Why did Gorbachev choose the United Nations as his forum?
Mikhail Gorbachev’s speech to the United Nations (UN) of 1988 is believed to have paved the way for the improvement of the US-Soviet relations during the Cold War. Although the remarkable speech was mainly focusing on the strained relationships arising from the Cold War, many experts have argued that it promoted the establishment of a new global order characterized by peace. The UN was therefore the best forum for the speech because the intergovernmental organization focuses on global cooperation.
The UN also confronts the major challenges affecting different nations across the world (Miller, 2016). The use of the forum played a significant role in reinforcing the agenda and proving to the world that the Soviet Union was no longer an obstacle to the peace process. Additionally, more nations were informed about the importance of a new ideology whereby cooperation could be embraced to address the quandaries affecting humanity. As a result, the speaker managed to achieve the intended objectives.
De-ideologizing relations among states
The term “de-ideologizing relations among states” used by Gorbachev in his speech appears to offer a unique meaning. The narrator uses the concept to explain why the ideologies defining state relationships should be abandoned or redefined. By doing so, nations will be able to acknowledge each other without necessarily having to abandon their values (Gregory, 2013). The struggle for ideology should, therefore, be used to define the mutual relationships established between different states.
With the process of “de-ideologization”, the speaker believes strongly that more nations will be able to cooperate, focus on scientific breakthroughs, establish new relationships, and address the common problems affecting humanity such as climate change. From this viewpoint, it becomes evident that the meaning presented by Gorbachev played a critical role in reshaping superpower relations. The strained relationships denoted by the Cold War would eventually end within the next decade (Miller, 2016). Consequently, the Soviet Union and the US would find it easier to eliminate the wave of militarism and nuclear threat.
Force can no longer be an instrument of foreign policy
In his speech, Gorbachev points out that force should no longer be an instrument of foreign policy. He says so after analyzing the major wars, upheavals, and revolutions that had characterized the world within the past century. The Cold War, for instance, had remained a dark period associated with threats of force and war (Miller, 2016). That being the case, he observed that force should never be used to underpin or define foreign policy. With this kind of understanding, the Soviet bloc appeared to embrace a new journey typified by demilitarization. Additionally, the Soviet Union embarked on a new path aimed at promoting global peace. This ideology is believed to have encouraged the Soviet bloc to renounce the use of threats and force in foreign relations.
The future role of the superpowers in the world
The outstanding fact is that Mikhail Gorbachev gave his speech at a time when the two superpowers were grappling with the reality of the Cold War. However, the leader appeared to champion a new era defined by world peace. He strongly believed that the two powers were tasked with a huge responsibility aimed at denouncing any form of conflict.
The future role of the superpowers was therefore outlined in the speech. The two countries were encouraged to come together in an attempt to end upheavals (Gregory, 2013). By so doing, they would end the Cold War, confront the major conflicts affecting different regions, and deal with poverty across the globe. He also predicted a positive relationship between the superpowers to tackle the challenges affecting the world, such as political terrorism.
References
Gregory, R. (2013). Cold War America, 1946 to 1990. New York, NY: Facts on File Inc.
Miller, C. (2016). The struggle to save the Soviet economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the USSR. North Carolina, NC: University of North Carolina Press.