Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:04:51.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Soviet Union and the Varieties of Neutrality in Western Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Harto Hakovirta
Harto Hakovirta
Affiliation:
International Politics at the University of Tampere
Get access

Abstract

Soviet policies with regard to neutrality in postwar Western Europe have developed from largely unsuccessful influence attempts into more realistic and acquiescent lines seeking to find a balance between operative aims and actual leverage. There has been a change from ideologically motivated opposition toward conditional support and flexible search for areas of common interests, and from basically unrealistic grand designs to recognition of the status quo. The Soviet posture toward potentially neutral blocs and disparate neutralist trends in Western Europe has primarily been characterized by a wait-and-see attitude. In order to make Soviet policies and postures understandable, it is necessary to combine the concept of the U.S.S.R. as a rational bloc leader interested above all in weakening the opposite bloc with that of a world power interested mainly in international stability and prevention of war. The popular Western hypothesis that the Soviet union is acting on a design that would incrementally neutralize the whole of Western Europe is difficult to test; even if there were such a design in reserve or in the experimental stage, its degree of crystallization and internal integration would have to be low.

Type
Research Note
Information
World Politics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 563 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Pipes, Richard, ed., Soviet Strategy in Europe (New York: Crane, Russak, 1976)Google Scholar; Ginsburgs, George and Rubinstein, Alvin Z., eds., Soviet Foreign Policy toward Western Europe (New York: Praeger, 1978)Google Scholar; Royen, Christoph, Die Sowjetische Koexistenzpolitik gegenüber Westeuropa: Voraussetzungen, Ziele, Dilemmata [Soviet Politics of Coexistence vis-à-vis Western Europe: Assumptions, Objectives, Dilemmas] (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1978)Google Scholar; Laqueur, Walter, A Continent Astray: Europe 1970–1978 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; cf. Kuznetsov, V. I. and Madzoevskii, S. P., eds., Zapadnaya Evropa v sovremennom mire [Western Europe in Today's World], I, and Khesin, E. C., Iudanov, Yu. I., and Rubinskii, Yu. I., eds., Zapadnaya Evropa v sovremennom mire, II (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Mysl', 1979).Google Scholar

2 For related critical views, see Light, Margot, “Approaches to the Study of Soviet Foreign Policy,” Review of International Studies 7 (July 1981), 127–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cf. Teune, Henry and Synnerstvedt, Sig, “Measuring International Alignment,” in Friedman, Julian R., Bladen, Christopher, and Rose, Steven, eds., Alliance in International Politics (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1970), 316–32Google Scholar, esp. 322–23. See also generally, Frei, Daniel, Dimensionen neutraler Politik: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen [Dimensions of Neutral Politics: A Contribution to the Theory of International Relations] (Geneva: Études et travaux de l'institut universitaire de hautes études, 1969).Google Scholar

4 Cf. the concept of “project” in Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Burton Sapin's classic “Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics,” in Snyder, , Bruck, , and Sapin, , eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), 14–185Google Scholar, esp. 90–92. Cf. also the concept of “undertaking” in Rosenau, James N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (London: Frances Pinter; New York: Nichols Publishing Company, 1980), 60–66.Google Scholar

5 Next on the list would be Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus. Their inclusion, however, would make the discussion too unfocused.

