(6 of 13)
Q. Some fear that Newtonian physics governs superpower relations: What goes up must come down. They warn that our countries' interaction has in the past been prone to wild swings between euphoria and depression, cooperation and conflict, thaw and chill. Do you see any such danger? How can we avoid such cycles? How can the recent progress be made permanent?
A. I do not believe that any relentless "law of the cycles" exists in relations between our two countries or in international affairs generally. Everything is in human hands, primarily of course in the hands of policymakers.
In the past, when the entire infrastructure of confrontation -- from ideological intransigence to the arms race as the mainstay of security policy -- was still intact, fluctuations and even abrupt swings were probably inevitable in our relations.
A return to where we were yesterday is hardly possible now, if only because politicians have become quite well aware of the integrity and interdependence of our world. And also because there is little chance that either side could revive the "enemy image" that used to fuel the cold war and confrontation.
We have come to understand clearly our own best interests and present-day world realities. We have learned too much about each other to be able to revert to old preconceptions and ideological cliches. Besides, if the Soviet Union and the U.S. are to keep their relations on the basis of reason, they simply cannot afford confrontation with each other. Each simply has too many immense, crucial problems, and there are global threats looming over the entire human race.
As President of my country, I obviously protect the interests of the U.S.S.R. Yet I also have concern and respect for the legitimate interests of ) the U.S. I try to understand what worries the Americans. If both sides take this approach, we will be able to accomplish a great deal and make steady and continuous progress in our relations.
New steps forward are the best guarantee against backsliding -- in arms reductions, which still cannot keep pace with political changes; in our cooperation on transnational problems; in economic, scientific, technological and cultural exchanges; and in simple human contacts among people of different generations and occupations.
Q. What are the most important themes to have emerged in the past several years?
A. Everyone remembers where we stood in the mid-'80s. The arms race was gathering momentum. The nations of the Third World were in a terrible plight. Regional conflicts constantly threatened to get out of control. Enmity kept the world permanently disturbed and waiting for disaster, for global explosions.
So looking back on those years, I see a number of major changes in people's minds and on the political scene.
First, the bankruptcy of militarism and its dangers have become more obvious. Attitudes toward war and military power as instruments of state policy have changed. People have begun to realize that the earth is getting too small for wars and that they have to put an end to the spiraling arms race. The burden of today's military spending has proved too heavy even for rich nations such as the U.S. To sum up, toward the end of the 1980s there appeared a glimmer of hope that the global political process could be demilitarized.