thumbnail of Dilemmas of power; Georgy Arbatov
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
BJC FM in Baltimore in cooperation with the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting and Johns Hopkins University. Present the annual undergraduate student project. The 1971 Milton S. Eisenhower symposium. An 11 part series of featured speakers presenting formal addresses followed by informal question and answer sessions. This year's topic. Soviet American relations or dilemmas of power. On this program Dr. G A R bot of director of the Institute of the United States of America Academy of Sciences in the Soviet Union will discuss prospects for detente a hopeful view. In the past few weeks are participants have examined the history of U.S.-Soviet relations. The current problems which exist between the two countries. Today our speaker will
examine an aspect of the future the prospects for detente between the United States and the Soviet Union. Dr Georgy was born in one thousand twenty three and enlisted in the Soviet army at the age of 18. He graduated from the Moscow Institute of International Relations in 1909 and served on the staffs of several journals including New Times foreign affairs weekly and Communist Party magazine Dr. Todd headed the department of any logical problems and the Institute of World economy and international relations. One thousand sixty two to nine hundred sixty four thousand nine hundred sixty eight Dakar founded the USA Institute and this past year he was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences one of the highest honors that can be conferred in Soviet society. It has always been the policy of this symposium to present a variety of viewpoints
no matter how controversial they might be. We believe that this symposium must reflect the most important value of a university community the free expression of views and this value can only exist in an environment which is free from fear and intimidation. The essence of a university community is tolerance. Ladies and gentlemen it is with great pleasure that I introduce Dr. Joy. Of the. All right. Ladies and gentlemen I want to just saying the students Dr. Milton Eisenhower and the faculty for this kind invitation and for the opportunity to speak in
this audience. And I'm very thankful for the topic they have proposed to me. It sounds like the prospects of the Tanton Soviet American relations a Soviet to you. This implies at least that it is understood that the Soviet to you can include a sincere desire for the town and it's a very good progress in comparison with many things which are being written about policy of my country here in this country especially in the periods where the military appropriations being discussed in this period has this years another regularity as are the natures of phenomena let's say blossoms of charities and Washington he'll begin to campaign about Soviet threat Soviet man I said. Well as far as this this implication
which was made in the proposed docket I suppose will allow me not to explain too much and from the beginning to get to the core of the problem. As for the actual Servia to you is concern relations with the United States is actually the that is possible and desirable in our relations. This has been reaffirmed once again very forcefully by our country's most authoritative body the 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union held in the spring of this year. I would like to quote the following excerpt from the report made to the Congress by learning. General secretary of the party's central committee I caught. We proceed from there Sampson that it is possible to improve relations between the
USSR and the US. Our principled line was the respect of the capitalist countries including the USA is consistently and fully to practice the principle of peaceful coexistence to develop mutually advantageous ties and to cooperate with the States prepared to do so in strength in strength think peace making our relations with them as stable as possible. The past months have strong that this not sure works but take it for a practical policy. I have in mind and agreement very important agreement on West Berlin concluded with participation of countries. I have in mind as well two agreements which were prepared to solve but stalled talks which I have not too substantial but despite its very important because they have shown that in this area we also can come to an agreement and act together. And finally I have in
view. Their announcement on President Nixon's forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union. I would like to put a few questions not of a rhetorical kind to discuss them. The first one would be whether an improvement in Soviet American relations is necessary and urgent. This is not a rhetorical question because I have heard from many of my American colleagues that actually why why should we worry. Our countries have grown wise enough to understand the dangers of confrontations and in difficult international situations they have learnt to act in a very cautious way. Void nuclear war. I cannot agree with such argument. And that's when I think about it. I have to remind myself and I would like to make it also for the present here about the
history of the last decade of the 60s which were not particularly very bad period in Soviet American relations. Actually if we had known much worse beauteous of the haze of Cold War we haven't achieved something in our lives. Some things and our relations at this time of the first attempts were made somehow to turn the tide of after war developments post-war developments and to really to achieve something. But despite that the number of missiles possessed by the United States has grown during this decade 12 times. And of course other nations including Soviet Union had to follow. We had many serious international conflicts in this decade. One of them was Vietnam War which is not only very unjust and
bloody war but which in my firm believe has really cut off some of the trends for the brand which were developing in the beginning of the 60s. We had a six day war in Middle East and now we are coping with the problems which has to a large degree brought on by this war. For more than five years and we had Caribbean missile crisis which has brought us to the brink of nuclear holocaust I suppose that if we will simply project that the bands of the 60s into the new decade into the 70s we're got to learn that we can really find ourselves in a very dangerous and complicated situations and to get into such situations you really don't need even to do anything especially bad. It is enough simply