6 See a variety of disparate sources—e.g., Frei, Daniel, “Switzerland and Eastern Europe,” in Galtung, Johan, ed., with the assistance of Sverre Lodgaard, Cooperation in Europe, IPRA Studies in Peace Research, III (Assen: van Gorcum; New York: Humanities Press, 1970), 259–68Google Scholar; Riklin, Alois and Wohnlich, Konrad, “Verhältnis der Schweiz zu Osteuropa” [Swiss Relations with Eastern Europe], in Riklin, Alois, Haug, Hans, and Binswanger, Hans Christoph, eds., Handbuch der schweizerischen Aussenpolitik [Handbook of Swiss Foreign Policy] (Bern and Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1975), 510–31Google Scholar; Dechmann, Heide and Frei, Daniel, Der Platz der Schweiz im internationalen System: eine deskriptive Studie [The Place of Switzerland in the International System: A Descriptive Study] (Universität Zürich, Forschungsstelle für politische Wissenschaft, kleine Studien zur politischen Wissenschaft, No. 27–28, 1974)Google Scholar; Hakovirta, Harto, Ulkosuhteiden epäsymmetriat ja puolueettomuuspolitiikan edellytykset [The Asymmetries of Foreign Relations and the Preconditions of Neutral Foreign Policy] (University of Tampere, Department of Political Science, Research Reports, No. 66, 1981)Google Scholar; Hakovirta, , Puolueettomuus ja integraatiopolitiikka [Neutrality and Integration Policy[ (Vammala: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 1976).Google Scholar For Soviet analyses, see Durdenevskii, V., “Swiss Neutrality,” New Times (No. 22, 1955), 28–30Google Scholar; Afanasyeva, O., “Swiss Neutrality in History,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 1, 1956), 77–83Google Scholar; Volgin, V., “150 Years of Swiss Neutrality,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 11, 1965), 50–52.Google Scholar

7 See a variety of disparate sources—e.g., Fiedler, Heinz, Der Sowjetische Neutralitätsbegriff in Theorie und Praxis—Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Desengagement [The Soviet Concept of Neutrality in Theory and Practice: A Contribution to the Problem of Disengagement] (Cologne: Verlag für Politik und Wirtschaft, 1959), 242–48Google Scholar; Kohl, Andreas, “Die Zusammenarbeit Österreichs mit dem Osten im Rahmen seiner Aussenpolitik” [Austria's Cooperation with the East within the Framework of Its Foreign Policy], in Galtung (fn. 6), 187–213Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Thomas O., Austrian Neutrality in Postwar Europe—The Domestic Roots of a Foreign Policy (Vienna and Stuttgart: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1972), 20–25Google Scholar, 117–28; Ginther, Konrad, “Austria's Policy of Neutrality and the Soviet Union,” in Ginsburgs and Rubinstein (fn. 1), 66–85Google Scholar; Waldheim, Kurt, The Austrian Example (Birkenhead, England: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973), esp. 55–127Google Scholar; Hakovirta (fn. 6, 1976 and 1981). For typical Soviet analyses, see, e.g., Dadiani, L., “Austria's New Path,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 5, 1956), 90–96Google Scholar; Polyanov, N., “Austria, Neutrality, Europe,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 9, 1973), 82–88Google Scholar; Rozanov, G., “Austria: Twenty Years of Independent and Democratic Development,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 7, 1975).Google Scholar

8 See a variety of disparate sources—e.g., Fiedler (fn. 7), 216–17 and 228–31: Stålvant, Carl-Einar, “Sweden and Eastern Europe,” in Galtung (fn. 6), 234–58Google Scholar; Hakovirta (fn. 6, 1976 and 1981). For a general but already quite dated introduction to Sweden's foreign policy, see Andrén, Nils, Power Balance and Non-Alignment: A Perspective on Swedish Foreign Policy (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965).Google Scholar For a typical Soviet analysis, see Vasilyev, P., “USSR and Sweden,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 6, 1976), 94–99.Google Scholar On the interdependencies of Sweden's position and the development of Soviet-Finnish relations, see Brundtland, Arne Olaf, “The Nordic Balance: Past and Present,” Cooperation and Conflict 1 (No. 2, 1966), 30–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brundtland, , “Nordisk balanse på nytt” [The Nordic Balance Revisited], Internasjonal PolitiK (No. 3, 1976), 599–633.Google Scholar

