From the May 2019 IBDP History Paper 2 exam
The policy of peaceful co-existence, adopted by the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, aimed to alleviate tensions and promote a more stable international order during the Cold War. This essay will examine the extent to which this policy improved superpower relations up to and including 1964. It will explore the key developments and initiatives that shaped the policy, evaluate the impact of peaceful co-existence on superpower relations, and consider the differing perspectives of historians on this matter.
The policy of peaceful co-existence can be traced back to the early 1950s, when both the United States and the Soviet Union recognised the need to prevent direct military confrontation and mitigate the risks of nuclear war. One of the notable milestones in the pursuit of peaceful co-existence was the Geneva Summit of 1955. At this summit, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower engaged in dialogue, fostering a sense of détente and initiating discussions on arms control and peaceful settlement of disputes. However, some historians argue that the policy of peaceful co-existence had limited impact on superpower relations up to 1964. Historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that the policy was merely a façade, masking underlying hostilities and a constant power struggle between the two superpowers. According to Gaddis, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in proxy wars, such as the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, which demonstrated a lack of genuine commitment to peaceful co-existence. Gaddis suggests that these conflicts symbolized the enduring tensions and limited progress in improving superpower relations during this period.
Other historians, such as Melvyn P. Leffler, take a more nuanced perspective. Leffler acknowledges the limitations and setbacks of peaceful co-existence, but also highlights instances where the policy had positive effects. He argues that the policy contributed to a degree of stability and predictability in superpower relations. Leffler points to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater, as a significant achievement of peaceful co-existence. This treaty demonstrated a willingness to engage in arms control negotiations and mitigate the risks of nuclear confrontation.
An important aspect to consider when evaluating the policy of peaceful coexistence is the economic dimension and its influence on superpower relations. During the period up to 1964, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a competitive economic race alongside their ideological rivalry. The Soviet Union aimed to prove the superiority of its planned socialist economy, whilst the United States sought to demonstrate the strengths of its capitalist system. This economic competition manifested itself in various ways, such as technological advancements, space exploration, and trade relations. Historian John Lewis Gaddis contends that economic competition played a significant role in undermining the effectiveness of peaceful coexistence. Gaddis argues that the constant race for economic dominance fueled tensions and perpetuated the arms race between the superpowers. This focus on economic competition hindered genuine cooperation and prevented the full realization of peaceful coexistence. However, some historians, like Melvyn P. Leffler, suggest that economic interdependence and trade relations had a positive impact on superpower relations during this period. Leffler highlights the growing economic ties between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly in areas such as grain trade and cultural exchanges. These economic interactions, according to Leffler, fostered a sense of mutual dependence and contributed to a degree of stability in superpower relations.
Another important aspect to consider when evaluating the policy of peaceful coexistence is the economic dimension and its influence on superpower relations. During the period up to 1964, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a competitive economic race alongside their ideological rivalry. The Soviet Union aimed to prove the superiority of its planned socialist economy, while the United States sought to demonstrate the strengths of its capitalist system. This economic competition manifested itself in various ways, such as technological advancements, space exploration, and trade relations. Gaddis contends that economic competition played a significant role in undermining the effectiveness of peaceful coexistence. He argues that the constant race for economic dominance fueled tensions and perpetuated the arms race between the superpowers. This focus on economic competition hindered genuine cooperation and prevented the full realization of peaceful coexistence. However, Leffler suggests that economic interdependence and trade relations had a positive impact on superpower relations during this period. He highlights the growing economic ties between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly in areas such as grain trade and cultural exchanges. These economic interactions, according to Leffler, fostered a sense of mutual dependence and contributed to a degree of stability in superpower relations.
Furthermore, the policy of peaceful coexistence had implications beyond the superpowers' relationship itself. It influenced the dynamics of the Cold War in other regions, particularly in the context of the decolonization process. The United States and the Soviet Union sought to gain influence in newly independent nations and extend their spheres of influence. The competition for dominance in these regions often resulted in proxy wars, as both superpowers supported opposing factions in conflicts such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and various conflicts in Africa. Garthoff argues that the policy of peaceful coexistence created a framework for managing these regional conflicts and preventing direct confrontation between the superpowers. He suggests that peaceful coexistence allowed for a degree of strategic restraint, wherein the United States and the Soviet Union aimed to avoid direct military clashes that could escalate into a full-scale war. Despite the involvement in proxy conflicts, the superpowers exercised caution and recognized the dangers of direct confrontation. However, Westad takes a more critical view and contends that peaceful coexistence actually intensified regional conflicts due to the superpowers' ideological and strategic calculations. He argues that the United States and the Soviet Union exploited these conflicts to advance their respective agendas and gain influence over strategic regions. This manipulation of regional conflicts for their own interests undermined the principles of peaceful coexistence and contributed to the perpetuation of hostilities.
In conclusion, the policy of peaceful coexistence had a mixed impact on superpower relations up to and including 1964. The policy faced challenges and limitations, including divergent interpretations, regional conflicts, and the competitive economic race. While it did contribute to some positive developments, such as arms control agreements, cultural exchanges, and strategic restraint in certain conflicts, its effectiveness in improving superpower relations was constrained by underlying ideological divisions, proxy wars, and the constant threat of nuclear confrontation. Historians offer differing perspectives on the significance and impact of peaceful coexistence. Some argue that it represented a genuine effort to alleviate tensions and foster stability between the superpowers. However, others highlight the superficial nature of the policy and its limitations in addressing the fundamental ideological and strategic differences. By examining the historical context, evaluating the policy's outcomes, and considering the interpretations of historians, we gain a deeper understanding of the extent to which peaceful coexistence improved superpower relations up to and including 1964.