to drift in their way in the trance which has developed themselves and not to get them to do enough good not to do to to act positively to improve the international situation. At this point I'll introduce the next question whether that improvement of Soviet American relations is possible. This is also not that article wish because the relations between our countries are really very complicated and interdicted and there are some objective reasons for it very present different systems. We have actually two nations which have the most powerful and economic and field in their arms. I don't force us out of the most powerful representatives of this nations. I don't speak even about our ideological differences. We have also many political controversies. It said
that the problem of our relations is a quite different one. This is a problem of finding out whether we have some mutual interests whether we have such interest which makes us wild to cooperate and to strive for the time. And this is maybe the most crucial question which I wanted to introduce here and this interest more of their they are not only to be mutual they are to be sad that they don't run contrary to the lawful interest of the third countries because we are strongly against the concept of such superpowers which have some special rights including that our mission around the world. Think before this audience of this question I have to answer it and I'll
answer it in there for my kids. I am sure that we have such areas and this area's important enough. The first fear of area was that such a mutual interest would be from my point to fuel this fear of prevention of a nuclear war. This interest exists in both our countries and theirs oppose it not only exists it is understood in both compass I exclude only mentally deranged people and a few strategic analysts who consider the sash of what would would not be fatal especially if several hundred billions more would be spent was spent on the arguments and items of interest for the same people with this clear. But sometimes this understanding from my point of view is limited. Because of this that the threat of nuclear war lies not only in the fact
that somebody can plan a plan quite consciously as such a war to be started on a certain day and in a certain hour that exist and so that more are hidden and therefore may be more dangerous. One threat that nations can get involved into conflicts and this conflicts can escalate and get out of control and made a major confrontation in there with them. And such situation again before a scene and we have already some historical. We have already some historical experience in this and therefore this problem this task of preventing me working out the real guarantees to prevent work. They include not only not only such willingness not to step out of this world but also a willingness
to work towards radical improvement of international relations as a whole. I can tell that with international foreign policy program worked out by the 24th Congress of the party shows that this is understood very good on our side. And some recent steps of American government give that understanding for it is developing. Also on the medical side I suppose of this of this to be the majors of our mutual interests. The second sphere is from my point a few limitations and eventually to limit and eventually to do and the arms race. It is important politically. You know the old maxim If you want peace
but if we are part of war. But this maxim was never as wrong as in our time in our time to prepare for war. To zealously means to make it almost inevitable because there are surveys has become not only as a result of international tensions but also a very serious course for this tension and that is understandable. It is the other side. Very strongly you have reason for some suspicions and it doesn't help in the relations between nations. I don't see race has become the limitation of fighting to free speech has become very important also economically. Well according to official figures given by American government about 200
billion dollars being spent yearly on items and this buying this tremendous resource us out of being distracted from the solution of many very vital economic and social problems and that in all countries. I said well for a time I did it didn't bother Americans as far as I understand because Adam's race was even considered as a means to improve the economic situation unemployment depression etc.. But now in my judgment the American public and also many responsible to present the types of American public have grown much wiser because it has become clear that this is more than a weapon system they make even for us for
such a rich country as United States impossible to provide some of the NEIC for guns and butter. And the main part of Doc's of this situation is that for instance if we take United States it has spent one thousand two hundred billion dollars in post war years on armaments military expenditures that with this money you cannot buy national security. Quite to the contrary the history shows that Adam surveys despite the amount of money you spend makes the security less and less stable and makes it feeble and makes only nations and secure. Of course I remember. I'm sorry this is a difficult problem in the United States. The late lamented brotherhood of Dr. Milton Eisenhower warned of the country about
the military industrial complex. But I suppose that due to the changes which occurred in last year's military establishment and items the race has ceased to be a sacred cow and people developed a different approach to all of this problems and they wanted to see in this audience that they suppose the development a lot was contributed by the work of many well-known American scholars and scientists such people this professor had a but these not. Just because you're right. Yes. Garvin and many others who dearly. Being a newcomer in this field and coming actually for a time they were inside the surveys themselves and they had the
qualifications severely to explain the situation to the American public. So I suppose the time changed and maybe we'll have some prospect before us. Also in this field of mutual interest and the third sphere is cooperation in trade and economic relations and science technology and culture. Well we know that while our country is the most powerful and economic field and scientific field counters in the world but there are mounds of our economic exchanges it's very modest actually almost negligible. I have listed the three major areas of mutual interest. Maybe something can be added to it. But I suppose they by themselves are important enough to provide for Syria as much of a nation's people sent out of governments to improve relations between themselves.
