“New thinking” as a factor in the evolution of foreign policy on the example of the USSR, South Korea and Vietnam

This article examines the models of conducting foreign policy of the two countries of East and Southeast Asia (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Korea) and the backgrounds of their formation in order to identify positive changes, in an attempt to evaluate the ideas of the concept of the Mikhail Gorbachev's “new political thinking” through the prism of these very models.

Keywords : new political thinking, Perestroika, foreign policy.

“Perestroika”

1987–1991 is considered to be the time of cardinal changes in connection with the adoption of a new political and economic course called “Perestroika”, initiated by the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. This course represented complex changes in the economic, domestic and foreign policy, as well as social structures of the USSR in favor of their democratization and liberalization. It is worth noting that the roots of these reforms stretch not to Gorbachev himself, but to his predecessor, Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, who began developing the basic concepts of “Perestroika” (according to former Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov) [1], while Mikhail Sergeyevich himself is the implementer of these ideas. However, despite the enthusiasm with which most of the Soviet society embraced the new political course at the beginning, nowadays these reforms and the actions of the first and last President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are being severely criticized not only by the conservative part of post-soviet society, but also by liberal part. This article does not aim to evaluate all the reforms of 1987–1991 and the actions of Mikhail Gorbachev itself, but offers to get acquainted with the new principles of the USSR's foreign policy of that era, as well as to look at similar positive changes in the foreign policy aspect of the two Asian countries and the results that these changes led to.

The concept of “new political thinking”

The situation that developed in 1985, not only in the USSR itself, but also in the rest of the world, needed serious changes. The buildup of US military power and the ongoing war in Afghanistan since 1979 could lead to an escalation of the Cold War, which, in turn, could have disastrous consequences for both the communist and capitalist camps. Gorbachev’s “New thinking” was supposed to be an instrument for defusing the tense situation and ending the arms race, which was hitting the economies of the two superpowers of that time. It included the ideas of resolving conflicts through diplomacy, abandoning ideological struggle and finding compromises in favor of universal values [2]. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms [3], the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles [4] and etc. can serve as manifestations of this policy. The results of the change in the foreign policy of the Soviet Union were a warming in relations with NATO and the United States, the cessation of a destructive arms race, the prevention of a nuclear conflict that could have catastrophic consequences and the settlement of many political and military conflicts caused by ideological struggle (for example, the unification of Germany). However, it is also worth noting that concessions did not always play into the hands of the Union and exposed it as the side that lost the Cold War. And yet, whether this was the reason for the subsequent collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist camp is a very controversial question.

The evolution of Vietnamese foreign policy thinking

In support of the correctness of the foreign policy reforms that took place during the “Perestroika”, can serve as the experience of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This state with a centuries-old history was constantly in a state of strained relations with its neighbors and fought for its independence many times [5]. It is not surprising that such a belligerent history and frequent attacks from the great powers of different times greatly deformed the foreign policy thinking of the Vietnamese and led them to the fact that the diplomacy of this country was inextricably linked with the military and political struggle. This fact caused the political isolation and late integration of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam into the world community (Vietnam joined the UN only by 1977). However, already in 1986, comprehensive reforms began, similar in their ideas to the Soviet “Perestroika». The reforms of “Doi Moi” meant the creation of market relations, the democratization of society and, very importantly, openness and multilateral cooperation in foreign policy. The manifestations of these reforms can be the normalization of relations with the United States and the EU, the settlement of conflicts and the resumption of trade and diplomatic relations with China, as well as a shift in the focus of the economy from the agricultural sector to the service sector (tourism income is almost half of the state's GDP [6]). The Socialist Republic of Vietnam resolves the current disputes, like the conflict with Cambodia, by diplomatic means, refusing to show aggression. The example of Vietnam shows that ideas similar to the “new political thinking” have led to enormous positive changes, and Vietnam, while preserving its territorial and ideological sovereignty, lobbies for the idea of resolving conflicts by peaceful methods and establishes relations with once hostile countries.

