Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:53:24.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soviet Perceptions of U.S. “Positions-of-Strength” Diplomacy in the 1970s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

William B. Husband
William B. Husband
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access

Abstract

Soviet political scholars have argued that, since 1970, it has become impossible for the United States to pursue a “positions-of-strength” foreign policy effectively. These analysts feel that in the past, the U.S. has relied heavily on projecting its military strength in diplomatic affairs, and that changes in the international political and economic order now prevent the continuation of this policy. A study of the positions-ofstrength issue in Soviet scholarly journals reveals that Soviet scholars do not agree on how the United States will react to this development. While the majority contends that the U.S. will try to regain its ability to pursue positions-of-strength diplomacy, a significant minority believes that the time is right for a deepening of Soviet-American cooperation. Although the prospects for cooperation appear less promising at present than they did during 1972–1975, the study shows a general softening on the subject of cooperation since 1970.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 1979 , pp. 495 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1979

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 Conquest, The Soviet Union: Internal Dynamics of Foreign Policy, Present and Future. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on International Relations. House of Representatives, 95th Cong., 1st sess., September-October 1977. (Washington: G.P.O. 1978), 191–92.

2 Azrael, Hearings, ibid., 271.

3 Nitze, , “A Plea For Action,” New York Times Magazine, May 7, 1978, pp. 42, 113, 116, 118Google Scholar.

4 The Soviets proceed from the following assumptions concerning historical scholar-ship: history develops according to material laws and can, therefore, be studied scientifically; any situation has a correct and an incorrect interpretation; given the correct facts, historical situations can be understood objectively; historical science has propaganda value; scholars have ideological duties. “Ot redaktsii” [From the Editors], Istoriia SSSR (March-April 1957), 3–6.

5 The origins of this tradition are discussed in Daniels, Robert, The Conscience of the Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster 1960)Google Scholar.

6 The reader is reminded that the Soviets define “peaceful coexistence” as a form of non-military struggle between socialism and capitalism. Since, as Lenin wrote, uneven political and economic development make the simultaneous attainment of socialism in many countries impossible, and since a major war would be counterproductive for all the peoples of the world, socialism must unseat capitalism by methods other than direct military engagement. Such coexistence, however, “does not affect internal affairs in the states, does not affect the revolutionary struggle for socialism of the working class of the capitalist countries … [and] assumes no compromise on ideological questions. … The ‘positions-of-strength' policy, the arms race, and the ‘cold war' contradict the principle of p[eaceful] cfoexistence].” Gromyko, Anatoly A. and others, Diplotnaticheskii slovar' [Dictionary of Diplomatic Terms], II (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury 1971), 296–98Google Scholar. (Unless otherwise noted, all translations are by the present author.)

Soviet writers maintain that the U.S.S.R. has pursued this policy since its early years. See ibid.; also Matveev, V., “Mirnoe sosushchestvovanie—real'naia sila mezhdunarodnogo razvitiia” [Peaceful Coexistence—the Real Force of International Progress], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (July 1973), 3Google Scholar; Sivachev, Nikolai and Yakovlev, Nikolai, Russia and the United States, trans, by Titelbaum, Olga Adler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1979), 35–42Google Scholar.

7 Znanie [Knowledge] is a society with a membership of 2.5 million in all the republics of the U.S.S.R. Of that number, 107,000 hold the Soviet degrees of doctor or candidate of science.

8 Sivachev and Yakovlev (fn. 6), 219–21, 224, 237.

9 Trofimenko, G. A., Strategiia global'noi voiny [Strategy of Global War] (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia 1968), 22–23, 159Google Scholar; Zavialov, L., “Kto formiruet politiky v sovremennoi Amerike?” [Who Formulates Policy in Contemporary America?], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (April 1970), 69–70Google Scholar.

10 Zhilin, P. and Rybkin, E., “Militarizm i sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia” [Militarism and Contemporary International Relations], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (September 1973), 33Google Scholar.

11 This vulnerability is not openly admitted in Soviet writing. Thus, even though the United States held a monopoly on atomic weapons at the end of World War II, the Soviet interpretation states that a “balance of power” existed between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. at the close of the war. The launching of a positions-of-strength foreign policy is depicted not as the pressing of an advantage, but as an attempt to use atomic stockpiling to upset the existing balance. See Sivachev and Yakovlev (fn. 6), 224, 249.

12 Quoted in Larionov, V. V., “Transformatsiia kontseptsii ‘strategicheskoi dostatochnosti'” [The Transformation of the “Strategic Sufficiency” Concept], SShA (November 1971), 29Google Scholar.

13 Ibid.

14 Trofimenko, G. A., SShA: politika, voina, ideblogiia [The USA: Politics, War-fare, Ideology] (Moscow: Mysl' 1976), 333Google Scholar.