9 See a variety of disparate sources—e.g., Jacobson, Max, Finnish Neutrality: A Study of Finnish Foreign Policy Since the Second World War (New York and Washington: Praeger, 1969)Google Scholar; Väyrynen, Raimo, Conflicts in Finnish-Soviet Relations: Three Comparative Case Studies (Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 1972)Google Scholar; Hakovirta, Harto, “Finland as a ‘Friendly Neighbor’ and Finland as an ‘Independent Western Democracy’: An Illustrative Case Study on the Problems of Image Policy,” in Matthew Bonham, G. and Shapiro, Michael J., eds., Thought and Action in Foreign Policy (Basel and Stuttgart: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1977), 75–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Hakovirta (fn. 6,1976 and 1981). For typical Soviet analyses, see Bartenev, T. and Komissarov, Yu., Tridtsat' let dobrososedstva: K istorii sovetsko-finlyandskikh otnoshenii [Thirty Years of Good Neighborliness: On the History of Soviet-Finnish Relations] (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1976)Google Scholar; Seglin, M., “USSR-Finland: Thirty Years of Good Neighborliness,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 12, 1974), 21–27Google Scholar; Denisov, Y., “USSR-Finland: In the Spirit of the Helsinki Accord,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 3, 1979), 29–35.Google Scholar

10 Some illuminative though scant materials that allow a study of the Soviet practice of grouping these and other countries in various historical contexts are contained in the reports by Soviet leaders to the highest Soviet party and state organs and to the international meetings of the Communist parties; these are reprinted in Rush, Myron, The International Situation and Soviet Foreign Policy—Reports of Soviet Leaders (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1970)Google Scholar; Documents and Resolutions, XXIV Congress of the CPSU (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency, 1971); Documents and Resolutions, XXV Congress of the CPSU (Moscow. Novosti Press Agency, 1976); Documents and Resolutions, 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, February 23-March 3, 1981 (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency, 1981).

11 Törnudd, Klaus, Soviet Attitudes towards Non-Military Regional Cooperation, 2d. rev. ed. (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1963)Google Scholar; Schulz, Eberhard, Moskau und die europäische Integration [Moscow and European Integration] (Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1977)Google Scholar; Hakovirta (fn. 6, 1976).

12 The Soviet position in regard to the negotiations on the Scandinavian alliance is analyzed in Krister Wahlbäck, Norden och Blockuppdelningen 1948–49 [The North and the Bloc Division 1948–49], Internationella studier B, 1973.

13 Ibid.

14 See Galtung, Johan, The European Community: A Superpower in the Making (Oslo: Universitetsförlaget, 1973)Google Scholar; Buchan, Alastair, ed., Europe's Futures, Europe's Choices—Models of Western Europe in the 1970's (London: Chatto & Windus; Toronto: Clarke, Irvin, 1969)Google Scholar, esp. the models of “Independent Federal Europe” and “Europe des Etats”; Sjöstedt, Gunnar, The External Role of the European Community (Farnborough, England: Saxon House, 1977)Google Scholar; Taylor, Phillip, When Europe Speaks with One Voice—The External Relations of the European Community (London: Aldwych Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Dolan, Michael B. and Caporaso, James A., “The External Relations of the European Community,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, No. 440 (November 1978), 135–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rhein, Eberhard, “Europäische Aussenpolitik: eine unerfüllte Hoffnung?” [European Foreign Policy: An Unfulfilled Hope?] Europa Archiv 35 (No. 7, 1980), 205–14.Google Scholar For critical Soviet analyses of this type of Western research, see, e.g., Kokoshin, A. A., O burzhuazhnykh prognozakh razvitiya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [On Bourgeois Predictions of the Development of International Relations] (Moscow: Mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya, 1978), 61–131Google Scholar; Razmerov, V., “Western Models for the Europe of the 1970's,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 6, 1969), 40–46Google Scholar; Grigoryev, V., “What Pattern for Europe?,” International Affairs (Moscow) (Nos. 2–3, 1970), 140–42.Google Scholar See also Mel'nikov, D., “Zapadnoevropeiskii tsentr—aspekt politicheskii” [The West European Center: The Political Aspect], Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia [hereafter cited as Mirovaya …] (No. 5, 1978), 19–29Google Scholar; Maier, L., Mel'nikov, D., and Shenayev, V., “Zapadnoevropeiskii tsentr imperialisticheskovo sopernichestva” [The West European Center of the Imperialistic Competition], Mirovaya … (No. 12, 1978), 22–32.Google Scholar