Actually what other way we have called the water we have tried that out of idea and I don't think every any side has gained anything from it. Well would it be realistic to expect improvements and presence. I would answer this question in science really that it just may be more realistic than ever since World War 2. But it doesn't mean very much because behind us we really have very difficult times and realism demands also from us and we see the obstacles this obstacle so serious. I could provide with a long list of them specific specifying all controversies we have in different parts of the and on different problems but I suppose that a lot of the difficulties there really could be overcome
and damn short of it. If those governments and those nations put us good will and and really seriousness in their attitude to this very important problem of Soviet American relations. I want to talk here to mention some more general problems that refer to this obstacles. One is the problem of our basic of the basic position of our country distorts each other with this common knowledge that many of the things which were being done in the United States and other countries against Soviet Union were disguised and the protection of our exonerated. Well on the pet exit of communist threat of the threat of Soviet Union. And I must
tell you that some of my American acquaintances sometimes ask me Well what and I think it would be for you to drop your intentions of changing the domestic system in our country and make it clear and firm statement on this on this score. Then it would really be possible to put an end to suspicions and fears and to begin a new era of relations. And when I asked of them that actually be never had such intentions and many times have told about it publicly they sometimes are very Skop skeptical and don't ask me very much. Therefore I thought that maybe I will develop on this point a little bit more on our attitudes. The other society thought capitalist society in other countries. Well that's Communism produced so that the capitalist society or not. I want to be right on this in a broad sense it
does but not due to some policies pursued by the countries where the communists have have one power. But in our belief I'd tell you about the concept of Marxist Lenin as an attitude toward this problem. This thread is produced by the defects and deficiencies of the very economical social system existing in the capitalist countries in the incapacity of the system to tackle the problems posed by history. This is the conviction of communists is that sooner or later the peoples of other countries will that themselves change the system and will opt for socialism and this sort of that form. You may agree with it or not I state you simply whether the communist doctrine means in this case and this belief. This concept is not is has
is. Absolutely contrary to the notorious Soviet menace due to this main myth which was. Put in was invented and widely publicized by many propagandists because not only an ideology but I suppose I am sure of it. In the whole history of our country you will find definite posts that we've got over Siggins the very idea of exporting through Lucian. Again their idea of an armed crusade against capitalism and I must tell you that actually this world the points on which we had the major discussions inside the country inside the party just after the revolution went through its key some of his followers and some left wing communists pressed the COD of the might be revolutionary war and
in the last years we had this discussion on international basis and I support the fact that we didn't hesitate to be very strong in this point. This by the fact that we got we spoiled our relations with some out of our recent France until ice proves that we are very serious on this planet. I would like to not by the way I when I got the invitation to come here I had to forsake the symposia I thought all the participants will sit together and will have a chance to talk to each other. And so I hoped to see late March sung here. Well unfortunately the laws of nature are stronger than we are here is not here at present but I want to talk what for. From one of his latest works.
