Caesar 46 - Institute for the USA: The Kremlin's New Approach to America Watching

8/2/2019 Caesar 46 - Institute for the USA: The Kremlin's New Approach to America Watching

1/44

I .I .

IA!$?ROVED FO R RELEASEDATF: JUN 2 0 0 7

1 .

. I

I I

UI 1 8QCT1989

DIRECTORATE OFINTELLIGENCE

Intelligence ReportII. ...< HR7 0 - 14(U)


2/44

. .,

!i


3/44

INSTITUTE FOR THE USA:THE KREMLIN'S NEW APPROACH TO AMERICA-WATCHING

MEMORANDUM TO RECIPIENTS:American Kre mlin olog is t s v iewing t h e S o v i e t scenethrough t h e c r a c k s i n t h e Kremlin wall sometimes have t h ef e e l i n g t h a t s o m e o n e is looking back a t them.They are c o r r e c t . His name is Yuriy A . Arbatov,and h e i s t h e Chief of t h e newly-formed I n s t i t u t e f o r t h eU S A c r e a t e d t o pr ov id e t h e P o l i t b u r o a b e t t e r b a s i s f o runder s t and ing t h e U nit ed S t a t e s i n a l l i t s c o m p l e x i t i e s .Should w e be rea ss ure d o r a larmed by t h e knowledget h a t Moscow has t h e n a t i o n u n de r s c r u t i n y by p r o f e s s i o n a la n a l y s t s r a t h e r t h an p a r t y d og ma ti st s? T h i s I n t e l l i g e n c eR ep or t p r e s e n t s a b a s i s f o r r e a c h i n g a judgment on t h i sq u e s t i o n by a n a l y z i n g t h e p o l i t i c a l and p r o f e s s i o n a lp h i l o s o p h i e s o f t h e man and h i s I n s t i t u t e a s r e ve al edi n h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s and s ta t e m e n t s .T h i s s t u d y was p r e p a r e d s o l e l y by SRS. I t hasbeen reviewed i n OSR and OCI, an d i t encoun te red no

s u b s t a n t i v e d i sa g re e m en t . The r e s e a r c h a n a l y s t i ncharge was A r t h u r Cohen.

gn KerryChfe f , I S p e c i a l R e s e a r t a f f


4/44


Con t e n t sPage-Summary................................................i

I n t r oduc t i on . . . . ........................................I . S t a l i n ' s L a t e r Years: D i s t o r t i n g t h e AmericanScene ...........................................lXI. T he Gradua l S h i f t t o Non-Dis tor t ing Resea rch .....

A. The R i s e of America-Expert Yuriy A .B. Ar ba to v' s E ar l y Commitment t o Non-

Arbatov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 4Dogmatic Research .......................... 1 2

111. O r ig in o f t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA.. . . . . . . . . . . .15A. America-Watching i n O t h e r I n s t i t u t e s ........ 5B. Es tabl i shment of t h e I n s t i t u t e f o rt h e USA ....................................19

1. T he C en t ra l Committee's Demand f o r"Complex" (Mu1 i - d i s c i p l i n e )Socia l Sc ience Res 'earch ................ 92. By-Passing t h e Competi t ion .............. 1The New Approach Underway ....................... 23V.A . Arbatov A s I n t e r p r e t e r of t h e U.S.f o r t h e P o l i t b u r o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 31. H i s Direct Access t o S o v i e t L e ad e rs . .. . .2 32. H i s O b j e c t i v e Approach t o America-Watching .........................,......25

3. H i s P o s i t i o n on a Major Pol icy I s sue :Soviet-Amer ican DisarmamentN e go t i a t i ons ........................... 29B. The Pr oba b l e I n f l ue nc e o f t h e NewApproach ...................................31


5/44

ond Punitive Policy SystemI. A. Shvadkov ( ch i e f )


6/44

Yuriy Arkadyevich Arbatov Director, Institute for the USA


7/44

INSTITUTE FOR THE U S A :THE KREMLIN'S NEW APPROACH TO AMERICA-WATCHING

Summary

A me ri ca -w atch ing du r i ng S t a l i n ' s l i f e t i m e d i s t o r t e da nd ove r s im p l i f i e d t h e complex pro ces s of po l icy- formu la t io ni n t h e U.S., a nd a na lys e s o f t h e American sc en e had t ocomply w i t h S t a l i n ' s a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n of 1 94 7 t o a d o p ta h a r s h l i n e to wa rd t h e U.S. I n t h e Khrushchev p e r i o d ,S t a l i n i s t d i s t o r t i o n of t h e U.S. f o r t h e f i r s t time wass ub j e c t ed t o o f f i c i a l c r i t i c i s m , but Khrushchev pe rm i t t edamateur ism t o dominate America-watching because h e (ands e v e r a l of h i s c l o s e c o l l e a g u es ) a c t e d a s t h e i r owne x p e r t s . I t was n o t u n t i l December 1967, when t h e In-s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA was e s t a b l i s h e d , t h a t a p r o f e s s i o n a la nd s ys t e m a t i c a ppr oac h t o unde r s t and ing t h e complexf o r c e s i n f l u e n c i n g p o l i c y i n America was i n i t i a t e d . Thepos t-Khrushchev le ad e r s recognized t h e a b s o l u t e n e c e s s i t yf o r h a vi n g o b j e c t i v e ( " s c i e n t i f i c " ) a n a l y s es o f t hesecomplex forces . They p r o b a b l y were c onv inc e d t ha t t h eb l u n d e r s r e s u l t i n g f ro m K hr us hc he v' s d i l e t t a n t e ap pr oa cht o p o l i c y t ow ard t h e U.S. co ul d be avo ided on ly by nur-t u r i n g a r e a l p r o f es s io n a li s m.The man they se l ec t ed f r o m ' th e C e n t r a l C om mi tt eea p p a r a t u s i n December 1967 t o d e ve l op t h e new I n s t i t u t e ,Yur iy A. Arbatov (b . 19231, i s a wel l - informed ex pe r t ont h e U.S. whose j ud gm en ts a r e r e l a t i v e l y f r e e from doc-t r i n a l d i s t o r t i o n . I n t h e 1950s, h e made h i s mark a sa new kind of p a r t y p u b l i c i s t who d e fe nd ed MOSCOW ' Sp o l i c i e s on t h e b a s i s o f f a c t u a l i n f or m a ti o n a nd l o g i c ,a v o i d i n g s u c h S t a l i n i s t c r u d i t i e s a s t r y i n g t o c a r r y ap o i n t by br a nding a n opponen t a s " f a s c i s t . " By t h e m i d -1960s, when h e began t o work a s an America-expert on mores e r i o u s m a t t er s of p o l i c y f o r t h e Ce nt ra l Committeeapparatus, he became one of t h e l e a d ing a dvoc a t e s o fl i b e r a l i z e d r e s e a r c h on t h e U.S. H e championed t h e


8/44

concep t of a mu l t i - d i sc ip l i ne ("complex") approach t oAmerica-watching--an approach w h i c h probed t h e s o c i a l ,p o l i t i c a l , e co no mi c, a nd i d e o l o gi c a l f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n gW a sh in g to n 's p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s .Arbatov is f a r b e t t e r informed on American deve lop-ments than t h e o l d e x p e r t s . H e r e j e c t s t h e S t a l i n i s t dogma,which apparen t ly is s t i l l h e l d by some S o v i e t s , t h a t p o l i c yis made by on ly a homogenous "m in is cu le handf u1" i n Washing-t o n d i r e c t l y s e r v i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s of a homogenous group i nWall St ree t . H e a s s i g n s r e a l impor tance t o d i sp u t es amongd i v e r s e f o r c e s w i t h i n t h e Admin i s t r a t ion and Congress ,t o p r e s s u r e s from n o n - o f f i c i a l g r o up s , a nd t o economic

p ro bl em s. The I n s t i t u t e has a Sect ion on The U.S. Fore ignPolicy.Mechanism, and one of t h e t o p i c s u n d e r s y s t e m a t i cs c r u t i n y is how American fo r e i gn po l i cy is made. AnotherS e c t i n n p r ob e s S o vi e to l o gy i n t h e USA. A t t h e same t i m e ,a s a n e x p e r t making i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r t h e p o l i t b u r o ,h e is an opponent of re se ar ch work on t h e U.S. w h i c h isno t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o po l i cy p rob lems .I n t h e c o u r s e of e s t a b l i s h i n g A rb at ov 's I n s t i t u t e ,t h e S o v i e t l e ade r s by-passed America-exper ts wi th in an ot he re x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t e - - a p p a r e n t l y because t h e y were d i s p l e a s e dw i t h t h e q u a l i t y of t h e o l d Dr t and t h e a b i l i t y oft h e old men. c r i b e d one of theseas a p a r t y h a c k ,

c A A ~ a a A U uu1.1 R, ana r;ne PO se ss o r o f a p lodd ing,d u l l mind, dedica ted t o t h e dogmatic vPew t h a t t h e U.S.is comple te ly " i mp er i a l i s t i c . " By co n t r a s t , men whohave t a lk ed wi t h Arba tov de p i c t h im as h i g h l y i n t e l l i g e n tand eager t o e xp an d h i s a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r a b l e f u n d ofknowledge on the U.S. His ide olo gy (Marxism) does no tp r e v e n t h im f r o m a c c u r a t e l y a p p r a i s i n g t h e d i v e r s e f o r c e ss t work on American p o l i c y makers. Some of t h e s p e c i a l i s t sh e has recrui ted a r e more informed and open-minded th ant h e t r a d i t i o n a l dogmat ic America-watcher , whom he hasd i s p a r ag e d a s w ea r e rs o f i d e o l o g i c a l " b l i n d e r s . '' Arbatovprobab ly w i l l have t o wage a c o n ti n ui n g s t r u g g l e a g a i n s tc o m p e t it o r s i n o t h e r i n s t i t u t e s an d men i n t h e p a r t y ,


