Arbatov on Soviet-American Relations

Georgii Arbatov, On Soviet-American Relations. February 1973

The visits by President Nixon to the Soviet Union in May, 1972, and by General Secretary Brezhnev to the United States in June, 1973., together with the signing of a number of basic agreements between the two countries, have been described by both sides as representing a new era in Soviet-American relations. The following article, explaining the Soviet view of these relations., is by the director of the institute of the USA of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Original Source: Kommunist, No. 3, February 1973, pp. 101-113.

The past year, 1972, and the first weeks of this year were marked by many major events in the international arena. These events were as varied as today's political life itself is: they were made up of clashes and struggles between conflicting tendencies behind which stand the interests of various classes and social and political forces. Nevertheless, there are weighty reasons to conclude that the main trend of the changes in international relations is determined by the tendency toward the easing of tensions and the strengthening of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.

I. -Among the international events of 1972 a prominent place is held by the serious changes in Soviet-American relations that were noted as a result of the May summit talks and the agreements that the two countries signed in Moscow.

The changes in Soviet -American relations have made themselves felt in many areas. In this connection. there is frequent talks. among other things, about changes for the better in the overall political atmosphere. This is true: The atmosphere in Soviet-American relations has actually changed. Not in the sense that it has become cloudless, of course - this has not happened, and it could not have happened. This is true not only because it was impossible for this atmosphere not to be influenced by the aggressive actions of the USA in Vietnam, actions continuing over many years, and in other parts of the world. The situation in the world in general leaves no room for the idyll of cloudless existence: The struggle going on in the world arena. a struggle engendered not by someone's whim but by clashes between real class interests and by objective laws governing present-day social development, is too acute and too complicated

Nevertheless. we have a right to talk about noticeable changes in the overall political atmosphere in Soviet-American relations - above all in the sense that, along with the obvious disagreements and contradictions in these relations, a striving for a constructive dialogue and a search for spheres of possible agreement and cooperation have begun to take ever clearer shape. Taking into account the role of both powers in world politics, as well as the tension that has reigned in their relations for a quarter-century, this alone could be regarded as a substantial change for the better.

One of the special features of the changes in Soviet-American relations that have been noted in the past year is the fact that they have been expressed not only in the improved political atmosphere but also in concrete accords. registered in agreements, on a wide range of important questions.

A good deal has been written about these agreements. Let us briefly remind the reader of their essence.

First of all, there is the document "Basic Principles of Relations Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America," which essentially formulates the international legal principles for relations between the two states. The most important of these principles is the conviction, registered in the document. that in the nuclear age there is no realistic basis for the maintenance of relations between the USSR and the USA, except the principle of peaceful coexistence. The fact that this principle has essentially been transformed into the main contractual principle of relations between the two largest powers in today's world is significant to the highest degree. This is especially true if one takes into consideration the fact that until very recently a great many people in the United States talked and wrote about it only as an "insidious invention" of the Communists, designed to "lull the vigilance" of the West so as stealthily to deal it a mortal blow. We can recall the time two decades ago when the USA. proclaimed as its official foreign-policy platform the doctrines of "liberation" and the "rolling back" of communism, which in point of fact were directly contrary to the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.

Other provisions registered in the document on principles of relations between the two states are also of considerable importance. For example, take such provisions as the mutual commitment to avoid military conflicts and to work for the prevention of nuclear wars and other situations that might dangerously exacerbate relations. Such provisions of this document as recognition of the principle of the equality of the two sides in the field of their security and the statement renouncing attempts to obtain a unilateral advantage at the other country's expense also present a positive contrast to the dogma, which has long enjoyed official recognition in the USA.. of the need to possess "military superiority" over the other side and "positions of strength."

Thus, what is involved here is the contractual formulation of the change in direction in relations between the USSR and the USA. from the dogmas and incrustations of the "cold war" to the principles of peaceful coexistence and peaceful cooperation.

Agreements on Soviet-American cooperation in the field of environmental protection, on the exploration of outer space. in various branches of science and technology and in public health were also signed in Moscow in May, 1972; last autumn an agreement on the development of trade and economic ties was added to them. All these agreements are important in themselves: They involve vital questions the acceleration of progress in science and technology, the struggle against such dangerous diseases as cancer and cardiovascular ailments the expansion of mutually advantageous trade, etc. But they are also politically important. for these agreements vividly demonstrate the important fields in which cooperation between the USSR and the USA. can be strengthened and expanded if relations between the two countries are built on a foundation of genuine peaceful coexistence.

II. -The question of the causes of the changes in relations between the USSR and the USA. is rather important and complicated in itself. After all, what we are talking about is relations between states that in the eyes of the world public have been for a long time the most graphic embodiments of the two opposing social systems - socialism and capitalism.

In view of the profundity and the nature of the contradictions separating the systems, and hence the USSR and the USA., we are entitled to ask: What led to the changes in their relations, which for more than a quarter-century have been relations of sharp clashes?

In answering this question, it is important first of all to see that the changes in Soviet-American relations are the logical result of the major objective changes that have taken place in the world recently.

