To What Extent Are the Two Chambers Equal in Power and Influence?

1494 Words6 Pages
After the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Union came under the control of Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev developed a more ‘friendly’ policy towards US-Soviet relations which he named “peaceful coexistence”. It was routed in the Marxist view that capitalism will inevitably destroy itself, and so there was no reason to have an actively aggressive policy against them. This allowed for Khrushchev to focus on maintaining the Soviet Union’s strength as their economy was constantly in need of attention. On the face of it, peaceful coexistence did ease Cold War tensions as it began to see more direct negotiations between the US and the USSR. But it is far too simple to see this as the whole truth, as not only were there other important factors the contributed to the “thaw” that took place, but there was also an underlying tension between the two powers which was rooted in the “mutually assured destruction” that came when both sides had developed fully functioning nuclear weapons. Peaceful coexistence clearly had an effect on the diplomatic relationship between the USSR and the USA. Although many of these negotiations did not achieve much in terms of the two sides agreeing on a certain action, there was a clear show of easing of tensions as both sides were willing to negotiate and engage in face to face diplomacy. A clear example of this was the Geneva conference in 1954 and the subsequent Geneva summit in 1955. Despite a small amount actually being agreed on, it was still relevant in terms of being the first real diplomatic negotiations since the death of Stalin, who was seen by both sides as more of a ‘war monger’ than anything else. Yet this impact that was seemingly as a result of the implementation of Peaceful Coexistence could also be put down to the change in leadership in 1953 in the USA. President Eisenhower was an advocate of face to face diplomacy, unlike the
Open Document