9/44

who m ight p r e f e r a r e tu r n t o t he more s im p l i s t i c ( andd i s t o r t e d ) v i e w of pol icy-making i n t h e U.S.A r ba tov ha s s t a t e d t h a t h e is ca l le d upon t o makei n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Amer ican pol icy " to t h e p o l i t b u r o . t fH i s I n s t i t u t e a p p a r e n t l y p r o d u c e s e s t i m a t i v e as w e l l a sa n a l y t i c a l pa p er s on U.S. p o l i c y . The I n s t i t u t e f u n ct i on smore as an a d j u n c t bf t h e C e n t r a l C om mi tt ee 's I n t e r n a t i o n a land Bloc depar tments th an as a sc ho la r l y component of t h eAcademy of Sc ie nc e s - - i t s f o r m a l r o l e .A r ba tov r e po r t e d ly h a s access, beyond t h e C e n t r a lCommittee depa r tments , t o s p e c i f i c men i n t h e po l i t bu r o - -

p a r t i c u l a r l y t o Kosygin and Sus lov . So vi e t sou rcesi n d i c a t e t h a t A rb at ov 's h i g h - le v el s u p p o r t e r s f a c i l i t a t eth e p r oc e s s of r e c r u i tm e n t of h igh - qua l i t y pe r s onne l .But i t i s n o t c lea r t h a t h e h a s ' t h e s u p p o rt of a l l S o v i e tl e a d e r s , o r , more p r e c i s e l y , t h a t h e h a s received e q u a lencouragement from a l l .I n t h i s connect ion, Arbatov has been a prominents poke s m a n f o r t hos e Sov i e t leaders who are a n x io u s t oa t t a i n a d isarmament agreement through ne go t ia t io ns .P r i v a t e l y a nd i n I z v e s t i a h e ha s warned American policymakers aga ins t de+y ng disarmament ta lks .s i o n w i t h f o r m e r Se c r e t a r y of Defense McNamara on31 January 1969, Arbatov argued by implica t ion t h e need

f o r i n f l u e n t i a l Americans t o s t re n gt h en t h e hand ofmodera tes i n t h e S o vi e t Union, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e S o v i e td e c i s i o n t o en ga ge i n arms t a l k s w as a c o n t r o v e r s i a l o ne ,t h a t d eep d i v i s i o n s e x i s t ed i n t h e Soviet government ont h i s i s s u e , and t h a t many who now su p p or te d t h e t a l k shad on ly r e c e n t l y moved t o t h a t pos i t i on . Subs eque nt l y ,o t h e r members of h i s I n s t i t u t e i n s i s t e d p r i v a t e l y t ot h a t arms t a l k s must n o t beae iayea o r DLOCKea. ~ n i ne was s e l f - s e r v in g , be ingi n te nd ed t o c r e a t e a sense of urgency among Americano f f i c i a l s t o s t a r t ne go t i a t i ons . N e ve r the l e s s , i tp r o b a b l y a l s o r e f l e c t e d t h e r e a l view of t h o s e l e a d e r sw i t h whom Arbatov had c l o s e c o n t a c t s .

I n h i s d i s c u s -

-iii-


10/44

Thus Arbatov and h i s I n s t i t u t e e xp er ts are no ton ly enga ge d i n po l i c y s uppo r t , b u t a l s o t h e y a ppe a r t oh a v e commit ted themselves t o t h e sup por t o f one s ide - -o r fac t ion-on a major is su e . Thi s means t h a t Arba tov ' sf i nd in gs have been , and probably w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be,e x p l o i t a b l e m a t e r i a l s f o r some ( r a t h e r t h a n a l l ) p o l i t b u r omembers on va r ious i ssues conce rn ing pol icy toward t h e U.S.However, t h i s does not mean t h a t A rb at ov d e l i b e r a t e l y h a sd i s t o r t e d , o r w i l l d i s t o r t , h i s f i n d i n g s i n o r d e r t o com-p r e s s t hem i n t o a preconceived pol ic y-sup por t package .The I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA has made i t p o s s i b l e f o rt h e p o l i t b u r o t o a p p r a i s e Wa sh in gt on 's v a r i o u s p o l i c ya c t i o n s w i t h i n c r ea s e d . r a t i o n a l i t y - - i . e . , w i t h g re a t e raccu racy and comprehension. The req uir emen t t h a t s i m -p l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i on s o f a ny Am eri can poli cy -move m u s tbe re jected s hou ld b u t t r e s s any tendency among t h e S o v i e tleaders t o examine American pol icy i n a more open-mindedway th an i n t h e p a s t . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t , t h e work ofArbatov and h i s s t a f f s h o u l d r e d u c e t h e de gr e e of e r r o ri n S ov i e t a p p r a i s a l s of U.S. i n t e n t i o n s on s p e c i f i c i s s u e s .What a c t i o n s Moscow w i l l t a k e on t h e b a s i s of thisimproved comprehension i s a n o t h e r m a t t e r . The more open-minded Soviet l eaders may not have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o u s enew in s i gh t s t o r educe f r i c t i o n s i n S o vi et -A me ri canr e l a t i o n s . T h e i r r e l a t i v e l y increased open-mindednessw o u l d c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e d oc t ri n e- s oa k ed p o l i c i e s o f t h epos t- Khrushchev pe r iod , i n f l ue nc e d s i gn i f i c a n t l y by t h eco nse rv a t i ve th i nki ng of Brezhnev .Brezhnev has demanded, i n re ce nt ye ars , a c l o se rwatch in t h e USSR over t h e i n c u r s i o n of Western ideas .I n t h i s sense , Arba tov is wo rk in g i n a s i t u a t i o n ofc o n f l i c t i n g l e a d e r s h i p a im s. On t h e one hand, t h el ea de r sh ip demands an improved e f fo r t - - inc l udi ng ob jec t iv ea nalys is - -on i n t e r p r e t i ng f o r e ign de ve lopme n ts , r e s u l t i n gi n t h e s t r e ng the n ing o f t h e g e o gr a ph i ca l i n s t i t u t e s . Ont h e o the r ha nd , t he re i s an increased emphasis on com-b a t t i n g f o r e i g n i n f l u e n c e s , r e s u l t i n g i n a demand f o rg r e a t e r d o c t r i n a l or th od ox y i n t h e i n s t i t u t e s c o n c e r n e d


11/44

w i t h h$ st or y, Marxism-Leninism, and phi loso phy. T h e s ec o n f l i c t i ng a im s may be re f lec ted i n t h e j o u r n a l s o o n t obe pub l i s he d by A r b a t o v ' s I n s t i t u t e . Art ic les may con-t a i n a m ix tu r e of s ome d i s t o r t i o n a nd some a c c u r a t ed e p i c t i o n of American develop ments. However, t h e r e isless l i k e l ih o o d t h a t t h e demand f o r gr ea te r or thodoxyw i l l c o r r u p t t h e c l a s s i f i e d p a pe r s p ro du ce d by Arbatovand h i s r e s e a r c h e r s f o r t h e e y e s of t h e pol icy-makers only.

. . _,


12/44

.... .


I n t r o d u c t i o nThe e f f o r t t o de ve lo p a r e a l i s t i c u nd er st an di ng oft h e A me ri can p o l i t i c a l s c e n e was a g r a d u a l p r o c e s s a f t e rS t a l i n ' s d e a t h . One of h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l l eg ac ie s- na me ly ,

a g r o s s l y d i s t o r t e d image of t h e U.S .--li ved on amongpa r t y worker s and academic ians i n t h e K h ru s hc h ev p e r i o d .More and more, however, t h e S o v i e t l e a d e r s r e c o g n i z e dt h a t d i v e r s e a nd complex p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l f o r c e s werei n f l u e n c i n g t h e fo rmula t ion o f U.S. f o r e i g n p o l i c y a n dt h a t i t was t o t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o make an a c c u r a t e( o b j e c t i v e ) a n a l y s i s of these f o r c e s .I . S t a l i n ' s L a t e r Y ea rs : D i s t o r t i n g t h e AmericanP o l i t i c a l S cene

The b a s i s o f Am er ic a- wa tc hi ng d u r i n g S t a l i n ' s l a t e ryears (1947-1953) was ha rd ly more th an a pr os pe ri ng dog-matism. S t a l i n ' s d o c t r i n a l b i a s s e v e r e l y hampered researchand an al ys is . Moreover, h i s con cep t ion of what t h e S o v i e ti n t e r n a l c o n t r o l s y s te m s h o u l d b e- -t ha t i s , h i s v i e w t h a tp o l i c e c o n t r o l s s h o u l d be p e rv a s iv e -- k e pt S o v i e t r e s e a r c h e r swal l ed o f f f rom sour ces w h ich would have revealed t h ei n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y of developments i n t h e U.S. and t h eneed f o r s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y s i s .of t h e s i m p l i s t i c myth of government control by "WallS t r e e t " w h ich d e p i c t e d one g ro up of c a p i t a l i s t s a l t e r n a t i n gw i t h a n o t h e r a t t h e h e l m of government fo l lowin g na t io na le l e c t i o n s . T h i s d i s t o r t i o n s u p p r e s s e d kn ow le dge of s h a r pd i f f e r ences on po l i cy i s sues among Congress iona l Democra t sand Republ icans and wi th in t h e C a b i n e t . I t a l s o s up -p ressed any under s t and ing o f t h e new phenomena, namely,(1) t h e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n among American t l c a p i t a l i s t s l ' - -b i g , midd le , and smal l , (2 ) t h e r i s e o f i n f l u e n t i a l

H e r e q u i r e d a c c e p t a n c e

-1-


13/44

. .