My cortex by the way appreciate his books mostly for their style and humor. I should think that historians will beat you tribute to Mr I just some for his but personal contribution to the absence of solution of their ethical disputes and the State Department. In the critical period of the border at the border than the forties and fifties yet apart from this administrative details what are we to do with the conclusion which Mr and I arrived at after describing the historical events like what a decade and a half later a school of academic critics criticism has concluded that we overreacted to a study which in turn caused him the rare act to policies of the United States. This may be true. Quite an instructive statement less true it is not featured prominently but it is a rather hidden on page
735 of the memo arts which comprises a footnote to page 3 7 5. Yet the consequences of this small theory mistake was the interpretation of the Soviet foreign policies rather than throw out Skeets and not laicized and this is something we all feel and volumes of books have been published to describe it all. This is how matter Square shortly of course how matters stand with the USA SAS basic positions in its relations with other countries belonging to the US social system. But in this connection I would like to draw your attention to another aspect of the matter above the basic position of United States toward a. Social System. Because I believe those Americans will figure that it is difficult to achieve mutual
understanding and good relations if that other side proclaims their goal of destroying. Q Well almost 54 years have passed since the revolution in my country and as all of you can see it is common knowledge that the Western countries including the United States officially proclaim to the Mormons that their goal was to suppress the revolution. Or as Mr. Winston Churchill put it the strength of the baby in the cradle list were not mere words 14 powers the USA included. I am unhappy to see in the way that the passion is gauged in military intervention. Maybe I even wouldn't mention this sad facts of our past history but I feel that. This teach us which so
clearly demonstrated that this period are somehow prevailing in minds and thoughts and policies to certain degrees. I don't know. This certitude I would qualify it as an attitude towards socialism into our country or some sort of. Bastards of history who were born out of love for marriage or as a historical misunderstanding which should be done away with the song of the later today by the way we have the twenty eighth anniversary of recognition by the United States of the Soviet Union. This is a good day but it just went to the United States needed 16 years to recognize the sheer fact of our existence. There. Well after the Second World War it took even more time to recognize the existence of other socialist countries
including China. But not only this is the matter of the slowness characteristic sometimes of American politics although not of American business am sure that if American business were to act in the same way it would get bankrupt in a week. So you see up til now and maybe it is even not not very clearly felt in this country by everybody. But for instance you have this reeks of captive nations which is not a private undertaking. They are endorsed by United States Congress and this nation include also the peoples of Soviet Union. Well I would say that even the discussions on. Foreign policy. If it's concerned Soviet Union is mainly centered around the problem what or how effectively this of that policy would influence the mastic affairs of the Socialist
this and undermine the foundations of system established there. Recall for instance the discussions around the policy of building bridges and many other instances in development of foreign policy. Well I am sure of that now. The times are changing and American people American public and also some statesman of United States whether they're DIA that not the only problems America has problems related to some distant region and Southeast Asia or elsewhere that you have a lot of things to do it at home. And this I suppose a very sound development of public opinion here and I hope before this but somehow some of this ideas they persist at this very difficult to do away with eight years there they have taken ground that existed for such a long day especially that they hope nobody
will be offended by this by this may be considerations by a statement from a man who professionally has to study United States especially in light of your history of your tradition the bearded puritanical tradition and the sky living it's you know and messianic. Well feelings which really felt very much in the American history. I would you know I would like to put what my when who in the beginning of this unprecedented century remarked. I do not know whether for good or for evil we continue to educate Europe. We have held the post of instructor for more than a century and to what we were not elected to it we merely took it. Now you will have that to Honduras and the rest of us was a few years
but you know the passion for preaching in itself that is not so dangerous I would say. What what becomes dangerous when it is connected with such double standards with which. One approach himself on the other side of course everybody is liable to a certain degree to such approach. Everybody considers him a bit better at least a bit better than anybody else but I suppose that due to this fact. Maybe this scene sindoor human beings is particularly pronounced in some at least of our compatriots. Look for instance well in the Soviet Union somebody is right according to law. You may like it or not but this law exists. Let's say for hijacking then a very broad campaign is raised here that there is no democracy at all in Soviet Union and something terribly happens
when your country for instance of the police comes and kills some Black Panthers and their vets or National Guard troops as students and kill them. The press writes about this also and some people are really indignant but somehow it is understood as a minor accident. This which really doesn't doesn't change the main point that you have a perfect democracy. Let's say well when we speak and the American speaks about United States allies. So this our gallant allies over there in my you know corrupt regimes or bloody dictator dictatorships in South America. But our advice out of this only satellites. If the United States has a three or four times a priori of Soviet Union and items then everything is OK you are a good guy so you
don't wish to harm anybody. If we are reaching this level then the hell is the race that well the United States is menaced. If your Navy isn't military and quiet a bit away from the United States and very near to our borders than solar at the nature of all states of things. But if you're a cowardly isn't military and quite close to our borders then it is a major offense and the expansion and the period this policy of the Soviet Union. You know I just want I hope I have offended nobody by this sort of Mike's. But somehow everybody has to try to to see also how we see and from other angles Yes and how it looks so important for our relations anyway off late I have been observing the same sort of price that is being shown by some Americans in history in principle that this this is not
