LINDA CAROLINA FRANCO.
LUISA FERNANDA HURTADO.
For: Amaya Querejazu.
Subject: International Negotiation.
Department: International Business.
Date: February 28th, 2011.
Medellin – Colombia
THE YALTA CONFERENCE 1945; A CASE OF COMMITMENT
The Yalta Conference was held between February 4th and 11th 1945,in the Livadia Palace, close to Yalta involving the United States, United Kingdom and the Soviet Union which were represented respectively by the heads of state; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, the so called “Big Three” (Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin), had gathered before in 1943 in the Tehran Conference and gathered after Yalta in the Potsdam Conference in July1945.
In an environment of post war conflict and devastation, this reunion was meant to define the situation of a destroyed Europe, and also its reorganization after WWII. Looking for a neutral place for meeting, the Mediterranean Sea was suggested, but Stalin Refused saying his doctor has suggested him not to make any long trips. As the soviet leader was in the stronger position having soviet troopsin most of Eastern Europe including most of Poland and Rumania, he proposed the Black Sea resort of Yalta, which was then accepted by the other two leaders.
“The Yalta conference was called to help the Allies decide what would happen to Europe, and in particular Germany, at the end of the Second World War.” At the time Yalta was held, Germany was surrounded by British and American troops fromthe west and the Red Army was coming from the east which made the defeat imminent and their position extremely weak in terms of desition making; Germany was subject to anything the allies decided to do.
The objective of this paper is to prove, using the example of Yalta Conference, that without legitimate forms of enforcing what is agreed in international negotiations, the only way to ensure of thecommitment is trust, and as parties are most of the time in different position and come from different cultures, there would be little room for such confidence among them, because they have different perceptions of what is true and what is not, different interests and different backgrounds that will determine their actions after the negotiation agreement is reached.
THE YALTA CONFERENCE 1945;A CASE OF COMMITMENT
Each of the parties involved on the conference had different goals for the negotiation; in the case of Churchill, the most important was to have democracy and free elections in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, and it is said it all was just in order to maintain the empire, Roosevelt was desperate to find support in their war against Japan in the Far East, he wanted toinsure the Soviet's entry into the Pacific war and discuss postwar settlement. Moreover, the US leader hoped to obtain a commitment from Stalin to participate in the United Nations; and for Stalin in turn , the main concern was to keep a “sphere of influence in Eastern Europe to protect Russia from invasion Even stating his case with the following words:
"For the Russian people, the question ofPoland is not only a question of honor but also a question of security. Throughout history, Poland has been the corridor through which the enemy has passed into Russia. Poland is a question of life and death for Russia."
Stalin was clear, and for him some items were not negotiable, Russia had to gain territory from Poland and then compensate it by taking land from Germany, at the expense of theinhabitants of that territory that had been German for such a long time, and even though Stalin promised to ensure free elections in Poland, their first time to have democracy applied was 50 years after Yalta.
For Roosevelt instead, the primary interest was to have Stalin joining the Asian war, but what he did not know was the roots of resentment Russia had against Japan, they remembered intense...