Can America Manage Its Soviet Policy?
American policy toward the Soviet Union has been replete with examples of incoherence and inconsistency. Responding in part to Soviet moves and in part to the political competition inherent in our democratic politics, American attitudes have alternated between overemphasis and underemphasis on the threatening nature of the Soviet Union. The result has been inconsistent policy and missed opportunities.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is Professor of Government at Harvard University, and was Deputy Under Secretary of State, 1977-79. This article is adapted from The Making of America's Soviet Policy, edited by Professor Nye, to be published in mid-May by Yale University Press for the Council on Foreign Relations.
American policy toward the Soviet Union has been replete with examples of incoherence and inconsistency. Responding in part to Soviet moves and in part to the political competition inherent in our democratic politics, American attitudes have alternated between overemphasis and underemphasis on the threatening nature of the Soviet Union. The result has been inconsistent policy and missed opportunities.
During the cold war, our exaggeration of Soviet capabilities prevented us from negotiating at a time when our position was strong. Subsequently, the ideological interpretation of policy and domestic political constraints prevented American policy from exploiting the diplomatic opportunities in the Sino-Soviet split for more than a decade after it occurred in the late 1950s. Conversely, the enthusiasm for détente in the 1960s and early 1970s led American officials to underestimate the Soviet military buildup, delay an appropriate response, and encourage false domestic expectations of future restraint in Soviet international behavior. Certainly, changing Soviet tactics have helped trigger American policy changes, but the exaggeration in American attitudes may develop as much from domestic political processes and reactions toward previous swings of the policy pendulum as from the actual changes in Soviet behavior.
In the early part of the 1970s, American power was limited by introspective moral and social concerns in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. The United States spent less in real terms on defense, foreign aid, embassies and foreign broadcasting in 1980 than it did in 1960. Moreover, there was no political consensus on how to bring the non-military aspects of American power (such as our nearly two-to-one advantage in gross national product, our grain reserves, our advanced technology) to bear upon U.S.-Soviet relations. Different groups resisted linking issues or insisted on their preferred linkages. In these circumstances of shifting power, domestic disagreement, and ambiguous rules of conduct, it was not surprising that Soviet tactics were adventuresome.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
found hereOpens a group of essays on the theme of US foreign-policy concept called "containment," with special attention to the provenance of George Kennan's The Sources of Soviet Conducted, first published in 1947 under the psuedonym "X". The full groupIn addition to the following two items, the group comprises (1) a reprint on pp. 852-868 of Kennan's article 'The sources of Soviet conduct', published under the pseudomyn 'X' in the FA issue of Jul 1947 (2) a reprinted excerpt on pp869-884 from Walter Lippmann 'The cold war: a study in US foreign policy' (Harper, 1947), pouring cold water on (a) Kennan's notion that Soviet socialism "bears within itself the seeds of its own decay" (b) his recommendation of an open-ended policy of passivity in the expectation of Soviet change of heart, pressing instead for active pressure on the USSR to withdraw from Eastern Europe. full references and data sources for this article can be found here.
"The INF treaty singles out for elimination all land-based missiles of a specified range". Gives the background to the treaty from 1979. In effect it resulted from the USSR calling Reagan's bluff on his zero-option proposal of 1981. The consequence is that the West is on the defensive, lacking a coherent approach and compelled to proceed on the basis of its present policy. The lesson of the treaty is therefore for the West to define its long-term objectives, and the roles of the USA and Western Europe within them. US deputy assistant secretary for defense (policy plans), 1977-81.
We met, as we had to meet," President Reagan told Congress in November on his return from Geneva. A week later General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev said to the Supreme Soviet, "A dialogue of top leaders is always a moment of truth in relations between states." 1985 became the year of the summit, of a faster tempo and a softer tone in U.S.-Soviet relations. The President's invitation to meet, issued in March, had been his very first message to the new Soviet leader and reflected a widespread hope that the passing of the Kremlin's "old men" might permit East-West conciliation. Yet the leaders' more direct involvement and even their apparently amiable personal relationship could hardly resolve the contentious issues between the two sides. For this purpose, the relative strength of their bargaining positions remained decisive. In the course of the year, each side therefore sought to overcome those problems that in the past had weakened it in the superpower competition.