but the thought. Had lead to the audience here have to be told about the benefits of education and of the harm of ignorance. But sometimes I was put off their projects by seeing your compatriots trying simply to find in history Sam or those which will be suited for contemporary borders and American professor I know told me for instance that he left all his business to study Bismarck who according to him worked out a policy very suitable for the multipolar world of today and I don't want to say anything bad about Bismarck especially here as one of the actually everybody here not to wage war visit Russia of his mysterious didn't apply to this to this rule but Bismarck was also one of the man who really did very much
for the development of Russian imperialism and military as there was with him. He has big day early seeds for very serious conflicts which he really had after his death already and 20th century. Concluding I would like to say the following Soviet policies incorporate a clear understanding of the need and possibility for the Soviet American relations. This is prompted by our vital interests and by understanding that this is in the interests of all of other nations. There are many obstacles to the town but I am sure they can be overcome. Quite important in this case is stress and goodwill. If we consider that our basic initial goal is to do is much harder as we can to each
other. Then we have vast opportunities right up to the ultimate harm of having nuclear war but I hope and I see confirmation for this all in the events of the past few months that both our countries both peoples and I hope governments will show greater wisdom and will choose a different way the way of positive solutions that many zation and co-operation many people here remember and all know that the times when we were allies. Actually there were such times and I am sure of that in case somebody in through that from some distant planet we would become allies and very sure of that. Unfortunately I know it's much easier to be to unite to be become allies against something or somebody then to unite for some positive about us. Yet the development of events must teach us this difficult
and to love our count that is justice of the countries of the world must change or look operation for believing in war for the not of my Lizzie ation of the international situation for stepping up their economic scientific technical and cultural development of their countries and to full mankind but mankind's well-being. It happens. I Confederacy that all this out of the goals of Soviet people. And thank you. Doctors agree to entertain questions. He would take questions
alternately from the microphones in the aisles to facilitate this. Please limit yourself to one question and do not touch the microphone. So if you mention the different perspectives from which each side looks at an issue such as the Mediterranean when your Navy is there how we look at how you look at it. We look at Czechoslovakia as Russian imperialism. How do you look at it sir. Well of course absolutely different. Could you explain. Yes for us it was a problem of there were two problems included in this one of them was the problem of the socialist system in Czechoslovakia reach as we felt and many other felt many other so for this country
was that danger and severe attack that one was a problem of political situation in Europe. Maybe I would remind you that we have lost 20 million people during the Second World War II other countries in Europe have lost also a lot of people and if you look at the map and try to study understand this situation you will see that this political factor could be all civilian. Mr. arbiter I'd like to ask you a question about Boris Kodjoe DSK Russia but whole forests cut should be asking I don't know. Well I'll finish the question it's it has a broad general point in the end. He's an engineer and presently a Jewish political prisoner he was arrested December 1968 and five months later he was sentenced to three years forced labor under Article 187 of the Ukrainian criminal
code for disseminating anti-Soviet slander. Now from Chronicle the. Chronicle of current events from the Democratic excuse me but this is not a question if you make a speech just a question. Let me finish it. From the chronicle of current events. These facts were found out of what the slander consisted of. Mr R box of a just made a request to me. Earlier today there was an hour meeting with some Soviet students with some Jews Jewish students who had asked to have a meeting. Dr. about I was present. He would like to concentrate on other questions. Other than that of Soviet Jewry if I'm correct Doctor. So if you will. This this is a request that has been made by our speaker. I hope that you will honor it
and I hope that the questions will focus on other matters. If you will. Dr. Barth I was not in the next meeting of the Jewish students and therefore I don't know what you said to them and I don't know what the results of that work. I would like to ask you a question. Excuse me about it but it was on all our tour and I have not heard your hands. Now there were a lot of it for you. You know I don't answer any questions you spoke about goodwill and it as a motive for our way of getting detente. And I was wanting to know if you felt that the goodwill of the Soviet Union might and the United States might not be improved if the Jews the Soviet Union were allowed to immigrate if they chose to. Or for those who wish to stay in the Soviet Union if they were granted religious freedom. Because maybe really not all present there. I will
answer this question but in the end with us I suppose we don't have to go on the field anyway. You know every country has terms on the rules to live to immigrate for everything they juice in Soviet Union are in the same position as Russians Ukrainians bill the Russians that are some classics and everybody else and they know for sure that their overwhelming majority of Soviet US is very much troubled and concerned about this campaign because a small minority only wants to live to live and that just want to stay I suppose between four or five and seven thousand Jews were allowed to leave Soviet Union ways away maybe you don't know it but if you receive an American passport they must excuse myself. But there is a specialist in this field in the United States if you apply for a foreign passport
you must also give an all of Allegiance. It was a range that are used again in your places. So every country has its own rules and I don't think that such demands for any nation and our country to be given special treatment would be considered as just by the by by this nation and by other nations in our country. One of the developments internally in the Soviet Union recently has been the formation of a Committee on Human Rights which was formed by three of the most prominent physicists in the Soviet Union and often makes public statements against the authoritarian government policies of the Soviet Union. With regard to certain internal issues are the three people who formed this were Andreas Sakharov who is the most prominent physicist in the Soviet Union.