15 Muradian, A. A., “Kontseptsiia ‘sily’ vo vneshnei politike SShA” [The Conception of “Power” in U.S. Foreign Policy], Voprosy istorii (November 1974), 102–6Google Scholar; see also Toporonin, A. A., “Doktrina ‘balansa sil' i Vashington” [Washington and the “Balance of Power” Doctrine], SShA (November 1970), 8–20Google Scholar.

16 Georgiev, K. M. and Kolosev, M. O., “Sovetsko-amerikanskie otnosheniia na novom etape” [Soviet-American Relations in a New Stage], SShA (March 1973), 13Google Scholar. See also Sivachev and Yakovlev (fn. 6), 226–27.

17 Ibid., 226–30.

18 Ibid., 238.

19 Trofimenko, G. A., “SSSR SShA: mirnoe sosushchestvovanie kak norma vzaimootnoshenii” [U.S.S.R. U.S.A.: Peaceful Coexistence As the Norm of Relations], SShA (February 1974), 8–10Google Scholar; Trofimenko, , “Voprosy ukrepleniia mira i bezopastnosti v sovetsko–amerikanskikh otnosheniiakh” [The Problems of Fortifying Peace and Security in Soviet–American Relations], SShA (September 1974), 7–18Google Scholar; Trofimenko, , “Evoliutsiia voenno–politicheskoi strategii SShA posle vtoroi mirovoi voiny” [The Evolution of the Military–Political Strategy of the U.S.A. after World War II], Voprosy istorii (March 1976), 65Google Scholar; Vorontsov, G. A., “Evoliutsiia vneshnei politiki SShA v usloviiakh razriadki” [The Evolution of U.S. Foreign Policy during Détente], Voprosy istorii (September 1976), 48Google Scholar.

20 The significance of 1970 is accepted without exception among Soviet writers. By late 1976, Trofimenko, G. A. refers to the “axiom” that the end of the 1960s marked the beginning of a new era. “Vneshniaia politika SShA v 70-e gody: deklaratsii i praktika” [U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1970s: Declarations and Practice], SShA (December 1976), 15Google Scholar.

21 Trofimenko, G. A., “Sovetsko–amerikanskie soglasheniia ob ogranichenii strategicheskikh vooruzhenii” [The Soviet–American Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements], SShA (September 1972), 7Google Scholar; Georgiev and Kolosov (fn. 16), 9; Bykov, O., “Mezhdunarodnaia razriadka: bor'ba tendentsii v politike Zapada” [Détente: The Struggle of Tendencies in Western Policy], Mirovaia ekonomika (March 1976), 25–26Google Scholar.

22 Georgiev and Kolosev (fn. 16), 14–15; Vorontsov (fn. 19), 45–46; Sivachev and Yakovlev (fn. 6), 247.

23 Muradian (fn. 15), 109.

24 Georgiev and Kolosev (fn. 16), 9. See also Petrovskii, V., “Sovremennye vneshnepoliticheskie kontseptsii SShA” [Current U.S. Foreign Policy Conceptions], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (October 1973), 100–101Google Scholar.

25 Matveev, V., “Perspektivy sovetsko-amerikanskie otnoshenii” [Prospects for SovietAmerican Relations], SShA (May 1972), 8–9Google Scholar; Nikolaev, Iu., “Razvitie otnoshenii mezhdu SSSR i SShA” [The Development of U.S.S.R.-U.S.A. Relations], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (May 1973), 19Google Scholar.

26 The Soviet term for what is called “détente” in the West.

27 Nikitin, V., “Mirnoe sosushchestvovanie i sovetsko-amerikanskie otnosheniia” [Peaceful Coexistence and Soviet-American Relations], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (May 1974). 9–10Google Scholar.

28 Petrovskii (fn. 24), 101.

29 Georgiev and Kolosov (fn. 16), 19.

30 Aleksimov, A. A., “C realisticheskii pozitsii” [From Positions of Realism], SShA (October 1977), 91Google Scholar.

31 Berezhkov, V. M., “Perspektivy razriadki: sovetsko-amerikanskie otnosheniia” [Prospects for Detente: Soviet-American Relations], SShA (September 1975), 5Google Scholar. See also Nikolaev, Iu., “Ideinye osnovy vneshnei politiki SSSR” [The Ideological Foundations of Soviet Foreign Policy], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (October 1973), 81–91Google Scholar.

32 Georgiev and Kolosov (fn. 16), 10; Petrovskii, V. F., “O sovremennykh vneshnepoliticheskikh kontseptsii SShA” [Regarding Current U.S. Foreign Policy Conceptions], SShA (August 1977), 16Google Scholar.