. .. ._. .. ..,...... ~. .

c o r p o r a t i o n ma na ge rs a nd h i g h - l e v e l t e c h n i c a l p e r s o n n e la s a r e s u l t of t h e m a n ag e r ia l r e v o l u t i o n , a nd (3) t h eb ig i n c r e a s e i n t h e r a nk s of i n t e l l e c t u a l s who w e r ebecoming in f l ue n t i a l a s opinion-makers of t h e newurban and suburban m i d d l e c l a s s . I n s h o r t , t h e deepd i v e r s i t y of i n t e r e s t s of d i f f e r e n t g r ou ps w i t h i n t h ec a p i t a l i s t c l a s s s ho ul d have been a m a j o r r e s e a r c h t a r g e tbu t was no t s tu d i ed , inasmuch as i t c o n f l i c t e d w i t hS t a l i n ' s d o c t r i n a l v i e w of t h e bas ic American dichotomy--name1 , homogenous " c a p i t a l i s t " i n t e r e s t s c o m pe ti ng w i t hhomogenous "prole tar ian" in teresks .S t a l i n would n o t r e l a x c o n t r o l s s u f f i c i e n t l y t o

p e r m i t r e s e a r c h e r s t o work o u t an a c c u r a t e v i e w of thesed i v e r s e A merican i n t e r e s t s . H e a p p a r e n t l y b e li q v ed t h a the a l r e ady knew a l l he had t o know regarding how p o l i c ywas made. H e was d e d i c a t e d t o Le n i n ' s v i e w t h a t i t wasmade by "a m i n i s c u l e h a nd fu l " of c a p i t a l i s t s who, a sl ike -minded ind iv idua l s , were o b l i g a t e d o n ly t o a dv an cet h e e c o n o m i c i n t e r e s t s of "Wal l S t r ee t ." I n t e l l i g e n c er e p o r t i n g on t h e U.S. a p p a r e n t l y p r o v i d e d him w i t h t h ef a c t u a l i n fo r ma t io n he needed whenever he had t o deter-mine what major policies had been made. H e a p p a r e n t l yd i d n o t want a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t s , s u c h a s might have beenp r o v i d e d h i m by American s p e c i a l i s t s , r e g a r d i n g d i f f e r e n tp o l i c y v i e w s w i t h i n t h e U.S. government and among influ-e n t i a l f i g u r e s on t h e o u t s i d e . H i s "Wall Street" dogmawas t h e s u b s t i t u t e f o r i n s i g h t , a nd he seems t o havedowngraded, o r d is cou nte d , t h e i m p l ic a t i on s f o r p o li c yof in t e rn a l government d i s pu te s and ex t r a-governmentp r e s s u r e s .

E v e r s i n c e h i s c am pa ig n a g a i n s t " s e r v i l i t y t ow ar dt h e West" w h i c h was l aunched i n 1947 s imul t aneou s ly w i t ht h e Cold War, res ea rch er s anal yzi ng t h e Amer ican "po l i t i -c a l economy" soug ht s e c u r i t y i n an a r i d , q u o ta t io n -l a de napp roa ch. Those who worked i n t h e I n s t i t u t e of WorldEconomy and World Po l i t i c s , of t h e Academy of S c i e n c e s ,had j u s t wi tnessed t h e d e n u n c i a t i o n o f i t s D i r e c t o r ,Eugene Varga , f o r wr i t in g t h a t Weste rn cap i t a l i s m wouldbe t e m p o r a r i l y f r e e fro m c r i s es , o r " s t a b i l i z e d , " f o rabout 10 y e a r s . P r e v i o u s l y , t h i s had b ee n s i m i l a r t oS t a l i n ' s own v i e w . But when S t a l i n changed i t i n 1 94 7,

-2-


14/44

p r e f e r r i n g t h a t researchers pos tu l a t e a n " im m ine n teconomic c r i s i s , " t h e I n s t i t u t e was a b o l i s he d . I t sr e s e a r c h e r s were t r a ns f e r r e d , becoming a mere s e c t i on - -t h e S ec ti o n on Economics of Contemporary Ca pi ta li sm ,I n s t i t u t e of Economics , f rom 1947 t o 1956. They wereu n ab l e t o a c q u i r e f o r e i g n p u b l i c a t i o n s and w e r e impe l ledt o d i s t o r t t h e American scene, inasmuch as " E v e r y Marxis twork on t h e economics of c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s mu s t be ab i l l of ind ic tm ent ." (Pravda , 2 September 1950) W h i l eS t a l i n l i v e d , a c c u r a t e s t u d i e s were d e r i d e d as poisonousp r o d u c t s of f f bour ge o i s ob j e c t i v i s m ." A s t h e s o n ofA na s ta s Yikoya n, Se r go , l a t e r pu t i t , r e s e a r c h e r s i nV a rga 's i n s t i t u t e had be en " s uppr e s se d . f 1

11. T he Gradual S h i f t t o Non-Dis tor ting Resea rchF ol lo w in g S t a l i n ' s d e a t h i n March 1 95 3, p a r t i c u l a r l yi n t h e f a l l of 1955, t h e f i r s t s i g n s of a l i b e r a l i z i n gthaw b egan t o a pp ea r i n a r t i c l e s on t h e problem ofo b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s of c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i es . S ch ol ar swere t o l d t h a t a new e r a had begun and th a t t h e y m u s ts t o p d i s t o r t i n g a nd o v e rs i m pl i f yi n g :Many s c i e n t i s t s t a k e up a dogmatic and over-s i m p l i f y i n g a t t i t u d e t ow ar d t h e economics i t u a t i o n of pr e s e n t - da y c a p i t a l i s m . T h i sf i n d sL e x p re s si o n i n an un e xp l ai n ed r e j e c t i o no r a s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e a c h i e ve m e n t s a t t a i ne di n t h e c a p i t a l i s t c o un t r i e s i n t h e developmentof pr oduc t i on , s c i e nc e , a nd t e c hno logy .(Problems of Economics, #lo, Februa ry 1955)

P a r t y p e r so n n e l, t o o , were d i r e c t e d t o a v o i d " o v e r s im p l i fy -i n g i d e a s a b o u t t h e decay of c a p i t a l i s m w h i c h are nowcu rr en t i n our propaganda ." (Kommunis t, #14, September1955) A b ig s t e p i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of o b j e c t i v e r e s e a rc hwas made by Mikoyan i n h i s speech of 16 February 1956t o t h e 20th CPSU Congress when h e demanded acc ur acy i no r d er t o e x p l ai n " t h e c om ple x i t y a nd c on t r a d i c to r yn a tu r e" of d e ve lo pm en ts i n c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s . H ecompla ined tha t academic ians had l i m i t e d t h e m s e l v e s t o


15/44

s e l e c t i n g i s o l a t e d f a c t s t o p ro ve , " f o r p ur po se s ofa g i t a t i o n , " t h e approaching cr is is of c a p i t a l i s m an di mp ov er is hm en t of t h e w o r ke r s, f a i l i n g t o p ro v i d e " ana l l - s i d e d , d ee p e v a l ua t i on " o f e v e n t s i n c a p i t a l i s tc o u n t r i e s .V ar ga 's o l d i n s t i t u t e was r e v i v e d and expanded,f o l l o w i n g t h e C o n gr e s s, t o be t h e p r e s e n t - d a y I n s t i t u t eof World Economics and In te rn a t io na l R e la t ions . ButAmerica-watching was s t i l l l i m i t e d i n s c o pe , h a v i n g been.oonf&ned t o one of s i x " se c ti on s "- -t he s m a l l S e c t i o n f o rProblems of American Imperialism--in t h e I n s t i t u t e .B e t t e r w or ki ng c o n d i t i o n s f o r i t s r e s e a r c h e r s i n c l u d e d

a c c e s s t o A me ri can s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s , a nd o ne r e p o r t s ug -g e s t s t h a t on occasion Section members were d ra wn i n t oj o i n t a s k f o r c e s p r e p ar i n g p a pe r s t o serve a s backgroundin fo rmat i on f o r men i n th e Cen t r a l Commit tee. I t may beconjectured , however , t h a t t h e S e c t i o n c h i e f d i d no thave d i r e c t access t o t h e t o p S o v i e t l e a d e r s h i p a nd t h a tt h e work of h i s S e c t i o n u s u a l l y was n o t o r i e n t e d t ow ar dp o l i c y .A . The R i s e of America-Expert Yu r i y A. Arbatov

Y u r i y (o r Georgiy) Arkadyevich Arbatov (b. 1923),by t r a i n i n g a "Doc to r of Ph i los oph ica l Sc iences" and a"Candidate of Law" who had graduated from t h e U n i v e r s i t yof Moscow, made h i s mark i n t h e 1950s a s a p a r ty p u b l i c i s ton p o l i t i c a l d e ve lo pm en ts i n c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s , p a r t i c -u l a r l y on i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r r e n t s i n t h e U.S. By t h emid-1960s he was work ing fo r t h e Centra l Commit teea p p a r a t u s . A s a p o s t - S t a l i n c r i t i c of American i n t e l l e c -t ua l deve lopment s , h e t r i e d t o make h i s c r i t i q u e sconvincing and c r ed ib l e , w h i c h meant that h e had t oread ex t ens ive ly i n U.S. books , j o u r na l s , and researchp ap e rs i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e American p r es s . I n 1956, fo l -lowing t h e 20 th CPSU Cong ress, Arbat ov a pp re nt ly wase n co ur ag e d t o make a v a i l a b l e t o r e s e a r c h e r s A meri canmater ia l s , p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n of t r a i n i n g themt o w r i te "convincing and w e11-grounded c r i t i q u e s 1- -Arba tov ' s phrase-of Western p o l i t i c a l i dea s . H e d e c l a r e d


16/44

t h a t t h e "enormous qu an t i ty of f a c tu a l in fo rmat ion t1a c cu m ul a te d by W e st e rn s o c i o l o g i s t s s h o u l d b e "used byu s , c r i i c a l1 . (T h i s is t h e more necessary because t h ee m p $ r i c a l s t u d i e s of b ou r ge o is s o c i o l o g i s t sf r e q u e n t l y c o n t a i n m a t e r ia l w h i c h cannot bef ou nd i n o t h e r s o u r c e s . . . e v e n d i s r e g a r d i n gt h e i de a of app ly ing s u c h s t u d i e s t o o urc o u n t r y , a nd c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y t h e use of t h ef a c t u a l m a t e r i a l t h e y c o n t a in f o r t h e s t u d yof c a p i t a l i s t s o ck e ty , w e must r ecogn ize thevolume of suc h ma te r i a l and no t ignore i t .The c r i t i c a l m a st e ry and a s s i m i l a t i o n , on aM a r x is t b a s i s , of s u c h m a t e r i a l w i l l undoubt-e dl y f a c i l i t a t e t h e st ud y of contemporaryc a p i t a 1 s m .October 1956) (Problems of P h i o o u hi ,