15 See esp. Dolan and Caporaso (fn. 14); cf. also Kuznetsov and Madzoevskii (fn. 1), 169–86.

16 Tornudd (fn. 11), 137–46, 154–77; Schulz (fn. 11). For recent Soviet views of the EEC, see, e.g., Shishkov, Yu., “EEC: trudnaya dilemma” [EEC: A Laborious Dilemma], Mirovaya … (No. 10, 1975), 56–69Google Scholar; Avakov, M. A. and Iljin, Yu. D., “Evropeiskii soyuz: tendentsii i perspektivy” [European Alliance: Tendencies and Perspectives], Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (No. 6, 1978), 113–18Google Scholar, esp. 118; Kuznetsov, V. I., “SEV-EEC: vozmozhnosti sotrudichestvo” [CMEA-EEC: Possibilities for Cooperation], Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (No. 4, 1978), 69–77Google Scholar; Shiskov, Y., “EEC: The Crisis Continues,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 3, 1982), 46–56Google Scholar, esp. 53–56.

17 See Schulz (fn. 11), 120–25; Davydov, Y., “USA-Western Europe: A ‘New Relationship’,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 1, 1974), 35–41Google Scholar; Shishkov, Y., “Little Europe in an Impasse,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 3, 1977), 53–61Google Scholar, esp. 58–61; Shishkov (fn. 16); Kokoshin (fn. 14), 61–90; Petrovskii, V., “Kontseptsiya vzaimnozavisimosti v strategii SShA” [The Conception of Interdependence in USA Strategy], Mirovaya … (No. 9, 1977), 70–80Google Scholar; Utkin, A., “Konseptsiya ‘Trekhstoronnosti’ v strategii imperialisma” (A Conception of “Trilateralism” in the Strategy of Imperialism), Mirovaya … (No. 2, 1978), 13–23.Google Scholar

18 Proektor, D., “A View of Europe's Future,” Co-Existence 16 (April 1979), 39–44.Google Scholar Cf. also a book edited by Davydov, Yu., SShA-Zapadnaya Evropa: Partnyorstvo i sopernichestvo [USA-Western Europe: Partnership and Rivalry] (Moscow: Nauka, 1978)Google Scholar; Petrov, K., “Political Integration in Western Europe,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 11, 1969), 16–21Google Scholar, esp. 21; Kuznetsov and Madzoevskii (fn. 1), 198–232, 262; Mel'nikov (fn. 14).

19 Cf. Schulz (fn. 11), 123–24; Mel'nikov (fn. 14); Maier and others (fn. 14); Petrovskii (fn. 17); Utkin (fn. 17). For a discussion on Chinese images of the place of Europe in the global strategies of the Soviet Union, see Pollack, Jonathan J., “Chinese Global Strategy and Soviet Power,” Problems of Communism 30 (January–February 1981), 54–69.Google Scholar

20 Cf. Ponomaryov, B., Gromyko, A., and Kvostov, V., History of Soviet Foreign Policy 1945–1970 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), 198–245Google Scholar; Meyer, Gerd, Die Sowjetische Deutschland-Politik im Jahre 1952 [Soviet Relations with Germany in 1952] (Tübingen: Böhlau Verlag, 1970), esp. 108–23Google Scholar; Yergin, Angela Stent, “Soviet-West German Relations: Finlandization or Normalization?” in Ginsburgs and Rubinstein (fn. 1).Google Scholar It is possible that the Soviet Union at this stage had plans for a neutral zone ranging from Scandinavia through West-Central Europe to the Middle East, as Boris Meissner, for example, argues in his article “Soviet Concepts of Peace and Security,” in Collier, David and Glaser, Kurt, eds., The Conditions for Peace in Europe: Problems of Détente and Security (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1969), 27–53Google Scholar, esp. 36–39.