Species. Here's me I'm just having a question sir. I worked with you as it is if you will run to me in order to make an honest basement against Soviet Union you have a lot of opportunities. I have come here for out of half an hour that I suppose some people won't listen to something else not to think of the New York press and hear from you from day to day. Relate this not correct they say if they want to speak about something else they can get in line and speak will not give them opportunity in life and we are in line and our questions are answered and we go back to our seats concerning this is not the question I have not gotten to my question could you give me a chance to develop it. If I ask my question without introduction you don't know what the question is you said I understand the question. Andre Sakharov was the most prominent physicist in the Soviet Union. I'm sorry but it seems to me that Dr our box office requests have been ignored and I'm afraid that we must and now at this point. Thank you very much. I'm
very sorry. For allowing the address buttons or a bottle in the auditorium which were all the is restricted to the speaker with me and Tom Fillot executive producer for public the third at the Maryland center of the Public Broadcasting. Thank you sir for joining. Why I have an initial question sir. Precisely what is he going to to the United States. Wrote this it is it is that you threw out of that I think that's a system if you assume. We have a good enough say this is a voided his bonus before the name of the basic reception when they should all census and the social service and serve the book on that or it will be I mean young kids with downs of the four years.
You provide information about the United States through the building of the do this but not especially the fussin would insist we have this in my house. I tried to publish books. With a cause but you do have orders to institute have an influence upon foreign policy it was. Not direct influence of those because we are out of government. So again that is what. The right would just get in the still people a lot of making decisions with Europe so it's not our job. To be inside the government to prompt. Me a demagogue. Sure there are a few students remaining in those who are whole that had some questions for you.
You know other topic other than the cover to disrupt the session and I think they would like to ask you if you would care to answer the first question please. The doctor about stuff I'd like to ask you what you assess the major issues to be amongst the United States electorate for the upcoming election in 1972 and what you feel about the prospects for the different candidates who are vying and will be running for office at that time. Well I'm very much of a fan so this questions I would like to know a lot of intervention and internal affairs of United States. So I will I said in a very gentle man that. I will tell that I suppose. Vietnam if it this is a war in Vietnam is not a finished election and I don't see actually. How it will be damaged. And I think changes in United States politics.
