War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Vladimir Petrovsky, 1987

View online at openvault.wgbh.org

Transcript

WAR AND PEACE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE - TAPE NEW 745000 OLD 710036 VLADIMIR

PETROVSKY

Soviet-American Conflict

Interviewer:

THE QUESTION THAT I EITHER START OR FINISH EVERY INTERVIEW IN THE

SOVIET UNION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE SOVIET POINT OF VIEW, WHAT

IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE US AND THE USSR ABOUT?

Petrovsky:

What kind of conflict do you mean?

Interviewer:

THE COUNTRIES ARE OBVIOUSLY IN CONFLICT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS THE CONFLICT ABOUT?

Petrovsky:

You know this... it is not by chance I just put here the question,

because I would disagree with you. I do not consider that our countries

are in conflict. And you know, if we will look at our relation and the

state of affairs between our countries, our national interest does not

contradict each other in any part of the world. Of course our interests

are different due to political, ideological orientations. But I do not

see so much conflict of interest. There is some kind of, how to say,

precious going on, but in general, our interests are the same. And our

interests are the same if we will look in the world in the new

perspective. In the perspective of interdependent world. We live on the

same planet. We are the passengers of the same outer space ship, and

like all other passengers we should behave properly in order to provide

the safe flight of this ship in the ( ). So in this understanding of

living in interdependent world makes us much more closer, and makes it

necessary to overcome certain differences which arrived as I say due to

political or ideological orientations. But I personally do not see the

conflict of interest. And looking at the Soviet-American relations I

consider that of course they consist both of elements of cooperation

and elements of the struggle. But in my mind today, in the new world,

the cooperation should prevail over the struggle. And the struggle

itself should take a new form. It shouldn't be not political or

ideological struggle. Rather it should be competition. And I see all

the good opportunities that our relation should become the partnership

relations between our countries. As far as I understand in American

practice not all partners like... love each other, but still they how

do you say, work and cooperate very successfully. So I do not see much

of the conflict of interests.

Interviewer:

WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF CONFLICT, WHICH SHOULD BE TURNED AROUND? WHERE DO

YOU SEE THOSE AREAS THAT NEED TAKING CARE OF?

Petrovsky:

I think that actually all areas in the Soviet-American relations needs

a new approach. A new approach from understanding our position as I see

it as passengers of outer space ship. First of all this is area of

disarmament and arms limitation, and in this area we have made a very

important move now. For the first time in history we have obtained the

agreement, which would deal with the physical liquidation of nuclear

weapons. Previously, you know, we just spoke about disarmament, called

different measures as disarmament measures. But it was not really a

disarmament. It was arms limitation, arms control. And now, for the

first time in history we have a measure of nuclear disarmament. This is

one field. There are certain, how to say, and difficulties in this,

with regard to the regional situation in the different parts of the

world. But...

Interviewer:

CAN YOU ADDRESS THOSE?

Petrovsky:

Yes, but as I see it today there is opportunity to deal successfully

with all regional conflicts and regional situations. And you know, now

our country has taken the political decision to leave our troops from

Afghanistan, and the timetable has been established, 12 months. And

this president of Afghanistan has said that if the conditions will be

favorable from the viewpoint of non-interference. So the timetable

could be shortened. So it opens the opportunity for political solution

of Afghani situation very soon in the nearest future. But it also

provides opportunity for dealing with other situation. And here for

example, I am very much optimistic with the pattern of behavior our

countries have developed with regard to Irani-Iraqi war and the

normalization of the situation in the Gulf area. We work in unanimity.

And we consider that the mission of the Secretary General should be

supported in this area. That the war should be stopped, and there

should be withdrawal of the Navies from the Gulf area, and how do you

say, substitute them with the United Nations forces. I see as a good

sign the attitude which has been taken for example by the United

Nations by the way on a consensus basis with regard to the Central

America. Here, too, the process of national reconciliation, of course,

it's in a different way from Afghanistan. It's also developing. And

here too, all or both our countries could contribute to this process of

national reconciliation. I think there is a very urgent need, and there

is also an opportunity to work for the comprehensive solution of the

Middle Eastern situation. The process is development. I saw also the

opportunities to work constructive towards the solution of the

situation in South Africa. In other words, in all regional matters, how

to say, this theory of conflicts of interest can be overcome very

easily if we will become to deal constructively in a serious way in all

this areas. Of course some more should be done in such areas and

economic relations. Here, it's a... how do you say, open field of

productivity. I think the trade relations between our countries is on

much more lower level that it could exist. And we should also... here

also to overcome certain stereotypes, to stop, you know, playing with

so-called strategic goods, some of that is nonsense. There is no real

obstacles for the development of relations in the bilateral field. In

other words, in general, with the Soviet-American relations there is a

good opportunity to start to build them in a new way. As I said, in

partnership way. But for these purposes, maybe... This is very

important, and I spoke once when I was in..., it is very important to

overcome you know, the image of the enemy of each country, and to start

to think new.