For a c r ed ib l e c r i t i q u e of W es te rn s o c i o l o g i s t s a nd f o ra new under s t and ing o f Wes tern s o c i e t i e s , academic ianswere e nc ou ra ge d t o e x p l o i t t h e p u b l i s he d w r i t i n g s of"bourgeoi s" sc ho la r s . They were t o be in fo rmed c r i t i c s ,r a t h e r t h a n ig n o r a n t c r i t i c s , of t h e U . S .1956, Arbatov had had access t o A meric an s c h o l a r l yp u b l i c a t i o n s f o r s p e c i a l p ro pa ga nd a us e . H e had beenw r i t i n g l lc o nv i nc i ng t l c r i t i q u e s of. American ev en ts . Forexample, access t o f o r e i g n m a t e r i a l s h ad b ee n i n d i c a t e di n h i s c r i t i c a l a n a ly s is of USIA, w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e di n Kommunist, May 1955. H i s a n a l y s i s was unusual , inasmucha s i t r e f l e c t e d c a r e f u l a nd d e t a i l e d r es ea rch , d r awing onmany c ur re n t American government, newspaper , and academics o u r c e s . F a r f ro m b e i n g t h e work of an o rd ina ry pa r typ o l e m ic i s t i n t h e S t al i n- Zhd a no v t r a d i t i o n , A rb a t ov ' sa r t i c l e i n d i c a t e d a s o p h i s t i c a t e d u n d er s t an d i ng o f t h ecomplexi ty of t h e American l lp syc ho log ica l war fa re appa-r a t u s , " of t h e deba te being waged a t t h e t i m e i n C o ng r es sover t h e new USIA budget, and of t h e ideas o f s c h o l a r ss p e c i a l i z i n g i n p s y ch ol o gi ca l warfare o p e r a t i o n s , s u c ha s P r o f e s s o r s La s s w e l l a n d L i n e b a r g e r . Access t o t h e

Even before t h e 20 th CPSU Cong res sin Febru ary

-5-


17/44

Y

w ork s o f o t h e r Am er ic an s p e c i a l i s t s o n p u b l i c o p in ib nd -e .g . , Wa lte r Lippmann and Rober t Strausz-Hupe--wasi n d i c a t e d by Arbatov 's pamphlet publ ished i n March 1956o n t h e ' k o l e o f t h e masses i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . "The Khrushchevian tone of t h i s p am ph le t s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t stha t immedia te ly a f t e r t h e l i b e r a l i z i n g 2 0 t h C o n g r e s s ,Arbatov commit ted h imsel f t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y e m pi r ic a lp o l i c i e s of Khrushchev and Mikoyan. H e w a s a s o p h i s t i c a t e dw r i t e r , and h e m u s t have f e l t t h a t h e could advance morer a p i d l y w i t h i n t h e par ty ' s p ropaganda appara tus than t h ec o nv e nt i on a l h ack , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t a t i m e when oversimpli-f i c a t i o n w a s under a t t a c k .A rb at ov t h e r e a f t e r , i n h i s s p e c i a l f i e l d a s a"convincing" c r i t i c of American scholars, u s e d h i s oppor-t u n i t i e s t o s u p p o r t K hr us hc he vi an p o l i c i e s . I n t h e above-mentioned March 1956 pamphlet, f o r example, h e defendedt h e p o s i t i o n s t h a t the re can be a "par l iamentary road" t op ow e rf or Communists i n c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r i e s a nd t h a t t h e r ei s "no f a t a l i n e v i t a b i l i t y of w ar s. " I n h i s r e v i e w ofP r o f e s s o r C. Wright M i l l s ' book, --he Power E l i t e (1956),publ ishe d i n Pravda on 21 December 1956, h e i m p l i c i t l yre jec ted t h e Molotov v i e w t h a t n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e U.S.were h ar mf ul t o S o v i e t i n t e r e s t s . A rb at ov w r ot e f a v o r a b l yabou t t h e i d e a of n e g o t i a t i o n s a nd d e t e n t e i n h i s c r i t i q u eof Herman Wouk (New T i m e s , # 5 , February 1957) . In ana t t a ck on S tr ausz-Hupe , he p ra i se d t h e i de a of " r e a l i s t i c. . . m u t u a l consen t " a s a g a i n s t i n t e r n a t i o n a l "u lt im at um s"as t h e way t o peace (New T i m e s , #16, Ap r i l 1957) . Arbatovmade a d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw ee n t h o s e i n f l u e n t i a l Americanwri ters who fav ore d de te nt e and th os e who opposed i t , an dhe d i sp la y ed c o n s i d e ra b l e s k i l l i n s u b j e c t i n g S t r a u s z -H up e' s a n t i - d e t e n t e a rg um en ts t o a r a t i o n a l c r i t i q u e .I n t h i s r o l e , h e was an e a r l y member of t h e newgroup of ra t ional -minded pa r t y p u b l ic is t s who defended

MOSCOW'S p o l i c i e s o n t h e b a s i s of f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n ,a v o i d i n g t h e o ld s t andard p ropaganda c l i c h e s i n o r d er t oconvey a s e n s e of s o b r i e ty i n t h e i r approach. Arbatovd i s c a r d e d s u c h S t a l i n i s t c ru d i t i e s as t r y i n g t o c a r ry apo i n t by b rand ing an opponent a s "Fasc i s t '1 o r " r eac t ion -a r y . " F or e xa mp le , i n c r i t i c i z i n g a VOA b r o a d c a s t e r ,


18/44

. ..*....

Arbatov made on ly one sa r c a s t i c remark a bo u t ' t he manper son a l l y , and wen t on t o d i s s e c t t h e b r o a d c a s t ' s c o n t e n t ,u s i n g l o g i c a s h i s major weapon. (New Times, #14, A p r i l1 95 7) Th i s ap p ro a ch was n o t e n t i r e l y o b j e c t i v e , b u t i tmay have b e e n e f f e c t i v e w i t h t h e 500,000 reader -audienceof New Times.A s a n a m b it i ou s p a r t y m e m b e r , Arbatov u s e d h i sacademic t r a i n i n g f o r p o l i t i c a l r a t h e r t ha n s c h o l a r l ya r t i c l e s . They were a l l d i s t i n g u i s h e d by a bas ic or thodoxyo f l i n e , w ha t ev e r t h a t or thodoxy w a s a t a n y p a r t i c u l a r l t i m e ,a n d c o m b i n e d r i c h l y e l a b o r a t e d d e t a i l , i n c l u d i n g t h e appear--nce of a s c h o la r l y s t r u c t u r e . H e showed considerablek no wle dg e i n r e f u t i n g s i x BBC b r o a d c a s t s b y t h e formerB r i t i s h Vice-consul i n MOSCOW, S i r R.B. Lockar t , makingL o c ka r t ' s h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s a p p ea r t o be " lu d i cr o us ."(&y Times , #50, December 1967) H e was a l s o c o m fo r ta b lei n w r i t in g on d o c t r i n a l matters , bu t h e proved t o be al e s s a b l e ad v oc a te i n t h i s f i e l d when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h et a s k of d i s p a r a g i n g s u c h s e r i o u s s t u d e n t s of Marx i s t i deo logya s P r o f e s s o r I s i a h B e r l i n o n P le kh an ov (New Ti mes , # 6 ,February 1957) and P ro fesso r Maurice Crans ton on t h e "non-s c i e n t i f i c " n a t u r e o f M a rx i s t 'law s.Apr i l 1957) (N ew Times, #13,A rb at ov 's a b i l i t y t o s u r v i v e a nd p r o s p e r i n t h e

p a r t y i s a t l e a s t p a r t l y t h e r e s u l t of h i s w i l l i n g n e s st o s h i f t w i t h c h a n g e s o f d i r e c t i o n . T h e H u n g a r i a n r e v o l tof October-November 1956 l e d t o a temporary slowdown i nl i b e r a l i z a t i o n . When t h e p a r t y a t t a c k e d n o n - p a r t yh i s t o r i a n s f o r h a vi ng m i s r e p re s e n t e d t h e " s t r u g g l e a g a i n s tv u l g a r i z a t i o n " t o mean " a d op t in g a t o l e r a n t a t t i t u d etoward t h e i deo logy o f t h e b o u rg e o is i e " ( P a r t y L i f e , #23,December 1956) and when t h e government is su ed a decree( 7 March 1957) demanding t h a t Problems of H i s t o r y d e d i c a t ei t s e l f t o " pa rt yn es s" i n h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r ch , A rba to va p p l i e d t h e new s t r i c t u r e s t o S o vi e t s o c i o l o g i s t s . H ewarned t h a t t h e i r s o c i o l o g y " c a n n o t be non-party" or c u tof f f rom Marx i s t va lues and t h a t , c o n t ra r y t o F r e u d i a n 'v i e w s i n t h e West, S o v i e t s c h o l a r s mu s t see "classs t r u g g l e " as t h e b a s i s o f p s y c h o l og i c a l t e n s i o n s i nsoc ie ty . (P rob lems of Phi losophy , #2, Apr i l 1957)