The documents of our party and of the international Communist movement emphasize that the alignment of forces in the world arena is continuing to change in favor of socialism These changes affect all aspects of social life and exert an influence on the policies of all states, including the main imperialist powers. Speaking at the International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow in June, 1969, Comrade L. I. Brezhnev emphasized: "The growing might of socialism, the liquidation of the colonial regimes. and the force of the workers' movement are having an ever increasing influence on the internal processes and policies of imperialism. Many important features of present-day imperialism are explained by the fact that it is being forced to adjust to new conditions, to the conditions of the struggle between two systems. If many of the imperialist powers are becoming acceptable partners in efforts aimed at lessening the threat of war and normalizing the international situation. this does not at all indicate that the class nature of their policies has changed - this has not happened and could not have happened. But the world in which the imperialist powers have to live and act has changed. It is to these changes. to the objective reality of the present situation, that they have to adapt their domestic and foreign policy.

The US ruling class is no exception in this respect. Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. the most sober-minded segment of this class was forced to come to the conclusion that reliance on military victory over the socialist commonwealth was groundless and that a nuclear war would in fact prove suicidal for America itself. The course and outcome of the American aggression in Vietnam have shown that in today' s conditions the USA. also cannot hope for success in "limited" and "local" wars, on which the American military -political doctrine of "flexible retaliation" pinned its hopes in the late 1950s. The entire course of events in the late 1960s and early 1970s has called in question many of the foundations of the US foreign policy course as it was formulated during the "cold war" years

One of these foundations was reliance on military power as the main instrument of foreign policy. Inasmuch as the USA. was unable to consolidate its monopoly over this power and the restraining defense might of the Soviet Union was created as a counterbalance to it, a very peculiar situation came about, one in which the buildup of military might was not accompanied by an increase in political might. As Henry Kissinger, now the US President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, put it several years ago: "It is become increasingly difficult to translate military power into political influence."

However the point does not come down to the simple fact that in the new alignment of forces in the world military power is becoming less and less applicable to the attainment of the goals that American imperialism sets for itself. This involves a very important aspect, but only one aspect, of the crisis of traditional foundations that American foreign policy is going through. Another aspect of this crisis, namely, that US foreign policy in the form in which it developed during the postwar years in many respects simply does not meet the challenges of the real problems America is now running up against, has become more and more evident This policy was built on the rather simple premise that the source of all troubles and difficulties is communism, above all as embodied by the Soviet Union, and therefore the USA's interests will be guaranteed more solidly as American policy and military power becomes more effective in counteracting this adversary -at least "containing" it, but in the long run crushing it once and for all.

However, the development of events increasingly revealed the bankruptcy of this primitive anticommunist stereotype. It was not only that it was becoming more and more difficult to ascribe to the "communist conspiracy" the profound social and political changes taking place in Asia, Africa and Latin America. changes leading to the undermining of the dominance of American capital. New dangers and threats to the interests of American imperialism connected with the aggravation of the contradictions between the USA. and its main allies -- Japan and the countries of Western Europe -- and the growing bitterness of the competitive struggle on world markets and in the monetary-financial sphere became more and more apparent. Even the most thick-witted representatives of US imperialist circles could no longer see the "hand of Moscow" in these dangers and threats or seek an answer to them in the buildup of armed forces and military adventures.

In the new conditions, the complete bankruptcy of the former view of the world, a view dictated by rabid anti-communism, a view according to which the main and most important goal of U. S foreign policy was to inflict the greatest possible damage on the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. became apparent.

In the past few years, this conflict of interests has emerged with special force. This is connected not only with foreign policy difficulties but also with the aggravation of many other problems. I am talking about economic problems -especially inflation and unemployment, the balance-of -payments deficit, the undermining of the position of the dollar and the difficulties in the world market. I am also talking about the intricate complex of social problems - the problem of poverty in the richest capitalist country, the problem of the black population of America, which is subjected to especially cruel oppression, the crisis and decay of the big cities the monstrous crime rate, the decline in morals, the growing hostility of the younger generation to traditional bourgeois "values," and, finally, the ecological problems engendered by a predatory attitude toward nature.

Millions of Americans have given serious thought to something else as well: Should and, most important, can their country continue to spend vast sums of money and manpower on the arms race and foreign-policy adventures, drawing this manpower and money away from the solution of urgent internal problems? The "debate on political priorities" that has flared up on this score has encompassed not only the broad public but also a significant segment of the ruling circles.

In analyzing the causes of the definite changes in American policy, including those that made it possible to embark on the path of the normalization of relations between the USSR and the USA, subjective factors are frequently pointed out, particularly President Nixon's desire to score some kind of major foreign-policy successes before the 1972 Presidential election. It is hard to dispute this -the President indeed wanted to come to the election with some major success. It is also true that in the eyes of Americans the normalization of relations with the USSR is one such success: it is unanimously thought that one of the reasons for Nixon's impressive victory in the recent election was the American voter's high appraisal of the Moscow talks and the agreements signed with the Soviet Union.