Soviet-European Relations

Interviewer:

IN THIS CONTEXT THERE WAS SOME ANXIETY, LEGITIMATE OR NOT, EXPRESSED IN

EUROPE FOLLOWING THE AGREEMENT FOR "DECOUPLING" OF AMERICA'S COMMITMENT

TO EUROPE AND SO ON AND SO ON. WHAT CAN THE SOVIET UNION DO ABOUT

REASSURING THE EUROPEANS?

Petrovsky:

You know, we are not going to break the existing relations of Europe

with other countries with the United States. And we accept it as a part

of reality. Anyhow the European process, which is successfully

developing since the Helsinki final act includes the United States as a

part of this European progress. And we're never -- the cooperation

between all European countries as well as United States and Canada is

taking place this process is developing very successful. This is not

our intention to decouple the other. Vice versa, our intention to make

European relations developing in the directions of improving the whole

situation, not only on a military/political level, but on all other

level, through the channels which has been established in Helsinki. The

channels which include the active participation, also of the United

States and Canada.

Interviewer:

NEVERTHELESS, WHAT ABOUT REASSURING COUNTRIES LIKE FRANCE AND GERMANY

AND SUCH WHO ARE THE MOST ANXIOUS ABOUT SOVIET INTENTION?

Petrovsky:

You know, our intention has been manifested very clearly... very

clearly, I think, and not only in the words. The words are also

important. We've made a number of statements. But I think what is more

important that the words has been supported by our practical deeds. We

made a number of very practical suggestions, to show that we are not

going to liquidate the medium-range weapons and the shorter-range

weapons in order to open the way for dealing with other weapons. Our

intention, for example, is to start a very serious talks on the drastic

reduction of conventional armaments and conventional armed forces. We

have proposed to NATO countries to liquidate the armed forces and

armaments by 25 percent by the 1990. So our proposals are on the table

and we're waiting the answer on the western side. And by the way, I

would like tell you that together with the discussion of these matters,

we are ready to discuss the tactical nuclear weapons which are less

than five hundred kilometers, which are not yet prohibited, but as far

as I understand, NATO is not ready to deal with this matter. So our

intention with regard to Europe, to level down the military

confrontation as low as possible.

Interviewer:

WOULDN'T THAT ALSO INVOLVE POTENTIAL CHANGES WITH SOVIET UNION AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES OR OPENING, LET'S SAY,

GERMANY'S? DO YOU ENVISION SOME KIND OF A PROCESS, A POLITICAL PROCESS

OF SOME SORT?

Petrovsky:

You know, as I see it, the political process should develop like the

military process, all other process, along the lines which has been

determined in Helsinki. So in Helsinki it was acknowledged the reality

of Europe, the inviolability of its frontiers and the necessity to

develop the dialogues between all countries of Europe, without any

exclusions. And we are strongly supported to this Helsinki Final Act. I

will tell you, Helsinki Final Act, this European process, for us serves

as a kind of, you know, model how the relations between different

countries could be organized without detriment to interests of any

particular participant of this program.

Interviewer:

I AM NOT AWARE THAT THE HELSINKI ACCORDS AND THAT THE HELSINKI PROCESS

IS NOT, IN FACT, A VERY LIVE ONE.

Petrovsky:

Very live. You are absolutely...and it brings practical results and it

brings the results, you know, in the military field now. We have a very

elaborated system of the confidence building measures. But what is very

important, it is very resultive in the field of the human contacts, in

the field of developing on the relations on humanitarian field. This is

very important and we can see that it is very important that all the

countries should put their own national legislation on human rights in

accordance with the Helsinki Final Act. It's helped to set a certain

pattern to which all the countries should follow. There is also, how to

say, very lively development on economic field and we are going to go,

to go further. And I can see that, you know, there is a certain

dialectic of development of the European relations. The deeper the

understanding going between the European countries, the deeper trust

exists. The more volume is possible to obtain in all fields of the

relations. And I think Europe could serve as a kind of a good example

and that's why it is very important, very important to understand that,

how to say, all the apprehensions which are riding. And of course,

nobody could prohibit the apprehension. Apprehension could arise. But

if apprehension is arising they should be answered in a very direct

way.