33 For a frank exposition by the Director of the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada, see Arbatov, G. A., “Perspektivy razriadki sovetsko-amerikanskikh otnoshenii” [The Prospects for Détente in Soviet-American Relations], SShA (February 1972), 26–31Google Scholar.

34 Matveev, V., “‘Novye’ doktriny Vashingtona: forma i soderzhanie” [Washington's “New” Doctrines: Form and Content], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (March 1971), 35–44Google Scholar; Zimin, A., “Vashington: politicheskie deklaratsii i real'nye fakti” [Washington: Political Declarations and Realities], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (July 1970), 84–85Google Scholar; Bykov, O., “O nekotorykh chertakh vneshnepoliticheskoi strategii SShA” [Regarding Several Aspects of U.S. Foreign Policy Strategy], Mirovaia ekonomika (April 1971), 53Google Scholar.

35 Milstein, M., “Amerikanskie voennye doktriny: preemstvennost' i modifikatsiia” [American Military Doctrines: Continuity and Change], Mirovaia ekonomika (August 1971), 30–41Google Scholar.

36 Trofimenko, G. A., “Nekotorye aspekty voenno-politicheskoi strategii SShA” [Several Aspects of U.S. Military-Political Strategy], SShA (October 1970), 15Google Scholar.

37 Teplinskii, B. L., “Novoe v stroitel'stve vooruzhennykh sil SShA” [What Is New in the Build-up of the U.S. Armed Forces], SShA (December 1970), 36Google Scholar. See also Bykov (fn. 34), 53–64; Zimin (fn. 34), 81–85.

38 Zavialov (fn. 9), 67–68.

39 Shevchenko, A., “Razoruzhenie—razreshimaia zadacha” [Disarmament—A Soluble Problem], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (April 1971), 100Google Scholar. In view of Shevchenko's defection to the United States in 1977 while he was employed at the United Nations, and of his involvement with U.S. intelligence services, the sincerity of his pre-defection writings might be questioned. However, since his ambivalent articles are not dissimilar to other Soviet writings of the period, and since those articles both advocate disarmament and warn of future U.S. aggression (see below), I feel that it would be a mistake, in reading his articles, to overemphasize his subsequent defection.

40 Bugrov, E., “Voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks SShA” [The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex], Mirovaia ekonomika (March 1970), 29–40Google Scholar; Zavialov (fn. 9), 67–70; Tsaglov, G. N., “Voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks: nekotorye obshchie aspekty” [The Military-Industrial Complex: Several General Aspects], SShA (November 1970), 21–30Google Scholar; Bykov (fn. 34), 63–64; Matveev (fn. 34), 35–44; Davidov, Iu. P. and Lukin, V. P., “Ideologicheskie aspekty vneshnei politiki SShA” [Ideological Aspects of U.S. Foreign Policy], SShA (May 1971), 44–46Google Scholar.

41 Shevchenko, A., “Nekotorye uroki bor'by za razoruzhenie” [Several Lessons of the Struggle for Disarmament], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (February 1971), 41Google Scholar.

42 Shevchenko (fn. 39), 102.

43 Trofimenko, , “Militarizm i vnutripoliticheskaia bor'ba SShA” [Militarism and the Domestic Power Struggle of the U.S.A.], SShA (January 1972), 72Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., 66–72.

45 Matveev, V., “Bor'ba za mir v meniaiushchemsia mire” [The Struggle for Peace in a Changing World], Mirovaia ekonomika (December 1971), 11Google Scholar.

46 Articles stressing the influence of “realists” include Freeman, Harry, “Razvitie sovetsko-amerikanskikh otnoshenii: storoniki i protivniki” [The Development of Soviet-American Relations: Advocates and Opponents], SShA (December 1973), 16–17Google Scholar; Krivokhiza, V. I., “Poniatie ‘sila’ v amerikanskikh issledovaniakh” [The Concept of “Power” in American Research], SShA (September 1975), 113–20Google Scholar. Articles focusing on “reactionaries” include Borisov, B., “Pentagon i amerikanskaia nauka” [The Pentagon and the American Scientific Community], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (August 1972), 66–72Google Scholar; Sovetov, A., “Mirnoe sosushchestvovanie—real'nyi faktor mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii” [Peaceful Coexistence—A Real Factor in International Relations], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (August 1972), 22Google Scholar; Teplinskii, B. L., “Mirovoi okean i voennaia strategiia SShA” [The World Ocean and U.S. Military Strategy], SShA (October 1972), 24Google Scholar; Zhilin and Rybkin (fn. 10), 36–37.