This can't be an issue. I am sure economy will be an issue and the most serious issue. And I suppose this issue is and especially the situation in. American Economy will influence very much. That outcome of the next. I don't plan to call any names. Next question please. Dr. Arpad I'm wondering what what do you think. The effect on Russian-American relations will be by Mr. Nixon's trip to China. Well here I have expressed my views in the rather long I would say in my attic in Pravda. Things were written here. My main point was that well. If. If and in general the improvement of
American chain user relations. In itself they are a good thing. And. I suppose it does vary with the People's Republic of China sits now in the United Nations. But what's. Concerning some people in this country and in our country of course that some political game gambles be. Played around this issue and surely some of American specialists. I don't want to call names again. Well they wrote about it in that light advice to very much. The China bill must be us to exert some pressure on the Soviet Union to play some role and get this from my point of years very dangerous and you know China is such a nation was which. Better don't have any gambles of this sort. I suppose on the issues at stake got
too serious too early to get into such gambles because I have very serious problems. I suppose it would be in the best interests of peace and Okada this is relations between the Soviet Union and the United States improve relations between Soviet Union and China improve and also relations between the United States and China at least not unless two more questions. So what is your opinion of the reorganization of U.S. foreign aid with respect to U.S. USSR relations and U.S. foreign policy. Well it's it's about this bill on foreign aid. Yes. What I didn't hear you. Yes yes I know about the debates which are going on. A lot of this aid has military purposes and you wouldn't expect from me to be very favorable. About the field
of. Things here I suppose a national problem as senator feels the United States is not in such a situation this spends very much and. That's up to the Senate to decide that and of course even in non military non military fields we know from history it was very often used as a political but. For political reasons not the. Help menu nations but not because the United States helps or does not help it. The nations. That are the reasons for doing. So. Dr. Byock. Mation many Americans have been largely negative about the Soviet Union. Your view about people of the Soviet Union have a better informed or more positive outlook toward the United States. You
know. I must tell you that I'm absolutely sure of that of people. No United States but I've been in and did more correctly than your people do you know the Soviet Union. It's an impression which I got from many meetings and talks here and you know well lead to US led 12 times more American the riots for instance then you'll do. That action and so it's a day to school bully and outgunned. In the out of country really hit is not going to matter when and Jack London. And. Well and Hemingway but he knows it and one couple had to go I suppose almost everybody I still don't want is a part of it that's just not popular in the US. It's generally accepted that Premier Khrushchev was instrumental in improving Soviet American relations during the 1960s. Would you say that his replacement represents fear by the Communist Party of an impending detente. Of course not. If our relations got. To a certain degree worse in
the middle of the 60s I see quite different reasons for it. One reason this Vietnam War Richard Gere and I spoke about it somehow that died. And got the chance you know for the 10th which began to develop themselves in the beginning of sixes and the second weapon program by United States because it was just this jump you know multiplied 12 times. In the first half 66 of 67. Where do you see optimistically is the relationship between the Soviet Union and United States of America by sort of the year 2000. Well. I suppose if we. Don't. Start from optimistic Verma system that is my optimism in the points that this is necessary. And this is possible. I am not that optimistic that bodes well the obstacles we have
serious obstacles here. And so I would say that this remaining 30 years must show either the whys and the other things. And in this case will have. Decent relations. We can be very different. This is not the pointing out of the nations you know. I might not like many things in this country and some of your people all of your people I don't know might not like some in the house. But the problem is just here. That really despite all of diffidence us to live together there's even talk of that aid that feels better that's necessary for the use of and sought out Nations we'd like to thank you very much for taking time following that session and I will promise you that your comments here will be broadcast so that the viewing audience will not be deprived as the audience and to our world. Here you go. Thank you again so that you have been listening to Dr. G.A.R. Battah director of the Institute of the United States of America Academy of
Sciences in the Soviet Union discussing the prospects for detente a hopeful view on our next program. Mike Mansfield majority leader of the United States Senate will discuss the Nixon administration and detente a critical view. W BJC FM. In cooperation with the Johns Hopkins University and the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting has presented the 1971 Milton S. Eisenhower symposium. Soviet American relations the dilemmas of power the executive producer and editor is Thomas. Original theme music by Donald Schwartz. For a printed copy of this program send $1 to dilemma's of power. Transcript number 10. Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting. Owings Mills Maryland
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Dilemmas of power
Georgy Arbatov
Producing Organization
Johns Hopkins University
WBJC (Radio station : Baltimore, Md.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
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/500-h41jnd7j).
Episode Description
The tenth program in this series features a lecture from Georgy Arbatov, a Soviet political scientist.
Other Description
This series presents a variety of lectures on Soviet-American relations. The lectures are followed by informal question and answer sessions.
Politics and Government
Soviet Union.
Media type
Composer: Schwartz, Donald
Producing Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Producing Organization: WBJC (Radio station : Baltimore, Md.)
Speaker: Arbatov, G. A.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 5494 (University of Maryland)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:58:45
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Dilemmas of power; Georgy Arbatov,” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 20, 2022,
MLA: “Dilemmas of power; Georgy Arbatov.” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 20, 2022. <>.
APA: Dilemmas of power; Georgy Arbatov. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from