The Invasion of Czechoslovakia, Research Paper Example

The policy position of Denmark has emphasized the diplomatic approach of negotiation and moderation. Foreign policy is thus construed in terms of a dialogue between parties: historically, Denmark has opposed any unilateral action. In light of the events in Czechoslovakia, and the mobilization of the military forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations against the Czechoslovakian state, Denmark can only oppose this invasion. It is not only an action that goes against Denmark’s stated and explicit approach to foreign relations, but is also an action that threatens the peaceful community of world nations.

The United Nations exists so as to open channels of dialogue between nations. The United Nations, by definition, therefore opposes unilateral actions, and above all, unilateral military actions, actions, which threaten the very validity of the United Nations project. In this regard, the United Nations’ essence as a multilateral gathering of political voices is an approach which Denmark commits to, when considering Denmark’s historical diplomatic obligations and also its vision of a political future in which military conflict and aggressive one-sided state action are things of the past, usurped by the nations of the world’s commitments to political dialogue through forums such as the United Nations. In post-Second World War Europe and in a post-Second World War planet, the reminders of what such unilateral military action on the part of a polity are still vivid in our collective memories: such behavior becomes unacceptable in regards to the world we are attempting to build, whilst also representing a radical historical amnesia in regards to our shared, tragic past.

When considering this broader historical context of both Denmark’s diplomatic and political commitments and the inevitable tragedies engendered by militarily-driven solutions in both the European and the global space, The Kingdom of Denmark thus makes clear its condemnation of the nations involved in the aggression against Czechoslovakia, most explicitly the Warsaw pact nations of the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and East Germany. (Hitchcock 278) These aggressions in Czechoslovakia are not only morally reprehensible, but also indicative of violations of principles of international justice. Above all, the decision to approach the situation in Czechoslovakia with a military solution is a clear transgression of the United Nations Charter; most explicitly this is a transgression of Article 2 of the Charter, which I quote as follows: members are to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” (UN Charter, Article 2)

As a lucid and unambiguous demonstration of the Kingdom of Denmark’s position vis-à-vis the aggressions in Czechoslovakia, The Kingdom of Denmark has participated in the drafting of a resolution condemning the actions of the aforementioned in relation to Czechoslovakia. This resolution has been officially presented to the United Nations Security Council at their 1442^nd meeting; the resolution was also drafted by the sovereign polities of Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Paraguay, Senegal, the United States and the United Kingdom. (International Organization 987). In line with the content of this resolution, Denmark therefore demands that military operations being carried out on Czechoslovakian territory immediately halt. Furthermore, all military personnel on Czechoslovakian territory should depart the latter. Lastly, the resolution to which Denmark cosigns, requests that the aforementioned aggressor countries should desist from influencing or interfering with the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia. It should be added that Denmark also urges the Warsaw Pact nations to release current Czechoslovakian president Alexander Dubcek from custody: this will be an important step in restoring Czechoslovakian sovereignty, while also demonstrating the Warsaw Pact nations’ commitment to a diplomatic as opposed to military solution.