Interviewer:

THE FRENCH, THEY'RE REEMPHASIZING RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS. GOING

THROUGH THEIR PROCESS OF MODERNIZATION.

Petrovsky:

You know, I will tell you from our own experience, and our own... in

our own country we are very involved in the process of Perestroika. We

understand how difficult that the new things should be established as a

part of the life. It's very difficult to change the political thinking,

the political approach. And of course, certain people are so much

strongly connected with this doctrine of nuclear deterrence that they

could not see any other alternative to this matter. Some of the people,

you know probably do not understand still the reality that is. The

other people probably are closely connected with certain

military-industrial interests. The reasons could be different. But you

know, the adherence to the nuclear deterrence sometimes prevents the

peoples to see the reality. And to see that there is another

opportunity to provide the basis of relations between countries. Not

through the military means, but through political and legal means. And

this is the only acceptable way in our nuclear space age, I would say

it.

ABM Treaty

Interviewer:

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ABM TREATY, I ASSUME THAT YOUR FOREIGN OFFICE

ALSO PUT A COUPLE OF GOOD SOVIET LAWYERS ON THAT TO REREAD THE TREATY

AND THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS.

Petrovsky:

You know, I will tell you, within the foreign office always pays much

attention to the legal readings of the document. And of course, our

lawyers are also participating in different negotiations and so on. But

for us there is only one reading of ABM treaty, the reading as it is in

its initial text. And we attach much importance to the fact that it has

been told, you know... it has been agreed actually that the treaty of

1972 should preserved in the form as it was accepted. For me, you know,

I have a legal education also. For me sometimes it sounds a little bit

strange. You know, broad and narrow interpretation. From legal point of

view there is also one, there is only one interpretation. How to say,

interpretation which is incorporated in the treaty. Probably, I am a

little bit traditional with this way, but at least according, you know,

to all the theories of international law you should adhere to the

document, to the document as it is, as it was concluded.

Future Soviet-American Relations

Interviewer:

ONE MORE. WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS AS A SOVIET WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON THE

PART OF THE UNITED STATES? LET'S SAY IN ADDITION TO NEGOTIATING IN GOOD

FAITH THE NEXT AGREEMENT. WHAT KIND OF MORE GENERAL REACTION. WHAT

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FROM THE UNITED STATES SO AS TO REASSURE THE

SOVIET UNION?

Petrovsky:

You know I think is very important questions. Now when we are trying to

change our relations for the better we should look how to find the

answer to this question. You know, personally as a man who has been

involved for many years in the Soviet-American relation, I think that

the matter of primary importance for us, to have some kind of policy

and strategy of trust or confidence building, we should take a very

strong actions to do away with the image of enemy, which has been

created, I would say, on both sides. And we should start to change our

thinking and our image of each other. To think in terms of partners of

each other. And here the question is arising, how to achieve it. So you

couldn't just say it one day that we're just starting partner. This is

not enough. What is really important in order to create a new image, an

image of partners, to start making practical deeds. And practical deeds

are very important and not only in disarmament field, though this is

how to say, the main directions. And here, I think the main break...

practical breakthrough has been made. Practical deeds are also needed

in all other areas in regional conflicts, in human rights, in economic

affairs, in ecological affairs. In other words it is necessary to start

to work. To put aside, you know, this polemics, and to start

business-like approach, businesslike approach which was always

trademark of American style in politics and all other affairs. So I

think this business-like approach, joint deeds, will help us to do away

with this image of the enemy and to start to think about each other as

human beings, as partners in the same big business, in the business of

survival of the whole world.

[END OF TAPE 745000 AND TRANSCRIPT]

Transcript

Transcript

Series: War and Peace in the Nuclear Age

Raw Footage: Interview with Vladimir Petrovsky, 1987

Contributing Organization: WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)

AAPB ID: cpb-aacip/15-4t6f18sj2m

If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-4t6f18sj2m).

Description

Credits: Publisher: WGBH Educational Foundation
Writer: Petrovskii, Vladimir Fedorovich

AAPB Contributor Holdings: WGBH
Identifier: 925946c8e820c785d33e5a7441a1c5735970ac68 (ArtesiaDAM UOI_ID)
Format: video/quicktime
Color: Color
Duration: 00:00:00

Citations: Chicago: “War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Vladimir Petrovsky, 1987,” 1987-12-25, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed October 7, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-4t6f18sj2m.; MLA: “War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Vladimir Petrovsky, 1987.” 1987-12-25. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. October 7, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-4t6f18sj2m>.; APA: War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Vladimir Petrovsky, 1987. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-4t6f18sj2m