47 Trofimenko (fn. 21), 7–16; Trofimenko, “SSSR-SShA …” (fn. 19), 12; Primakov, E., “Politicheskaia razriadka i problema razoruzheniia” [Political Détente and the Problem of Disarmament], Mirovaia ekonomika (October 1975), 3–12Google Scholar.

48 Iashin, B. D., “Informatsionnyi tsentr po voennym problemam: prichiny i tseli sozdaniia” [The Center for Defense Information: Origins and Purposes], SShA (June 1973), 63–66Google Scholar; Nikolaev (fn. 25), 18–19; Matveev (fn. 7), 10–11; Sanakoev, Sh., “Sovetskoamerikanskie otnosheniia: istoricheskii povorot” [Soviet-American Relations: A Historic Turning Point], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (August 1973), 3–12Google Scholar; Petrovskii (fn. 24), 101; Vorontsov (fn. 19), 61.

49 Matveev (fn. 25), 8; Nikitin (fn. 27), 10–11; Anichkina, V. S., “Bor'ba v kongresse po voprosu sovetsko-amerikanskikh otnoshenii” [Struggle in Congress on the Question of Soviet-American Relations], SShA (June 1974), 78–81Google Scholar.

50 Zhurkin, V., “Razriadka i mezhdunarodnye konflikty” [Détente and International Conflicts], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (June 1974), 96Google Scholar.

51 Trofimenko, , “Evoliutsiia …” (fn. 19), 90; A. Svetlov, “Bor'ba Sovetskogo Soiuza za vocnnuiu razriadku” [The Struggle of the Soviet Union for Military Detente], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (January 1976), 83–94Google Scholar; Berezhkov, V. M., “Osnovnye printsipy sovetsko-amerikanskykh otnoshenii” [Basic Principles of Soviet-American Relations], SShA (April 1977), 11Google Scholar; Sivachev and Yakovlev (fn. 6), 262–63.

52 Matveev, V., “Ideologiia i diplomatiia v usloviakh razriadki” [Ideology and Diplomacy in the Conditions of Détente], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (June 1977), 90–99Google Scholar; Geevski, I. A., “Vashington i prava cheloveka” [Washington and Human Rights], SShA (July 1977), 9Google Scholar.

53 Svetlov, A, “Razoruzhenie—nasushchnaia zadacha bor'by za mir” [Disarmament—A Vital Problem in the Struggle for Peace], Mirovaia ekonomika (July 1976), 3–16Google Scholar; Kaliadin, A., “Obshchvennost' v bor'be za razoruzhenie i razriadki” [Public Opinion in the Struggle for Disarmament and Détente], Mirovaia ekonomika (December 1976), 17–25Google Scholar; Stakh, G. and Afanas'ev, B., “Razoruzhenie—v tsentre vnimaniia narodov” [Disarmament at the Center of Attention], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (May 1978), 3–12Google Scholar.

54 A few examples: Khesin, E., “Militarizm i uglublenie obshchego krizisa kapitalizma” [Militarism and the Deepening of the General Crisis of Capitalism], Mirovaia ekonomika (December 1975), 57–68Google Scholar; Iur'ev, D. P., “Chto stoit za mifom o ‘sovetskoi ugroze?’” [What Is Behind the Myth of the “Soviet Menace?”], SShA (September 1976), 62–68Google Scholar; Zhurkin, V. V., “Vzgliad iznutri VPK” [The View from Inside the Military-Industrial Complex], SShA (January 1977), 79–81Google Scholar; Nikonov, A., “Voennaia razriadka i perestroika mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii” [Military Détente and the Reorientation of International Relations], Mirovaia ekonomika (June 1977), 28–39Google Scholar.

55 A good example is Trofimenko (fn. 20), 27.

56 Trofimenko, G. A., “Ot politiki konfrontatsii k politike sosushchestvovanie” [From a Policy of Confrontation to Peaceful Coexistence], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (September 1975), 37–46Google Scholar; Migolat'ev, A., “Voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks i gonka vooruzhenii” [The Military-Industrial Complex and the Arms Race], Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn' (October 1975), 76Google Scholar; Ivanov, N., “Razriadka mezhdunarodnoi napriazhennosti i al'ternativy voennoi ekonomike” [Detente and the Alternatives to a Military Econ-omy], Mirovaia ekonomika (November 1976), 62Google Scholar; Oleshchuk, Iu. F., “Nesostoiatel'nye argumenty protivnikov razriadki” [Bankrupt Arguments of the Opponents of Détente], SShA (October 1977), 33–39Google Scholar.

57 The sole exception: Iudina, T. N., “‘Faktor kongressa’ vo vneshnoi politike SShA 70-kh godov” [The “Congress Factor” in U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1970s], SShA (April 1978), 71–77Google Scholar.