19/44

Fol lowing t h e June 1957 Ce n tr al Committee Plenumwhere Khrushchev won a ma jor v i c t or y ov e r S t a l i n i s topponents , Arba tov wrote i n de fen se of Khrushchevianp o s i t i o n s a s t h e S o v i e t l e a d e r c o n t i n u e d t o a dv an cea g a i n s t t h e "Ant i -Pa r ty Group." Unl ike th e ne o- St a l in i s t s ,who viewed W es ter n l e a d e r s h i p s a s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c a b a l sof war p lanne rs , Arba tov depic ted t hem a long t h e l i n e sdeveloped by Khrushchev and Mikoyan:La t e ly , some people i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t w orldsee f i t t o urge ' l oo ki ng f a c t s i n t h e f a c e , '' a c c e p t i n g t h e cha ldenge ' and lay in g emphasi snot on ly on t h e arms r a c e , bu t on t h e compet i -t i o n w i t h S o c i a l is m i n t h e economic and s o c i a ls p h e r e s a s w e l l . . . The s uppor t e r s o fSoc ia l i sm, and indeed a l l hones t men, canonly welcome t h e des i re of some bourgeoisl e a d er s t o t a k e up t h e chal lenge and competew i t h S o c i a l i sm i n t h e economic and soc ia ls p h er e s. ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s , #1,January 1959)

And when, a t t h e 21 st CPSU Congress i n January -February1959, Khrushchev pursued h i s d i s p u t e w i t h Mao over t h eimportance of us in g ma te r i a l i nc en t iv es when advanc ingtoward f u l l Communism--one of s e v er a l po in ts i n disp ute--Arbatov was one of t h e p u b l i c i s t s i n t h e par ty whod ef en de d K hr us hc he v' s p o s i t i o n . W r i t i n g s h o r t l y a f t e rt h e Congress , Arba tov a t t ack ed Mao in d i re c t l y f o r con-s i d e r i n g m a t er i a l i n c e n t i ve s f a r l ess i m p o rt a n t i n aman's a t t i t u d e toward l a b o r t h a n " s p i r i t u a l s t i m u l i . "(Kommunist, #3, 9 March 1959) Th at h e was a b l e t op r e p a r e t h i s a r t i c l e f o r t h e p a r t y ' s t h e o r e t i c a l j o u rn a lon s h o r t n o t i ce su gg eg ts t h a t he had become known amongo f f i c i a l s i n t h e C e n t r a l C ommittee a s a n a r t i c u l a t e an dquick- re sponse propaganda p u b l i c i s t . A t t h e same t i m e ,h i s u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g a s a s tu de n t o f ph i l o s ophyq u a l i f i e d h i m for more bas ic d o c t r i n a l w o r k , s u c h a sp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n 1959 a s one of s e ve r a l a u tho r s con-t r i b u t i n g t o Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism-a volumer e f l e c t i n g , i n p a r t , K h ru sh ch ev 's r e l a t i v e l y mo dera tev i e w of Communism and re l a t i o n s w i t h t h e West.


20/44

Arbatov l a t e r went beyond a defense of K h r u s h c h e vt o open f l a t t e r y i n or de r t o h e lp b o l s t e r t h e S o v i e tl e a d e r ' s p er so n al s t a t u r e . I n a j o i n t a r t i c l e w ri t t e nw i t h L. S e di n i n A p r i l 1 96 0, h e p a r t i c i p a t e d i n K h r u s h c h e v ' se f f o r t t o b u i l d up h i s own p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n a s a g a i n s tt h a t o f o t h e r p r es i d iu m members; t h o s e j u n i o r p a r t y c a d r e swho d e s i r e d advancement had t o engage i n t h e s yc opha n t i ce x e r c i s e . B u t i t was a Khrushchev ian, pragm atic c u l t - -t h a t i s , i t was non -St a l in i s t i n i t s l i m i t e d s c o p e andp a s s i o n l e s s n a t u r e , and K h r u s h c h e v w a s n o t d e p i c t e d a ssuper-human i n m e n t a l i t y o r d i v i n e i n p e r s o n a l i t y .A g r e a t c o n t ri b u t i on t o t h e f u r t h e r t h e o re t i -c a l development of t h i s problem (of coexis tence)has been made by N.S. Khrushchev-- the inde-f a t i g a b l e p r o p a g a n di s t an d p e r s i s t e n t a d vo c at eof t h e L e n i n i s t idea of t h e f e a s i b i l i t y andh i s t o r i c a l n e c es s i t y of p e a c e f u l c o e x i s t e n c eof s t a t e s w i t h d i f f e r i n g s o c i o - p o l i t i c a ls y s t em s . Many speeches and talks by t h e head oft h e So vi et government and h i s wel l-known a r t i c l e"On Pea cefu l Coexis tence" pub l is hed i n t h eA me ri can j o u r na l , Fo r e ign A f f a i r s , i n O c tober1959 have thrown l i g h t on d i v e r s e a s pe c t s o ft h e po l ic y of coe xis ten ce . Moreover, h e hasc o n t r i b u t e d a p a r t i c u l a r l y l a r g e amount ofwhat is new t o development of problems involv-i n g t h e pe a c e f u l c om pe t i t i on o f t h e two s y s t em s .(World Economics and Interna t ional Rela t ions ,#5, 22 Apr i l 1960)

A r ba tov a nd Se d in , w r i t i ng t o def e nd K hrus hc hev ' s ve r s iono f c o e x i s t e n c e , d i s t o r t e d t h e image of Lenin i n t o t h a tof a pe ac e -lov ing V ic t o r i a n r a d i c a l . The main purposeof t h i s d i s t b r t i b n wa6 t o urrde tau t Marr's' mildtant( " Len in is t ") demand f o r a r e vo lu t i ona r y s t r a t e g y a g a in s tt h e U.S., p a r t i c u l a r ly i n t h e unde r de ve lope d c oun t r i e s .Arba tov cont in ued t o de fend K h r u s h c h e v ' s mainf o r m u l a t i o n s a s t h e Sino-Sovie t d i s pu te developed . H er e a f f i r m e d Khrushchev ' s r e v i s i o n i s t t h e s i s s e t f o r t h

a t t h e 21 st Congress, namely, t h e i de a t h a t w a rs c a n be

-9-


21/44

a b o l i s h e d "e ven b e f o r e c a p i t a l i s m d is a p p e a r s " i n t h eworld. (Kommunist, #9, June 1961) H e a t t a c k e d t h eCh in ese by name f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n 19 63 w h i l e de f e nd ingt h e n u c l e a r t e s t ban t r e a ty . ( P r avda , 13 August 1963)S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d , he a t ta c ke d S t a l i n by name, l inkingt h e Chinese w i t h h i s v i e w t h a t i m p e r i a l i s t wars c a n bea n f f i n d i r e c t " reserve of Communist re v o lu ti on . (Kommunist,#14, September 1963) But a s an American s p e c i a l i s t ,A r b a t o v w a s not one of MOSCOW ' S main p o l e m i c i s t s i n t h ed i s p u t e ; he mere ly pa raphrased t h e d e f i n i t i v e CPSU a r t i c l e son war and peace, and h i s work seems t o ha ve bee n u s e d a san a d d i t i o n a l weapon among t h e p o l e m i c a l b a t t e r i e sKhrushchev had ranged a g ai n s t Mao.A f t e r Khrushchev was depose d i n mid-October 1964,A r b a t o v ' s p i e c e s r ef lec ted a combinat ion of Khrushchevianan d p o st -K h ru sh ch ev ia n p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n s . F or a t l e a s tthree weeks, h e mainta ined an undi lu t ed Khrushchevianp o s i t i o n , a t t a c k i n g Mao's p r e f e r e n c e f o r " r e v o l u t i o n a r ywar" over t h e CPSU P ro gr am 's p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r w in n in gad he re nt s t o Communism "by t h e e xa m ple a nd r e vo lu t i on i z inginf l uen ce" of advances made i n b lo c co un t r ie s . Beyondt h a t , h e a g a i n d i s p a r a g e d S t a l i n i s m o p e n l y by compla in ingt h a t t h e f o r c e of example had been d e a l t damaging blowby t h o s e c r u d e p e r v e r s i o n s o f s o c i a l i s t demo cracy t h a twere p e r p e t u a t e d i n t h e 1930s and 1940s dur ing t h e p e r i o dof t h e S t a l i n pe r s on a l i t y c u l t . " (World Econom ics a nd

I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , #11, 31 October 1964) Withint h ree months, however , Arbatov had s h i f t e d t o complyw i t h t h e modif ied , somewhat ha rd er ant i-U.S. p o s i t i on sof t h e new leadership.T h i s s h i f t was r e f l e c t e d i n A r ba t ov ' s i m p o rt a n ta r t i c l e ( p u b li s h ed i n P ra vd a o n 6 Ja n u a ry 1 96 5) w h i c hd i s c u s s e d P r e s i d e n t J o hn so h' s S t a t e of t h e Union message.H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e policy of conduct' i.ngthe Cold War was"n ot y e t a p o l i t i c a l f o s s i l " and t h a t t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s"br idge -bui ld ing" l i n e toward Eas t Europe was pol i t ica lp e n e t r a t i o n " v e r y c l os e t o t h e policy of madmen." Bu tt h i s new, q u a l i f i e d emphasi s on an t i - imp er ia l i sm was noti n t e n d e d by t h e new Sov ie t l e a d e r s h ip t o be a comple te

. .

