Peaceful Coexistence

4 Key excerpts on "Peaceful Coexistence"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Changing International Community

  Some Problems of its Laws, Structures, Peace Research and the Middle East Conflict. Essays in honour of Marion Mushkat

  • Charles Boasson, Max Nurock, Charles Boasson, Max Nurock(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  In an era when an institutional propensity seems to be increasing in the UN for self-inflicted wounds in the form of often irresponsible ad hoc decisions that reflect the pursuit, by the countries immediately concerned, of temporary political advantage and the scoring of cheap debating points at the expense of long-range principle, the pursuit of substantial regional security and regional cooperation arrangements, transcending the old ideological differences of the Cold War era in Europe and elsewhere, can be a major political stabilizing factor in an ever less certain world. If it was said of Metternich that his best epitaph could be that he succeeded in keeping the peace in Europe, we can say much the same thing of'Peaceful Coexistence', under v/hatever rubric or euphemism ('friendly relations' or otherwise) we may care to identify it. It did help to avert a nuclear war in an era when weapon technology had attained the potentialities of total destruction and when the remnants of the old ideological conflict were left The historical balance sheet 31 to trouble and confuse national decision-makers. For, in the end, 'Peaceful Coexistence' connoted the acceptance by the Big Powers of a burden of responsibility for sane decision-making on peace and war, directly propor-tionate to the balance of terror that their military advisers and military technologists had created for them. We may all hope that the new tripolar or polypolar system of world public order, now emerging in place of the old bipolar system, will achieve at least that. LOUIS SABOURIN 2 The theory of the four C's: Conflict, coexistence, competition, cooperation A conjunctural approach to international law and politics It is currently held that international law constitutes a series of norms that regulate the relations between the entities of the world community such as states, international institutions and, in some cases, non-fully sovereign territories and even individuals.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Re-imagining International Relations

  World Orders in the Thought and Practice of Indian, Chinese, and Islamic Civilizations

  • Barry Buzan, Amitav Acharya(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  These provide a new and unprecedented set of circumstances in which a less deterministic view of power politics, and a more open view of the interplay of anarchy and hierarchy, might be both useful and necessary. Peaceful Coexistence In modern Western IR, Peaceful Coexistence stands as the coun- terpoint to power politics. At first glance, it also seems to stand as the counterpoint to empire because empire is about establish- ing one centre of political control rather than many, and peace- ful coexistence requires multiple centres of political power and authority. The logic of Peaceful Coexistence covers a wide range of strategies, structures, and conditions with which a group of polities can move their relations away from zero-sum power politics. At a minimum, Peaceful Coexistence represents the pluralist view that there can legitimately be more than one polity in the system/society and that in such a case there are options other than permanent war for those polities to live together. Those options can range from quite limited – some form of diplomatic recognition; agreement on rights, status, and a balance of power; and procedures for negotiation – to quite extensive – development of international law, cultivation of collective projects, recognition of sovereign equality, shared humanity, joint institutions, and such like. Economic relations also fall under the heading of Peaceful Coexistence, but this is such an important and distinctive aspect of coexistence that we discuss it under its own heading in the following subsection. In India, Ashoka’s Dharma is sometimes seen as pure moral- ism, but in reality it was a pragmatic ‘security with’ approach, since he left a swathe of neighbouring territories unconquered, even though he would have had the capacity to do so, while retaining in his imperial domain the territories that he had taken by force (such as Kalinga). Peaceful Coexistence 129

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Japan and the Wider World

  From the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present

  • Akira Iriye(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  First of all, the term ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ began to be used in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death in 1953, and in the United States, too, some started speaking of ‘a truce in the Cold War’. What such expressions suggested was the growing recognition that, despite the two superpowers’ continued arms build-ups, their nuclear armament might not necessarily lead to war. At that time, neither power was willing to take steps to reduce its armaments and to establish a more peaceful relationship, but at least it seemed possible, and desirable, to grope for a definition of international relations that was not interchangeable with militarization. Peaceful Coexistence emphasized the idea that in an increasingly militarized world, war was not inevitable – at least that efforts should be made to prevent war. Such thinking was reminiscent of the classical balance-of-power thought, but while the traditional balance of power could always break down, thus making international relations that much more unstable, the new Peaceful Coexistence idea was more complex, and more abstract in that it was seeking a peaceful alternative to nuclear armament even while the arms build-up continued. More specifically, it was believed possible to develop non-military ties, such as economic and cultural interchanges, between the two power blocs. None could predict how such a world, characterized at one level by militarization and at another by economic and cultural contact, would look, and whether this would ultimately end the US–Soviet confrontation. But even if the two powers’ hegemonic position in world affairs might not be altered, it seemed worth pursuing these other paths as well. Such thinking was behind Vice-President Richard Nixon’s trip to the Soviet Union in July 1959, or Chairman Niki ta Khrushchev’s trip to the United States two months later.

  How such contacts would translate into a new pattern of US–Soviet relations was not at all clear. For instance, in 1956, when Poles and Hungarians rose up against Soviet domination of their countries and were suppressed brutally by Soviet military force, the United States did not intervene. This may have been an instance of Peaceful Coexistence; the episodes indicated a superpower’s unwillingness to interfere with the affairs of another superpower in its sphere of influence, even while both sought to strengthen their respective alliance systems. Increased commercial and cultural contact might mean Poles and Hungarians were coming under increasing Western influence, but the Soviet Union would not tolerate such a situation developing into political instability and creating a challenge to the solidarity of the Eastern bloc. This was clearly a negative instance of the application of Peaceful Coexistence. At the same time, however, the superpowers were

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Cold War

  • Bradley Lightbody(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In August 1961 the Soviet Union was humbled as the Berlin Wall was constructed to save East Germany from ignominious economic collapse. Peaceful Coexistence had failed to attract Western concessions, particularly a settlement of divided Germany and as the wall rose Peaceful Coexistence collapsed.

  Ultimately, Peaceful Coexistence failed against Communist China’s commitment to military force and the United States’ conviction of a Soviet threat in Asia, the Third World and space.

  Questions

  1. In what ways did Peaceful Coexistence alter the nature of the Soviet challenge to the West? 2. How significant was the rise of Communist China to the rejection of Peaceful Coexistence?

  SOURCES

  1. Peaceful Coexistence

  Source A: Prime Minister Eden at Geneva.

  In his memoirs Eden recorded his impression of the summit talks with President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Faure and Soviet Party Secretary Khrushchev, July 1955.

  Every country present learnt that no country attending wanted war and each understood why. The Russians realised, as we did, that this situation had been created by the deterrent power of thermo-nuclear weapons. Accordingly, they were determined to keep a free hand to develop these weapons as far and as fast as their country’s very considerable resources would take them… The communist powers would continue to prosecute their purpose by every means. To do this they would work in areas, and by methods, including the use of conventional weapons, which they believed would not entail retaliation by nuclear weapons.

  Source B: Khrushchev at Geneva.

  In his memoirs Khrushchev recorded his impressions of the Western powers.

  We returned to Moscow from Geneva knowing we hadn’t achieved any concrete results. But we were encouraged, realising now that our enemies probably feared us as much as we feared them. They rattled their sabers and tried to pressure us into agreements which were more profitable for them because they were frightened of us… They realised that they would have to build their relations with us on new assumptions and new expectations if they really wanted peace. The Geneva meeting was an important breakthrough for us on the diplomatic front. We had established ourselves as able to hold our own in the international arena.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book