21 See Fiedler (fn. 7), 129–60; Mel'nikov, D., “Neutrality and the Current Situation,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 2, 1956), 74–81Google Scholar, esp. 77–78.

22 It seems that the Soviet design excluded only the Soviet Union itself, Britain, France, Ireland, the Benelux countries, Spain, and Portugal. The various parts of the Soviet design are surveyed in Korhonen, Keijo, Ydinaseettomat vyöhykkeet maailmanpolitiikassa [Nuclear-Free Zones in World Politics] (Helsinki: Tammi, 1966).Google Scholar The composite nature of the Soviet design was clearly reflected in a speech by Khrushchev in Szczecin on July 17, 1959, published in Khrushchev, N. S., Neuvostoliitto ja Pohjola: Puheita ja lausuntoja vuosilta 1956–63 [The Soviet Union and the North: Speeches and Statements from 1956–63] (Helsinki: Weilin & Göös, 1964), 92–93.Google Scholar

23 This view is based mainly on a content analysis of themes in the major reports on the international situation during the postwar era by top Soviet leaders; see fn. 10.

24 Cf. Buchan (fn. 14), 56–71. For a critical review of Buchan's models, see Login, Yu., “Six Receipts for the Future,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 8, 1970), 102–4.Google Scholar

25 See Kravtsov, V., “France and the Soviet Union,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 8, 1980), 12–18Google Scholar; Mikhailov, V., “The FRG and Peace in Europe,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 1, 1982), 10–18Google Scholar; Popov, V. I., Ovsyany, I. D., and Nikhamin, V. P., eds., A Study of Soviet Foreign Policy (Moscow. Progress Publishers, 1975), 163–274.Google Scholar

26 See Buchan (fn. 14), 19–37.

27 Cf. Khesin and others (fn. 1), 89–124; Vladyasova, L. and Khmutov, K., “NATO—A Weapon for Imperialistic Aggression,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 5, 1979), 34–44Google Scholar; Urban, A., “West-Germany: Under Cover of ‘Atlantic Solidarity’,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 5, 1980), 78–86Google Scholar; Volodin, S., “Britain's Policy under the Conservatives,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 4, 1980), 38–47Google Scholar; Bunkina, M., “Zapadnaya Evropa i SShA: Partnerstvo i sopernichestvo” [Western Europe and the USA: Partnership and Rivalry], Mirovaya …(No. 10, 1973), 62–35Google Scholar; Vorontsov, G., “SShA i Zapadnaya Evropa v usloviyakh obostreniya mezhdunarodnoi obstanovki” [The USA and Western Europe under Conditions of an Aggravated International Situation], Mirovaya (No. 11, 1981), 32–42Google Scholar; Vorontsova, S., “SShA i Frantsiya: Sfery vzaimodeistviya i protivorechii” [The USA and France: Spheres of Cooperation and Contradictions], Mirovaya … (No. 11, 1980), 57–68.Google Scholar

28 See Buchan (fn. 14), 72–88. Laqueur (fn. 1) warns of this alternative and advocates an independent and united Western Europe.

29 See Kokoshin (fn. 14), 89–90; Kravtsov (fn. 25); Vladimirov, Y., “The Soviet Union and France,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 9, 1977), 19–37Google Scholar; Zakharov, Y., “The Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany: The Policy of Strengthening Relations,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 2, 1982), 3–10Google Scholar; Krymov, P., “The Soviet Union and the North European Countries,” International Affairs (No. 9, 1979), 11–20.Google Scholar

30 See the Western literature cited in fn. 1; also Vincent, R. J., “Military Power and Political Influence: The Soviet Union and Western Europe,” Adelphi Papers (No. 119, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laqueur, Walter, The Political Psychology of Appeasement: Finlandization and Other Unpopular Essays (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Books, 1980), 3–37.Google Scholar For a Soviet view on the Finlandization debate, see Kokoshin (fn. 14), 89–90.