-10-

-=-Ex


22/44

reversa l of t h e p o l i c y o f c o n t a c t s a n d n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t hWashington. I t was a s t e p back from Khrushchev's non-suppor t of Hanoi-- tha t i s , i t was i n te nd ed t o m o l l if y Hoand undercut t h e C hine s e a c c us a t i ons i n t h e world Communistmovement of USSR-U.S. co op er a t i on . The new l e a de r s h ip a l s oin t e nded t o war n t h e E a s t European count r ie s aga ins t movingaway f rom the USSR and toward t h e U.S. a t a t i m e of appa rentw ea knes s and i nde c i s i on du r ing t he succession-to-Khrushchevp e r i o d .A r ba t o v' s P r av da a r t i c l e p r ov i de d a n a n t i - i m p e r i a l i s tsmokescreen fo r t h e new l e a d e r s h ip , i n e f f e c t s a n c t i o n i n g ac o n t i n u a t i o n of n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h "modera tes" i n t h e

Johnson Adminis t ra t ion . He p o r t r a y e d t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o nas be ing l oc ked i n a p o l i c y s t r u g g. l e w h i c h w a s r e f l e c t e don t h e s u r f a c e i n l l p o l i c y c o n t r a d i c t i o n s " h e found in t h eS t a t e of t h e Union message. H e went on t o s e t f o r t hs e v e r a l rema ining Khrushchevian po s i t i on s , namely, t h a tt h e West was i m p el l ed t o a d o p t a more " c a u t i ous , f l e x ib l e ,a n d d e l i b e r a t e s t r a t e g y " because of MOSCOW'S a b i l i t y t oi n f l u e n c e i n t e r n a t i o n a l o p i n i o n by t h e "force of example ,"t h a t t h e West had t~ acc ept "economic com pet i t ion" and hadt o make "concess ions and compromises" i n fo re ig n po l i cy ,a nd t h a t b loc c ou n t r i e s w ou ld no t g a in fr om a nuc lea r war"even i f imper ia l i sm, w h i c h unleashed i t , p e r i s h e d i n i t sf lames. I'Arbatov car r i ed ou t h i s new and important Pravdaa s s i g n m e n t s k i l l f u l l y , a n d he probably impressed t h e newl e a d e r s h i p as be ing t h e i r bes t- informed and most a s t u t ee x p e r t o n t h e U.S. The a r t i c l e ' s c o nt e nt i n d i c at e d t h a t ,f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , Arbatov w a s d i s c u s s i n g a major Americanp o l i t i c a l e ve nt of immediate c o n ce r n t o t h e p o l i t b u r o .And f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , h e was g i v e n t h e ass ignment ofenunc ia t ing a ma jor s h i f t - - i . e . , toward Hanoi. Thus h ewas e l e v a t e d f r o m t h e r a n k s of a mere pr opa ga nd i s t( a l t hough a s o p h i s t i c a t ed o ne) t o t h e s t a t u s of a pol icy-s u p p o r t e x p e r t o n k ey c u r r e n t m a t t e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e U.S.

-11-

3EewGc


23/44

B. Ar ba to v' s Commitment t o Non-Dogmatic Res ear chA r ba t ov ' s u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g p no vi de d him w i t ht h e a b i l i t y t o s e p a r a t e h i s r o l e a s a p a r t y p r o p a g a n d i s tfrom h i s r o l e as an America-watcher who had t o a n al y zep o l i t i c a l t r en ds i n t h e U.S. i n a se r ious -minded and ob je c t iv eway. I n 1965, h e j o i n e d t h e ranks of r ef or me rs who w e r echampioning t h e cause of l i b e r a l i z i n g p o l i t i c a l research,and he ope n ly s uppor t e d D r . F. M. B ur l a t s ky o f t h e I n s t i t u t eof S t a t e and Law, Academy of Sciences, who wrote on t h enee d f o r " s c i e nc e " ( i .e . , e m p i r i c a l a nd o b j e c t i v e s t u d y ) i nt h e a n a l y s i s o f p o l i t i c a l p ro bl em s. ( Pr av d a, 10 Janua ry1965)

T h e problems t o be s t u d i e d were p r i m a r i l y , b u t no t e xc lu -s i v e l y , t h o s e a p p ea r in g i n S o v i e t s o c i e t y . B u r l a t s k yemphasized t h e need t o examine problems w i t h a new tool,namely, t h e d i s c i p l i n e known i n t h e West: a s " p o l i t i c a lsc ience; ' w h i c h was unique i n i t s many-sided approach,ana lyz ing complex ques t ions by us ing a combina t ion of" s c i e n t i f i c communism, the ory of s t a t e and l a w , a nd s oc i -o logy , as w e l l as economics." H e p ro po se d t h a t s p e c i a lr e s e ar c h i n s t i t u t i o n s s h o u ld be e s ta b l i s h ed f o r " p o l i t i c a ls c i e nc e , " hoping t o make i t a new, s e p a r a t e f i e l d r a t h e rt h a n a s t ud y su bo rd in at ed t o t r a d i t i o n a l j u r i d i c a l s c ie n ce .S i n c e 1938, t h e o f f i c i a l S o v i e t c o nc ep t of t h e i n s e p a r a b l ebond between t h e s t u d y of l a w and p o l i t i c s had l e d t o t h ea b s o r p t i o n a nd d e n i g r a t i o n o f t h e s t u d y of p o l i t i c s byj u r i d i c a l s c i e n c e ; i t had r e s u l t e d i n a r i g i d , f o rm a l,a nd l e g a l i s t i c - - i . e . , u s e le s s- tm atm e nt of p o l i t i c a lproblems.a t t h e annual meet ing of t h e r e l a t i v e l y new Sov ie t A sso-c i a t i o n of P o l i t i c a l ( S t a t e ) S c i e n c e s (SAPS) i n F e br u ar y1965. Arb ato v, who was e lec t ed t o t h e Executive Committeeof t h e a s s o c i a t i o n , a rg u ed t h a t de ve lo pm en t of " p o l i t i c a ls c i e n c e " as an independent d i sc i p l i n e would make i t pos s i -b l e t o d i sc o ve r " s c i e n t i f i c " answers t o a l l c u rr e n tp o l i t i c a l q u e st io n s. H e s ugge s t e d t h a t p o l i t i c a l s c i en c eresearch s hou ld be d iv i de d i n t o two bas ic s p e c i a l t i e s ,namely, " i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l , c o nn e ct ed w i t h t h e domes t ic

B u r l a t s k y was sup po rt ed by Arbatov (among ot h er s)

-12-

?B6lucL


24/44

pro blems of s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y , and e x t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l ,connec ted w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s a nd t h e i n t e r -n at i o n al communist movement." (S ov ie t S t a t e and Law, #7 ,J u l y 1 9 6 5 ) H e s u p p or t e d B u r l a t s k y 's p l e a t o t h e a s s o c i -a t i o n f o r a s e p a r at e p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e de di c at e d t o t h ec om pr ehensive a nd p r e dom ina nt l y e m pi r i c a l i nv e s t i g a t i onof t h e " t o t a l i t y of p o l i t i c a l r e a l t i o n s (and) p o l i t i c a la c t i v i t i e s i n a l l t h e i r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . " But o t h e r d i s -c u s s a n t s a t t h e meet ing , w h i l e a c c e p t i n g t h e ne e d f o rmore emphasis on t h e s t ud y of p o l i t i c s , rejected t h e i d e aof a n i nd ep en d en t d i s c i p l i n e t o be i n t r o d u c e d a s a newd ep ar tm en t i n e d u c a t i o na l i n s t i t u t i o n s . S t r en g t h en e d byt h e s p e e c h of V. M. Chkhikvadze, Di re c to r of t h e I n s t i t u t eof S t a t e an d Law (and t h e boss of B ur l a t s ky ) , t h e i r v i e wp r e v a i l e d .While B ur la ts ky ' s e f f o r t f a i l e d t o lead t o e st ab -l i s hm e n t of a s e p a r a t e d i s c i p l i n e , a new emphasis wasp l aced on p o l i t i c a l research. On 13 June 1965, pravdap u b l i s h e d a f ol lo w- up e d i t o r i a l s u r v e y i n g f a v o r a b l e re-s po ns es t o B u r la t sk y ' s J an u ar y a r t i c l e . Members of t h eI n s t i t u t e o f W orld Economics a nd I n t e r n a t i o na l R e l a t i o ns ,f o r e xa mple , were q u o t ed a s c o mp l ai n in g t h a t w h i l e t h e r ew e r e s c h o l a r s a l r e a d y w or ki ng i n some a r e a s l i s t e d byB u r l at s k y ( co nt em po ra ry i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , i n t e r -na t i o na l workers ' movement, t h e s t u d y of s o c i a l i s t andc a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s , e t c . ) , t h e l e v e l and scope of t h e i rworks were n ot s a t i s f a c t o r y , l a r g e l y be cau se t he se a r e a so f r e s e a r c h were s t i l l o f f i c i a l l y s l t g h t e d . Reg ardin gc on te mp or ar y f o r e i g n p o l i t i c s , t h e y a l s o c om pl ai ne d t h a td i s s e r t a t i o n s i n t h i s f i e l d were a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d b e c a u s et h e y had t o be a r b i t r a r i l y f i t t e d i n t o t h e framework oft h e o l d j u r i d i c a l , h i s t o r i c a l , o r p h i lo s o ph i c al d i s c i -p l i n e s . The P rav da e d i t o r i a l seems t o have r e f l e c t e dl e a d e r s h i p i m p a t i e n c e w i t h t h e f a i l u r e of t he se t r a d i t i o n a ld i s c i p l i n e s t o p r o v i d e t h em w i t h u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n , ofa c u r r e n t na tu r e , on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of S o v i e t f o r e i g n

-13--


25/44

and domest ic po l i cy . Regarding Arbat ov ' s Americans p e c i a l i z a t i o n , t h e e d i t o r i a l c a l l e d f o r a f f p o l i t i c a l l t ,approach t o t h e s t u d y o f p o l i t i c a l power i n c a p i t a l i s tcount r ie s (among o the r areas of new emphasis). I tc oncluded by u r g ing r e s e a r c he r s , w i tho u t w a i t i n g f o r t h ee s t a b l i s h m e n t of s p e c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l s c ie n ce ,t o " c ons ide r a b ly b roaden t h e i r s t u d y of p o l i t i c a l p rob lemsi n t h e e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s t 1 . of h i g h e r l e a r n i n g a ndr e s e a r c h . I t may be co n je ct u re d t h a t between January andJun e 1965, Arbatov help ed t o conv inc e some members of t h eC e n t r a l C om mi tt ee t h a t a broade r , mu l t i - d i sc ip l i ne ("corn-p lex" ) a t t ac k on fo re ig n poldcy problems would prove f a rmore us e f u l t o t h e to p pol icy-makers than t h e o ld r i g i d ,f o r m a l i s t i c and j u r i d i c a l approach. H e p r o b a b l y i n d i c a t e dt h a t t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m pl e x it y of A m e r i c a n po l i t i c sr e q u i r e d a new, "complex" approach, undistorted by over-s im pl i f i c a t ions and dogma.