Evolution of South Korean foreign policy thinking

Unlike Vietnam, the Republic of Korea has never been a member of the socialist bloc. However, it can be considered an example for capitalist countries in terms of communication with aggressive communist regimes. South Korea is currently one of the most developed countries in the world. Korean culture conquers the minds of young people, Seoul is considered the city of the future, and South Korean universities are among the tops of the best universities in the world. It is hard to imagine that 80 years ago this republic lay in ruins, and the economy and military power were much inferior to its northern neighbor. It is also worth noting that the path of becoming one of the few successful Asian democracies began with the autocratic regimes of Rhee Syngman and his more productive successor, General Park Chung-hee [7]. However, the Republic of Korea has undergone changes not only in economic and domestic political terms. Foreign policy has gone from open confrontation with the countries of the socialist bloc to peaceful coexistence and the organization of joint sports, cultural and political events. This progression is particularly well seen in the example of relations between South Korea and the Soviet Union [8]. As for the DPRK, since the Korean War, attempts have been made to stabilize the situation on the Korean peninsula in relations between the south and the north. Despite some incidents and provocations on the 38th parallel, a fragile but still working communication was established between these two governments. At the moment, South Korea is lobbying for the idea of delivering humanitarian aid to the DPRK in order to help the population of the north in distress and transition to a new stage of bilateral relations that can help stabilize the situation on the peninsula, but it faces some dilemmas for implementation in modern realities and with the condition of sanctions imposed on the DPRK [9]. On the other hand, despite the more aggressive language of North Korean diplomacy, Pyongyang also expresses its readiness to begin work on the transition to a more peaceful coexistence [10]. Summarizing, we can say that since the Korean War, South Korea has formed its own language of diplomacy based on finding compromises and peaceful coexistence with aggressive communist regimes, which can rightfully be considered the “new political thinking» of the capitalist state.

As a result, despite the widespread opinion about the perniciousness of the USSR's foreign policy of the era of “Perestroika”, looking through the prism of two countries with similar changes in the conditions of completely different ideologies, we can conclude that the possibility of mutual cooperation between the socialist and capitalist camps still remained. Under the conditions of abandoning ideological struggle, following the policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and taking universal values as a priority, “new political thinking” can become an instrument of reconciliation of states even in the conditions of the current multipolar world.

References:

1. Николай Рыжков — об «отцах перестройки», золоте партии и предательстве. — Текст: электронный // Известия: [сайт]. — URL: https://iz.ru/news/575877 (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
2. Горбачев, М. С. Перестройка и новое мышление для нашей страны и всего мира / М. С. Горбачев. — 1-е изд. — Москва: Издательство политической литературы, 1988. — 137 c. — Текст: непосредственный.
3. Договор между Союзом Советских Социалистических Республик и Соединенными Штатами Америки о сокращении и ограничении стратегических наступательных вооружений*. — Текст: электронный // Организация Объединенных наций: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/russia_usa.shtml (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
4. Договор между СССР и США о ликвидации их ракет средней и меньшей дальности. — Текст: электронный // Организация Объединенных наций: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/pdf/treaty.pdf (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
5. Taylor, K. W. A History of the Vietnamese / K. W. Taylor. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. — 712 c. — Текст: непосредственный.
6. ВВП Вьетнама: объем, темпы роста, на душу населения, структура. — Текст: электронный // Take-Profit.otg: [сайт]. — URL: https://take-profit.org/statistics/gdp/vietnam/ (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
7. Аджемоглу, Д. Почему одни страны богатые, а другие бедные. Происхождение власти, процветания и нищеты / Д. Аджемоглу, Д. А. Робинсон. — Москва: ACT, 2015. — 1083 c. — Текст: непосредственный.
8. Relations with the Soviet Union. — Текст: электронный // country studies: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.countrystudies.us/south-korea/77.htm (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
9. Taekyoon, Kim Peace-Development Nexus of Development Cooperation for North Korea: The Double Dilemma of Aid Policies to North Korea / Kim Taekyoon. — Текст: электронный // global north korea: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.globalnk.org/note/view?cd=NOT000024 (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).
10. Ким Чен Ын впервые принял делегацию из Южной Кореи. — Текст: электронный // BBC: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/news-russian-43302823 (дата обращения: 17.09.2023).