declared their determination to do everything to prevent such domination.
Along with the deterioration of relations between the superpowers, the number of local conflicts has increased. In February - March 1979, war broke out between China and Vietnam. In 1980, a war broke out between Iran and Iraq over disputed area border area. It lasted until 1988 and ended without results, despite major losses on both sides. In 1982, war broke out between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), a disputed territory between the two countries. In 1982, Israel sent troops into Lebanon and captured a 30-kilometer strip along the Israeli-Lebanese border to prevent Palestinian militants from entering its territory.
Since the mid-80s, a new stage began in the development of international relations. It was associated with the coming to power in the USSR of a new leadership led by M. Gorbachev, who formulated the concept of new political thinking, which contained a new philosophy of foreign policy of the USSR. Since 1985, Gorbachev has put forward a whole series of proposals for disarmament and for expanding cooperation between the USSR and Western countries. Leaders Western countries At first, they treated these proposals with caution, considering them a propaganda move. However, Soviet initiatives received widespread support from the population of Western countries, which forced politicians to respond to Gorbachev’s proposals.
One of the manifestations of this reaction was the resumption of Soviet-American dialogue at the highest level. Since 1985, meetings between the leaders of the USSR and the USA became regular, at which the leaders of the superpowers exchanged their views on the most important international problems and coordinated the positions of their countries. The content of Soviet-American relations also changed: from confrontation in the international arena, the USSR and the USA moved to cooperation in a number of ways. international problems took a unified position. This cooperation made it possible in the late 80s to resolve local conflicts in Nicaragua and southern Africa. At the same time, in the second half of the 80s, cooperation between the USSR and the USA intensified in the economic, scientific, technical and cultural spheres. The USA began to provide assistance to the USSR economic assistance, and also pushed the countries of Western Europe and Japan to increase such assistance to the USSR.
Changes in Soviet-American relations made it possible for the first time in post-war period begin the disarmament process. In December 1987, the United States and the USSR signed the INF Treaty, which eliminated medium- and short-range nuclear missiles, which accounted for more than 4% of all nuclear weapons. In July 1991, the United States and the USSR signed the START I treaty, which provided for a 30% reduction in strategic offensive weapons. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued its course towards disarmament. In January 1993, the United States and Russia signed the START II treaty. 2003 The United States and Russia signed the START III treaty, which was not ratified. But in 2009 it was signed new agreement about reducing the number nuclear charges. At the same time, reductions in other types of weapons began. In 1990, an agreement was signed between NATO and the Warsaw Department to reduce conventional weapons in Europe by approximately 2/3. In 1993, more than 150 countries signed a chemical weapons agreement. It came into force in 1997 and provides for the liquidation chemical weapons within 10 years.
Changes in the foreign policy of the USSR made it possible to bring the pan-European process to a new level. In 1989, the USSR abandoned the suppression of anti-communist revolutions in the CSEE countries and allowed them to pursue an independent foreign policy. The USSR also did not oppose the unification of Germany, which took place on October 3, 1990. In November 1990, the Charter for a New Europe was adopted in Paris, in which the Warsaw Department and NATO pledged to build relations on the basis of partnership and friendship. In June-July 1991, the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs were dissolved. Thus, the split of Europe in two ended, the level of military confrontation decreased and opportunities arose for the creation of a united Europe.
In the 90s, serious changes occurred in the balance of power in the international arena. After the collapse, the United States became the undisputed world leader. Many countries in the world began to focus on the United States in their foreign policy, which allowed the United States to seek decisions at the UN that were beneficial to itself. At the same time, the United States increasingly began to dictate its terms different countries peace and even introduced sanctions through the UN against countries whose policies do not suit Washington. The United States began to increasingly use force to strengthen its position in the world (Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, the NATO military operation against Yugoslavia in 1999, the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 2003). The US desire for world hegemony has caused discontent among other countries. In the 90s, many experts believed that Russia, China or EU countries would become a counterweight to the United States in the international arena. But to date, none of these forces has been able to become such a counterweight.
In the development of relations between the USSR and the USA in the 1980s, three periods can be distinguished. The first of them covers mainly 1981-1984. It was characterized by a military-political confrontation between two states over the deployment of missiles medium range on the European continent; held in 1981-1983 to no avail. Soviet-American negotiations on limiting nuclear weapons in Europe and on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons; poor political climate and growing distrust and suspicion of the parties towards each other; minimizing contacts and connections in the areas of bilateral Soviet-American relations.The second period (1985-1986) was marked by the beginning in March 1985 of new Soviet-American negotiations on the limitation of nuclear and space weapons, the gradual restoration of the mechanism of political dialogue between the two countries, incl. and at the highest level.
In November 1985, a Soviet-American summit meeting (M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan) took place in Geneva. It resulted in an open, broad dialogue that had a significant impact on the general situation in the world, and also marked the beginning of cooperation in a number of areas of bilateral relations between the USSR and the USA. Both sides stated that “a nuclear war should not be unleashed and there can be no winners in it,” and pledged not to strive to achieve military superiority, and emphasized the importance of preventing any war between them - nuclear or conventional.
In October 1986, M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan met in Reykjavik. The significance of this meeting lies primarily in the fact that specific formulas for the radical reduction of nuclear weapons proposed by the Soviet side were discussed.
Since March 1987, Soviet-American relations entered the third period. Political contacts have noticeably intensified various levels. In the course of very intensive diplomatic contacts in the spring and especially autumn of 1987, it was possible to complete the development of a treaty on medium- and short-range missiles, and to agree to hold a third Soviet-American summit in December of the same year, this time in Washington.
It became obvious that, due to economic difficulties, the United States was unable to finance all the military programs pushed by the Pentagon. In 1985, the US Congress froze military spending, and in 1987 even a certain reduction began. There was growing criticism in the country of the administration's foreign policy, and especially its course towards the Soviet Union.
An important link in the development of Soviet-American relations was the summit meeting in Moscow, which took place from May 29 to June 2, 1988. The very fact of holding the summit and the preparations for it not only consolidated significant positive changes in Soviet-American relations, but also gave new impetus to their development. Ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, exchange of instruments of ratification during the meeting on the entry into force of this treaty, further progress in completing the development of an agreement on a 50 percent reduction of strategic offensive weapons, signing of agreements on the Afghan settlement before the meeting, conclusion of a number of agreements on further improving the mechanism for preventing nuclear war, as well as the development of bilateral cooperation - all this is concrete evidence of the ongoing normalization of Soviet-American relations, introducing additional elements of stability and consistency into them.
"pros" and "cons" of democracy
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer