Symposium: Old Adversaries, New Ground

SYMPOSIUM:____________________ OLD ADVERSARIES, NEW GROUND Simon Serfaty, editor RichardJ. BarnetGeorge Liska Zbigniew BrzezinskiJanne E. Nolan FrankJ. Gaffney, Jr.Roxanne Ridgway Raymond L. GarthoffDimitn K. Simes William G. HylandHelmut Sonnenfeldt Geoffrey KempStrobe Talbott [Editor's Note: The rapid succession of superpower summits that started with Geneva in 1985 and ends for the Reagan administration with Moscow in 1988, following a record dry spell in such meetings, reflects equally extreme changes in rhetoric and policy toward the Soviet Union. These symbolic occasions, dominated by the world's leading political personalities, can both highlight and obscure fundamental aspects of the relationship between these two seasoned adversaries. To evaluate more precisely these changes in the evolution of this classic relationship, the SAIS REVIEW has asked a number of foreign policy specialists (most with previous policy experience) to respond — all too briefly— to the following questions. With this collection of memories, observations, and suggestions, the SAIS REVIEW aims to offer its readers a framework within which to analyze this newest round in superpower relations.] Symposium Questions I.What is the principal lesson that can be drawn from the détente of the 1970s, and how should it be applied to the apparent warming in U.S. -Soviet relations today? II.What should the United States expect from the Soviet Union in light of Gorbachev's announced goals for political and economic reforms and following the signing of the INF treaty? III.What should be the primary priority of the United States in dealing with the Soviet Union? Should the United States insist on linkage between arms control, human rights issues, and the resolution of regional conflicts, or is this a prescription for failure? IV.What is the main Soviet objective in improving relations with the United States, and how should it be evaluated? V.What would be the implications of increased trade between the superpowers ? Should the United States seek to promote commerce with the Soviet Union? 1 2 SAIS REVIEW Simon Serfaty is executive director of The Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute. Introduction: Thinking About Superpower Relations Since 1945 no U.S. administration has shown much consistency in defining its policies toward the Soviet Union. Instead, every president, whose criticism of his predecessor's performance usually paved his way to power, ultimately developed an approach different from what he had first conceived . Now, as summitry becomes a yearly event that brings arms control and geopolitical negotiations near the threshold of euphoria, President Reagan too is completing such a transformation: from what he wanted to be — the new architect of containment — to what he became — the architect of a new détente. Gone is the initial rejection of an "evil empire" that was said to be doomed by history; gone too are the fears of a window of vulnerability ostensibly opened by the ill-advised policies of the 1970s. Instead, the image of a different Soviet leadership, committed to a "reformation" of Soviet society, now prevails— a development said to open numerous windows of opportunity within the edifice of a "sustained relationship" between the two superpowers. The evolution of what has been admittedly the most conservative U.S. administration of the postwar era reflects an odd symmetry: in 1981 , on behalf of confrontation, and now, on behalf of accommodation, expectations appear to be exaggerated. Yet, with agreements that characterize this new era as the justified rewards of the Reagan administration 's initial rhetoric and actions, the administration boasts today of widespread support for its policies—support that, it acknowledges belatedly, may not have existed in previous years. "In the United States," Secretary of State George Shultz declared in early 1988, "there is for the first time in many years a consensus on how we should deal with the Soviet Union." In the symposium that follows, most of the participants appear to agree on one point at least: during the past three years, Mikhail Gorbachev has become a dominant force in world politics. Dimitri Simes calls the general secretary "a formidable statesman," who, adds William Hyland, represents a "truly new factor in the superpower relationship." His pace, notes Helmut Sonnenfeldt, has been "often frenetic, both in domestic and foreign policy." His rhetoric makes the most...