-1s


26/44

111. O r i g i n of t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USAA. America-Watching i n Othe r In s t i t u t e s

I n s u p p o r t of p a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e workers , re -s e a r c h o n American foreign policy and economy was centeredpr ima r i l y i n th e USA Sec t io n , I n s t i t u t e of World Economicsand In t e r na t i on a l Re l a t i on s . The Sec t ion was headed byP r o f e s s o r I . M . Lemin, who presided over 30 s c h o l a r s i nth re e sub-sec t ions , namely, Amer ican " fore ig n p ol ic y , "and l ldisarmament . ll I n June 1964, th e In s t i -t u t e ' s d e p u t y d i r e c t o r , D.M. Menshikov, son of t h e formerAmbassador t o t h e U.S . , s t a t e d t h a t r e s ea r c h p ap er s f o rt h e C e n t ra l C omm i t t e e i nc lude d s u c h s u b j e c t s a s "How w i l lU.S. fo re ig n po l i cy change vis -a-v is t h e USSR i f Goldwaterwere t o b e e l e c t e d t o t h e p r e side nc y?" I n J u l y 1964,h e was completing a book, The Main Drives of U.S. For e ignP o l i c y . But young M i k o y a n m a n I n s t i t u t e s ch ol ar )s t a t e d p ri v a te l y t h a t t h e o l d e r members--he may hav e meantLemin (about 70 years old) among others--were "too in -f l e x i b l e and d o c t ri n a i re " i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward c u r -r e n t p r ob l e m s .

A rb at ov i n 1 96 6 d i r e c t l y c r i t i c i z e d t h e i m p r a c t i c a lc o n t e n t of books o n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s p ro du ced byS o v i e t s c h o l a r s . and b y i m p l i c a t i o n t h e I n s t i t u t e was h i sc h i e f t a r g e t .w r i t t e n by Professor A.M. Kovalev .of Moscow Sta te Unive r -I n h i s r e v i e w of The ABC of Diplomacy (1965)s i t y , A rb at ov p r a i s e d t h e book a s ' a n e x c e p t i o n a l work,pr im a r i l y be c a us e of i t s t r e at m e n t of p o l i t i c a l " p r a c t i c e. I'

The book w i l l be of i n t e r e s t because oft h e c l ose l i n k s b et we en t h e o r y an d f o r e i g np o l i t i c a l p r a c t i c es , b ec au se i t r e v e a l s n o to n ly g e n e ra l p r i n c i p l e s , b u t a l s o , so t o s a y ,t h e v er y 'k i t c h en ' s i d e of dip lomat ic work .Th i s s hou ld be m en ti on ed i n D a r t i c u l a r s i n c epoor t i e s w i t h p o l i t i c a l p r a c t i c e have sof a r b een t h e weak s p o t of many ev en goodworks devoted t o i n t e r n a t io n a l r e l a t i o n s .-(Kommunist, #12, August 196 6) (emph asiss u p p l i e d )

-15-


27/44

I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t K ovalev , t h e a u t h o r p r a i s e d b yArbatov, was not a member of t h e I n s t i t u t e w h i c h was t h em aj or pr o du c er o f bo ok s o n " i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . *II n s t i t u t e de pu ty d i r e c t o r Mensh ikov commentedi n J un e 1966 t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a A l l yor nim rur nea u t "a book a ye ar ," t h a t h i s j o b was t o"c rack t h e whip" t o see t h a t t h ey "got t h e i r books ou t , "and t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y had w r i t t e n o n e b a s e d o n m a t e r i a l sa cc um u la te d d u r i n g a n e a r l i e r t r i p t o t h e U.S.: Mil l i on -a i r e s a nd Manager s. I t seems p r o b a b l e t h a t when Arbatovwrote h i s Kommunist review he was w e l l aware of t h e I n s t i -t u t e ' s p r od uc t i n book form a n d t h a t h e c ons ide r e d t h ep ro d uc t u s e l e s s f o r p r a c t i c a l p o l i c y s up p o r t .The S o v i e t l e a d e r s h i p ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o s ha pe re-search work i n t o a p o l i cy - s u pp o r t o p e r a t i o n w as s u g g e s t e dby the appoin tment of N,N. I noz e mts ev , i n p r e f e r e nc e t oa p r o f e s s i o n a l e c o n o m i s t , t o be t h e new d i r e c t o r of t h eI n s t i t u t e . A former e d i t o r of Pr avda , Inozemtsev was no tre sp ec te d among academicia ns a s a s c h o l a r ; he was broughti n from t h e pa r t y ' s p ropa ga nda a ppa r a tus . L ike A r ba tov ,h e was i n h i s m idd le ye a r s (45) a nd w as r e p o r t e d i n t h ef a l l of 1966 t o be "very knowledgable" on American foreignp o l i cy , s k i l l f u l i n w r i t i n g a r t i c l e s a da pt in g do c t r i n et o i n t e r n a t i o n a l de ve lo pm en ts , v e r y i n t e l l i g e n t , and Iragood adm ini s t r a to r . " Arba tov ' s Kommunist r ev iew, i n ad-d i t i o n t o i t s c r i t i c i s m of u s e l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l works on

d ip lom ac y i n ge ne r a l , may a l s o have been d i r e c t e d a g a i n s tInozemtsev ' s t h i ck book (759 page s ) , For e ign P o l i c y oft h e U.S. i n t h e Epoch of Impe r ia l i sm (Moscow, 196~8) andt h i s may have been an ea r ly in s t an ce of c o m p e t i t i o n be-tween t h e two men.I no ze mt se v' s I n s t i t u t e had t r a d i t i o n a l e x p e r t i s ei n t h e economy of t h e U.S., and un l i ke Arbatov, Inozemtsevpe r s ona l l y ha d some p r o f i c i e n c y i n e c on om ic s. As a C o r -r e s pond ing Member, Department of Economics, Academy ofSc ie nces , Inozemtsev a ppa ren t ly was v iewed by men withint h e C e n t r a l Committee a p p a r a t u s a s va lua b l e be c a us e h ewas par t y- t r adhe d .and no t pul iely a s c h o l a r , b e c a u s e h ewas a good a dm in i s t r a to r , a nd be c a us e h i s t r a i n i n g w o u l d

h e l p t h e e f f o r t t o improve t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s p o l i c y - s u p p o r twork on complex economic develo pments i n t h e U.S. I nJ u l y 1966, a bou t two months a f t e r Inozemtsev was se l ec t eda s t h e new Di rec t o r , o ne r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e I n s t i -

-16-335wuu2


28/44

t u t e m i g h t be r e o r g a n i z e d b y m o v i n g s p e c i a l i s t s o u t t ot a ke up research i n i n di v id u a l i n s t i t u t e s , s e p a ra t i n ge co no mi c r e s e a r c h f ro m f o r e i g n r e l a t i o n s r e s e a r c h . D u ri n gh i s v i s i t t o t h e U.S. i n November 1966, I noz e m ts e v s t a t e dp r i v a t e l y t h a t t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s main c h a r t e r was t o a s s e s s" f o r e i g n ec on om ic s, " p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e economics of t h e U.S.Subsequent ly , t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s r e se a rc h on t h e U.S. wasindeed concentra ted on economic developments , w i t h a second-a r y p la c e be ing g ive n t o " s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l prob l ems ."( Inozemtsev ' s Report on th e I n s t i t u t e ' s Research i n 1 96 8:Economic G a z e t t e , # l o , 1969)I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e I n s t i t u t e o f World Economics

and I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , s e v e r a l other i n s t i t u t e si n v e s t i g a t e a s p e c t s of A m e r i c a n a f f a i r s a s a secondaryr e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The I n s t i t u t e of A f r i c a ( e s t a b l i s h e d i n1959) p r im a r i l y p r ov ide s s uppor t f o r S ov i et p o l i t i c a la c t i v i t y i n t h e Dark C o n t i n e n t, b u t i n c l u d e s i n i t s scopeof r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h e s t u d y of t h e *fnew col onia l ism"- - i .e . ,American--appearing i n A fr i ca . T h e I n s t i t u t e of L a t i nAmerica ( e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1961) c e n t e r s i ts a t t e n t i o n onCuba an d r e v o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y i n t h e a r e a , b u t i t s sup-plementary t a s k is t o a na lyz e Am eri can po l i c y i n i nd iv i dua lc o u n t r i e s . The I n s t i t u t e of t h e F a r E a st ( e s t a b l i s h e d i n1965) f o c u s e s i t s a t t e n t i o n on C hina a nd s e c onda r i l y onWashington-Peking re l a t i o n s . The ev ide nce s u g g e s t s , how-e v e r , t h a t t h es e t h r e e a re a- o ri en t ed i n s t i t u t e s c a r r y f a rl e s s of t h e r e s e a r c h l oa d on Am er ic an po l i c y t ha n doesI n o z e m t s e v ' s i n s t i t u t e .