All this is true. But references to the importance of subjective factors leave unanswered the fundamental question: Why are American leaders, in search of popularity and support from the voters, now turning, to a policy of the normalization of relations with the USSR and the easing of international tension? After all, some 15 years ago the USA's political leaders (including- some who are still active) were searching for popularity and electoral victories along quite different lines along lines of stirring up anti-communism, a tough anti-Soviet policy and the arms race.

Clearly, the most important part is played by objective factors, by the major changes that have taken place in the world and in the United States itself.

III. -The question of the causes of the changes that have been noted in the US ruling circles' approach to certain important problems of foreign policy, including problems of Soviet-American relations, is by no means of only academic interest. Here the key to the answer lies in one more question: Are these changes lasting and viable. or will they prove to be no more than an episode in the development of the international situation?

It is precisely the fact that long-term objective factors are :he main causes of the changes that makes it possible to draw :he conclusion that the tendency toward normalization of Soviet-American relations, like the broader tendency toward the easing of tension and the development of cooperation in the international situation as a whole, has a solid objective foundation, and hence has a future.

In speaking of the prospects that exist here, particularly. The prospects for the development of Soviet-American relations, it is important to see that they are determined above all by the following question: Do the two states have spheres of coinciding interests? If not, things will not go beyond insignificant, purely protocol improvements, no matter what efforts he diplomats make.

One such sphere is the prevention of a thermonuclear war. In the USA. today, only madmen might hope that they could successfully unleash such a war and avoid their own complete destruction.

Another important sphere in which the objective interests of the Soviet Union and the USA. coincide is the sphere of the limitation of the arms race. For the USSR, the struggle against the arms race and for disarmament is a traditional aspect of its entire foreign policy, an aspect reflecting the fundamental interests of socialism, which calls for the concentration of manpower and resources on accomplishing the constructive tasks of building a new society.

Another such sphere is the expansion of economic, scientific and technical cooperation and the development of cultural ties The very size of the economic scientific and technical potential of the two powers bespeaks the presence of enormous possibilities here. It is indicative that the very first efforts that were undertaken in 1972 even before the resolution of fundamental questions of Soviet-American trade, made possible a substantial increase in trade turnover.

Thus the USSR and the USA. have spheres of common interests that are important enough to create a firm basis for the normalization of their relations and very broad cooperation in various fields. It is important to note that what is involved here is not some exclusive interests of these two powers, interests which if attained would harm other countries and peoples Soviet policy rejects the very idea of this kind of policy; is has found expression in official statements and documents, eluding the documents signed during the Soviet-American Summit meeting in May 1972. On the contrary the USSR's policy proceeds from the premise that the improvement of relations with the USA. would benefit other peoples and would benefit peace the world over.

Mention was made earlier to the significance of the Soviet-American agreements signed last year. It is very great. But the positive role of these agreements will be fully manifest only if they are unswervingly fulfilled and if they are followed I accords on other questions; in a number of cases, this is correctly envisaged by the documents that have been signed For :ample, the accord on strategic arms limitation will acquire truly tremendous value if the interim agreement on offensive armaments is transformed into a permanent agreement, if a way is found to shift from arms limitation to arms reduction, if no attempts are made to find loopholes for hurriedly stepping up the arms race in those fields that are not yet covered by treaties.

The same thing applies to the other agreements, including the economic agreement. It is good that they provide for the elimination of the artificial barriers to trade that were erected during the "cold war" years. But even after these agreements enter fully into force consistent efforts and large amounts of work will be required if business ties between the USSR and the USA. are really to develop and are to reach a level corresponding to the economic scientific and technical potential of the two countries.

In short it is important to develop what has already been achieved, following not only the letter but also the spirit of the existing accords After all. it may be thought that the main result of the past year in Soviet-American relations is not even the agreements that have been signed, important as they are. but the fact that a frontier has been reached at which new and more favorable opportunities are opening, up for a radical change in direction from "cold war" relations to relations of genuine peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems.

It is important to emphasize this, since there are not only extensive possibilities but serious dangers as well on the path of the development of Soviet-American relations.

The point here is not even the fact that we are talking about states that belong to opposing social systems. This is an obvious fact, from which it follows that relations with the USA, like relations with other capitalist countries, no matter how successful the process of normalization and deténte is, in the historical sense will remain relations of struggle. As Comrade L. I. Brezhnev has emphasized: "The CPSU has proceeded and continues to proceed from the premise that the class struggle between the two systems -the capitalist and the socialist - in the spheres of economics, politics and, needless to say, ideology will continue. it cannot be otherwise, because the world views and class goals of socialism and capitalism ire opposite and irreconcilable. But we shall strive to shift this historically inevitable struggle into a channel that does not threaten war, dangerous conflicts and an uncontrolled arms race. This will be an enormous gain for the cause of peace throughout the world for the interests of all peoples and all states.

Source: Current Digest of the Soviet Press. Vol. XXV, No. 15/1 (1973)