Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Western and Europe Diplomacy since 1945

Western and Europe diplomacy since 1945 has been mainly concerned with its relations with the Communist block. In the period of co-operation immediately after the war, the United Nations was established, war criminals were tried, peace trea ties were made with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland, and the Marshall Plan—originally designed for all Europe—was initiated.

However, deteriorated by a process of action and reaction publicly manifested by Churchill's Fulton speech in the spring of 1947 in which he referred to the Iron Curtain.

The Soviet take-over of European satellites, the Truman Doctrine, the formation of NATO, the China becoming Communist block, the Korean war, and the initiation of atomic rival maintained a condition of Cold War.

The death of Stalin in 1953 and the advent of Khrushchev led to more peace ful coexistence. The Korean war and the Indo-Chinese war were ended. A summit conference was held; the Asian and African countries met in Bandung on 18 April 1955, and the United States and the Soviet Union acted together to stop aggression at Suez.

The pioneering period, when everything still seemed possible, was also the period when some impulsive ideas, bearing the imprint of hastiness or utopianism, fell victim to events or the inertia of governments. It was followed by a period when more concrete achievements could take shape. Recourse to consensus and intergovernmental measures gave way to initiatives that raised hopes of a supranational approach. The fledgling European Community, born of the Schuman Plan, took its first steps and began to acquire organisational shape. Everyone observed with interest the ever closer relations between the age-old enemies, France and Germany, and it attracted other countries that were also tempted by the European venture. While Central and Eastern Europe lived under the yoke of Communist regimes that owed allegiance to the Soviet Union, in Western Europe the Six decided to take their fate into their own hands and tentatively explored new forms of sectoral integration that might lead to greater things. Agriculture, transport and public health would emerge as possible areas in which sectoral integration might be implemented.

There were some liberalization in Poland, but Czechoslovakia in 1968 was crushed when it attempted to break away from the Soviet bloc. Disarmament negotiations made little progress, and stability continued to depend on a balance of terror. Communism penetrated Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Western policy of containment and deterrence by threats of massive retaliation had not prevented a great decrease in the Western relative power position, relative economy, and relative reputa tion in the underdeveloped world. A new policy looking to ward a world secure for all states seems in order.

I am mentioning the west because was all the time the influence and the negotiations in the peace maintaining and the domination on the subject. so was the collapse of the communism block in the late 80's and the extension of the EU family in the early millennium .

So forward has the European diplomacy did play important role on the field of International Relation?


Bibliography
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1032812

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's an interesting question - and I would say yes.

    Historically, EU has been called a "political dwarf - but an economic giant" - meaning that EU has become an economic world power but not very influental when it comes to influence policy making.

    But I would say this have changed significantly. EU engage to a high degree in international affairs. It influences many international bodies such as UN and WTO. EU has also been progressive in climate negotiations and issues about development. When it comes to giving out economic aid, EU is the biggest provider of economic aid to developing countries in the world. What EU diplomacy have not discussed so much yet far, is the issue of security and peace. The notion of EU as an international actor is also weakened by lack of supranational policy in those matters. EU still consists of nationstates, guarding their own interests. National interests are still supreme collective EU interests, and I thing I will still be for a long time. Also the relations with the US are not clear. I think this is partly because the US have repeatedly tried to split the European countries in block to prevent it from being a too strong, competetive power.

    There is a very good and informative website on EU diplomacy: http://textus.diplomacy.edu/textusBin/BViewers/oview/eudiplomacy/oview.asp
    It lists the evolution of EU diplomacy and the contemporary role of EU in a global world order.

    By the way, you seem to have forgot to reference your sources, so I'll do it for you: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1032812

    ReplyDelete
  3. The constant emerge of the disaccord between member states and EU Commissions involves several difficulties to the functioning and efficiency as a leading global actor.
    However, being the biggest aid donor or economical competitor, negotiations and agreements can be certainly, positively influenced.

    ReplyDelete