(4 of 18)
A. Its outcome, after all, will depend to a great extent upon what is taking place now. Everyone would probably agree that the political atmosphere for talks takes shape well in advance. Neither the President nor I will be able to ignore the mood in our respective countries or that of our allies. In other words, actions today largely determine the "scenario" for our November discussions.
I will not hide from you my disappointment and concern about what is happening now. We cannot but be troubled by the approach that, as I see it, has begun to emerge in Washington. That is a scenario of pressure, of attempts to drive us into a corner, to ascribe to us, as so many times in the past, every mortal sin--from unleashing an arms race to "aggression" in the Middle East, from violations of human rights to some scheming or other even in South Africa. This is not a state policy, it is a feverish search for "forces of evil."
We are prepared to have a meaningful and businesslike talk. We can also present claims: we have something to say about the U.S. being responsible for the nuclear arms race, and about its conduct in various regions of the world, and support to those who in effect engage in terrorism, and about violations of human rights in America itself, as well as in many countries close to it. But here is what I am thinking about: Is it worthwhile for the sake of that to set up a summit meeting? Abusive words are no help in a good cause.
But there is every indication that the other side is now preparing for something quite different. It looks as if the stage is being set for a bout between some kind of political "supergladiators" with the only thought in mind being how best to deal a deft blow at the opponent and score an extra point in this "bout." What is striking about this is both the form and the content of some statements. The recent "lecture" of Mr. (Robert) McFarlane (the President's National Security Adviser) is a case in point. It contains not only the full "set of accusations" we are going to be charged with in Geneva but also what I would call a very specific interpretation of the upcoming negotiations. It appears that even the slightest headway depends exclusively upon concessions by the Soviet Union, concessions on all questions --on armaments, on regional problems and even on our own domestic affairs.
If all this is meant seriously, then manifestly Washington is preparing not for the event we have agreed upon. The summit meeting is designed for negotiations, for negotiations on the basis of equality and not for signing an act of someone's capitulation. This is all the more true since we have not lost a war to the U.S., or even a battle, and we owe it absolutely nothing. Nor for that matter, does the U.S. owe us.
But if the bellicose outcries are not meant seriously, then they are all the more inappropriate. Why flex muscles needlessly? Why stage noisy shows and transfer the methods of domestic political struggles to the relations between two nuclear powers? In them the language of strength is useless and dangerous. There is still time before the summit meeting, and quite a lot can be done for it to be constructive and useful. But this, as you will understand, depends on both sides.
Q. What is your view of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) research program in the context of U.S.-Soviet relations?