(12 of 18)
So how are we to react to this kind of thing? We must all of us do all we can to end this present negative process in our bilateral relations, and proceed toward ending the arms race, and proceed seriously toward disarmament. I do believe it is in the best interests of the Soviet Union and the U.S. After all, there have been countless attempts in the past to bring us to our knees, to bring us to the point of utter exhaustion. But all such attempts have been in the past, and will be in the future, doomed to utter failure. We have never accused the U.S. of being an "evil empire." We understand what the U.S. is, what the American people are, and the role they are playing and will play in the world. We are certainly in favor of beginning a new phase in Soviet-American relations. But let me repeat that perhaps if a new phase appears, a phase still worse than the present one, this goal will be all the harder to achieve, if it is possible at all. Then a process might be launched that would be simply impossible even to conceive of today. That is why we are calling upon the U.S. to reach an accord with us on the basis of equal security, to reach an accord first and foremost on all three components, the most dangerous strategic offensive arms, medium-range arms and space weapons.
Q. You have spoken just now about "certain people" in Washington who seem to you to be trying to undermine the progress of U.S.-Soviet relations, but President Reagan himself has said on a number of occasions that there is no hostility toward the Soviet Union, that he is not seeking unilateral advantage or superiority over the Soviet Union. How do you take these assurances from the President? Do you accept them? More broadly, what are your impressions so far of President Reagan?
A. Let me just say at least that our attention certainly was drawn to certain positive elements contained in some of the President's remarks. We note some of his public statements in 1983 and 1984--I recall one speech I think was made at the United Nations--so we do duly respond to those positive elements when we see them. One of those statements was that war was inadmissible, that nuclear war was not winnable, and of course we gave our attention to the statement. Then we also paid due attention to his statement that the U.S. was not seeking superiority over the Soviet Union. These are very positive elements, and we believe that we could and should find positive elements in other spheres as well. They could all give us opportunities to cast a responsible glance at the state of our relations and especially toward the future and to find a basis to overcome the present negative phase in the state of relations between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
That is indeed why we agreed to hold the forthcoming summit meeting in the first place. We did so because we felt that we could do a lot by trying to meet each other halfway. That, again, is why we have reacted so sharply to some of the statements being made these days in connection with the summit. So we see that there are some who want to generate a situation to persuade the U.S. and the American public that, as (Columnist) Mary McGrory put it, even if the only thing to come out of the summit was an agreement to exchange ballet troupes, then even so people would be gleeful and happy.