31 See the collection of articles in Ginsburgs and Rubinstein (fn. 1); Maude, George, The Finnish Dilemma—Neutrality in the Shadow of Power (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1976).Google Scholar

32 See Löwenthal, Richard, “Moscow and the ‘Eurocommunists’,” Problems of Communism 27 (July-August 1978), 38–49Google Scholar, esp. 39. For illuminating Soviet analyses, see Davydov (fn. 17); Nekrasov, V., “Insoluble Contradictions,” International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 9, 1979), 21–31.Google Scholar The Soviet Union does not, of course, publicly accept the thesis that it is seeking to split the Western alliance: see, e.g., “For Peace and International Security” (anonymous), International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 2, 1982), 3–10, esp. 5.Google Scholar

33 One typical instance is found in the report by Leonid Brezhnev to the Karlovy Vary Conference on April 24, 1967, in which he stated that “for several countries, including those of northern Europe, neutrality would be an alternative to participation in military-political groupings of powers”; reprinted in Rush (fn. 10), 324–25. A similar statement can be found in the speech by Khrushchev in Riga on June 11, 1959, reprinted in Khrushchev (fn. 22), 88. See also Mel'nikov (fn. 21), 79.

34 See, e.g., the report by Khrushchev to the Supreme Soviet on January 14, 1960, reprinted in Rush (fn. 10), 218.

35 For some relevant points, see Legvold, Robert, “Finlandization and Franco-Soviet Relations,” in Ginsburgs and Rubinstein (fn. 1), 86–101Google Scholar; for Soviet analyses, see Kravtsov (fn. 25); Vladimirov (fn. 29).

36 For a basic source on the attitude of the Soviet Union on Eurocommunism, see “Contrary to the Interests of Peace and Socialism in Europe: Concerning the Book ‘Eurocommunism and the State’ by Santiago Carillo, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain” (editorial) New Times (No. 26, 1977), 9–13.

37 Löwenthal (fn. 32); Valenta, Jiri, “Eurocommunism and Eastern Europe,” Problems of Communism 27 (March–April 1978), 41–54Google Scholar; Legvold, Robert, “The Soviet Union and West European Communism,” in Tökés, Rudolf L., ed., Eurocommunism and Détente (Oxford: Robertson, 1978), 314–84.Google Scholar

38 This terminology is from Rosenau, James N., The Adaptation of National Societies: A Theory of Political System Behavior and Transformation (New York: McCaleb-Seiler, 1970)Google Scholar, reprinted in Rosenau (fn. 4).

39 For attempts to analyze the Soviet concept of neutrality and to fit it into the larger contexts of Soviet foreign policy, see Ginsburgs and Rubinstein (fn. 1), 3–39, 28–89; Fiedler (fn. 7); Vigor, P. H., The Soviet View of War, Peace and Neutrality (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975)Google Scholar; Tarschys, Daniel, “Neutrality and the Common Market: The Soviet View,” Cooperation and Conflict 6 (No. 2, 1971), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Black, Cyril E., Falk, Richard A., Knorr, Klaus, and Young, Oran R., Neutralization and World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

41 On the theory of bloc politics, see Liska, George, Nations in Alliance—The Limits of Interdependence (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Holsti, Ole R., Hopman, P. Terrence, and Sullivan, John D., Unity and Disintegration in International Alliances: Comparative Studies (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973).Google Scholar

42 I am grateful to my colleagues Pertti Joenniemi, Tampere, and Lauri Karvonen, Turku, for their stimulating comments on these points.