T hese s p e c i a l i z ed i n s t i t u t e s a p p a r en t ly were s e tup t o s u p p o r t t h e S o v i e t f o r e i g n p o l i c y e f f o r t toward t h ec o u n t r i e s of pr imary impor tance i n each g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a .The Sovie t l e a d e r s seem t o have wanted Centra l Commit teeworkers t o pr ov ide more d i r e c t , d e t a i l e d , a nd t i m e l ya n a l y s e s of developments i n t h e Congo s ince 1959, i n Cubas i n c e 1961, a nd i n Ch in a s i n c e 1965. Thi s m ea nt t h a t t h ep o l i c y - s u p p o r t i n s t i t u t e s were r e q u i r e d t o pr oduc e r e s e a r c hpa pe r s of a new k ind , , nam ely, t im e ly and r e a l i s t i c , r a t h e rtha n h i s t o r i c a l and academic ; t he refe rence-book na tu reof i n s t i t u t e r e s ea r c h was c r i t i c i z e d . For example , t h eDirector of t he I n s t i t u t e f o r A f r i c a , V.G. Solodovnikov,


29/44

s t a t e d t h a t b e ca us e of t h e appearance of many new A f r i c a ns t a t e s , p r i o r i t y research had t o be direc ted toward mored e t a i l e d a n d t i m e l y work.May 19 65 .) The Di re ct o r of t h e I n s t i t u t e o f L a t i n Amer ica,V. V. Volskiy , compla ined th a t r e s ea r ch s t i l l had ''a re fe re nc e-book o r a cog ni t ive - desc r ip t ive cha rac te r , " and T. T.Tim ofeyev s t a t e d t ha t i t was ne c es s ar y t o " r e a l i s t i c a l l ye va lua t e " new f a c t o r s i n t h e po s i t i on o f La t i n Am eri ca i nt h e East -West s tr u g g l e. Both men had spoken a t a s e s s i o n oft h e Pres id ium of th e Academy of Sc iences w h ich d i s c u s s e dt h e "new and complex" problems fa ci ng So vi et La ti n Am e r -i c an i s t s . (Academy of Sc ien ces USSR Hera ld , December1966) Regarding t h e n eed f o r c u r r e n t research on China,B. Zanegin, head of t h e F or ei g n P o l i c y S e c ti o n , I n s t i t u t eof t h e F a r E a s t , s t a t e d p r i v a t e l y i n A p r i l 1969 t h a t t h eo l d e r I n s t i t u t e of O r i e n t a l S t u d ie s is s t i l l a c t i v e b u td e a l s w i t h t h e " a n t i q u i t i e s" of China; t h e new (since 1965)i n s t i t u t e c o n ce n t ra t e s on cu r r e n t i s s u e s i n t h e p o l i t i c sand economics of China ra ther than on t h e t r a d i t i o n a lc u l t u r a l and humani t ie s a sp ec t s of China sch ol a r s h ip .Z an eg in a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e i n s t i t u t e had no d i r e c t in -f lu enc e on pol icy toward Peking; po l icy-suppor t usu a l l ymeant a process whereby copies of research pa pe r s weres e n t t o t h e ap pr op ri at e "government bodies"--almost cer-t a in ly Cen t ra l Committee depa r tments . La t e r , t h e a u t h o r sr e c o g n i z e d s e c t i o n s o f t h e i r p a p er s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t oo f f i c i a l a r t i c l e s , a c c o r d ing t o Za neg in.

Thus t h e g e ne ra l tr e nd i n i n s t i t u t e research a f t e rt h e l a t e 1 9 5 0 s was toward s t u d i e s u s e f u l f o r c u r r e n t s up -p o r t o f l e a d e r s h i p p o l i c i e s . Greater stress on t im e l ine s sa n d p r a c t i c a l u s e f u l n e s s of s t u d i e s l e d t o i n c re a se ds p e c i a l i z a t i o n on a n a re a- co u nt ry b a s i s . T h i s stressc u lm ina t e d i n t h e i ssu ance of a Cent ra l Commit tee decree(14 August 1967) which demanded an improvement i n t h eo r g a n i z a t i o n , p l a nn i n g, and f i n a n c i n g of i n s t i t u t er e s e a r c h .

(Academy of Sciences USSR H e r a ld ,


30/44

B. Es ta b l i s hm e n t of t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA1. The C e n t r a l Committee Demand f o r "Complex"( M u l t i - d i s c i p l i n e ) Research

I n i t s decree of 14 August 1967, t h e C e n t r a l Com-m i t t e e d i r e c t e d t h e Academy of Sciences t o recommend (be-f o r e l January 1968) methods f o r " t h e bas ic improvementof t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , p l a nn i ng , a nd f i n a n c in g o f s c i e n t i f i cr e sea r ch i n t h e f i e l d of t h e s o c i a l sc iences . " Rega rd ingr e s e a r c h o n c a p i t a l i s t c o u nt r ie s i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h edecree compla ined about t h e d e f e c t s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o nof research, I t noted t h a t "many as pe c t s and problems ofc a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y a n d t h e na t i o na l l i b e r a t i o n movements t i l l awa i t thorough and complex re sea rc h . The organiza -t i o n of t h e s e r e s e a r c h e s is n o t c a r r i e d o u t p u r p o s e f u l l ye n o u g h . " (Decree a s p u b l i s h ed i n P ra vd a o n 22 August 1967.)A fol low-up Pravda e d i t o r i a l on 23 s ugge s t e d t h a tt h e demand f o r "complex" r e s e a r c h m e a n t a m u l t i - d i s c ip l i ne ,m u l t i - f a c e t e d a pp r oa c h r a t h e r t h a n t h e o l d , o v e r s i m p l i f i e ds t u d y w h i c h had f a i l e d t o comprehend t h e impor tance f o rp o l i c y o f a s s e s s i n g t h e s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l com l e x i t i e sof the American scene .r e q u i r e d r e g a r d i ng t h e " socio- ec onomic, p o l i t i c a l , a ndide o log f C a 1 t e nde nc i e s of contempora ry capi ta l i sm."

I t s t a t e d t h a t i n v e s t+a t o n s wereThe a t t a c k o n o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and t h e demandf o r a "complex" a ppr oac h i n i n s t i t u t e r e s e a r c h had bee ns t a t e d c l e a r l y p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of t h e decree. I n t h es p r i n g of 1967, members of t h e Academy of Sc ie nc e s P r e s i d -ium c r i t i c i z e d t h e pr oc e dur e s of G.M. . S or ok i n' s I n s t i t u t eof Economics of t h e World S o c i a l i s t S ys te ms, s t a t i n g t h a t" t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l y complex t a s k s f a c i n g t h e I n s t i t u t er e q u i r e a n i n t e g r a t e d a p p r o a c h t o t h e i r s o l u t i o n and t h u sr e q u i r e t h e s tu dy of no t on ly pu r e ly e c onom ic problems,b u t a l s o s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and ev e n i d e o l o g i c a l p r ob le ms ."(Emphasis ad ded .) Some members s u g g e s t e d o r g a n i z i n g s p e c i a ls e c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e s t ud y of "problemso f a so ci o- p ol i t ic a l na tur e ." Academician P.N. Fedoseyeva t acked t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s " s i m p l i f i e d a nd o v e r s t y l i z e dp o i n t s of view," and then de c l a r e d t h a t a n a c c u r a t e v i e w

-19--


31/44

of t h e r e a l s i t u a t i o n i n bloc c o u n t r i e s re q u i r ed a m u l t i -d i s c i p l i n e method of r e s e a r c h :The world s o c i a l i s t economy represents anex tr em el y dynamic sy st em and much h$ngeson t h e a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e v a r i o u sc o u n t r i e s , o n t h e l e v e l of t h e i r developmefit,on t h e a c t u a l l y a t t a i n e d l abor p r o d u c t i v i t y ,e t c ; i t must be cons ide red t h a t a s o l u t i o nis needed not on ly f o r pure ly economic prob-l e m s b u t a l s o f o r s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l p r o b l e m s ,and t h a t these problems must be c ons ide r e di n t e g r a l l y when a n a l y z i n g a l l t h e p o s s i b l er e s u l t s and a l l t h e e x i s t i n g t a s k s. (Academyof Sc ie n ce s USSR H e r a l d , A p r i l 1967) (emphasiss up p l e d )

Fedoseyev went on t o recommend a s t r e n g t h e n e d e f f o r t bys a y i n g t h a t t h e I n s t i t u t e s ho ul d be s u p p l i e d w i t h a d d i -t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , mat e r i a l s ou r c e s , a nd p r e m i s e s ; more-ove r , more researchers s hou ld be d i s p a t c h e d f o r t r i p sabroad. The Academy of Sc ien ces Pres id ium adopted ar e s o lu t i o n c a l l i n g f o r (among o t h e r th ings ) prompt prep-a r a t i o n i by t h e I n s t i t u t e of l l ob jec t i ve and comple te" in-f o r m a t ion on t h e e conomic p r oc e s s e s t a k ing p l a c e i n b l occ o u n t r i e s .This '*complex" approach r e f l ec t ed i m p l i c i t S o v i e tacceptance of t h e m ul t i - d i s c ip l i ne a s pe c t - - one of t h e fewpract ica l aapects - -of American s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l s c i en c eprocedures . I t was an in d i r e c t acknowledgment t h a t Mikoyanha d been r i g h t when, i n h i s s p ee c h a t t h e 20th CPSU Congress,he had d i s pa r ag e d S t a l i n ' s d i c tu m o n t h e s h r i n k a g e ofc a p i t a l i s t p ro du ct io n as i na de qua t e f o r e x p l a i n i n g " t h ecomplexi ty and t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y n a t u r e of e v en t s i ncontemporary cap i ta l is m." Moreover , i t was a n a ppa r e n tr e f l e c t i o n of t h e Sov ie t l eader s ' view t h a t t h e complexa s p e c t s of modern dom e st i c a nd f o r e ig n p o l i c y r e q u i r e da l i b e r a t i o n of research i n s t i t u t i o n s from t h e o l d , un-r e a l i s t i c , text-book images of t h e U.S. i n order t o f a s h i o nthem i n t o u s e f u l p o li cy - su p po r t u n i t s .

-20-


32/44

2. By-passing t h e Competi t ion

R e o r g an i z a t i on w i t h i n t h e e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t e s wasone of t h e c onse quenc e s o f t h e de c r e e ' s d i r e c t i v e s . ByDecember 1967, t h e USA S ec t i on i n t h e I n s t i t u t e of WorldEconomics and I n t e r na t i o na l R e l a t i o ns ( wh ic h p r e v i ous lyhad t h r ee sub -se c t io ns) was revamped, made i n t o a Depar t -ment, and ass i gn ed to working on pol icy-suppor t a n a l y s e sof s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e U.S. economy. Thisd i r e c t e d t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s work inc reas ingly toward economictopic s - - such .a s t h e U.S. a g r i c u l t u r a l e c onom y a nd t h eU . S . ba l a nc e of payments problem--taking i t almost com-p l e t e l y o u t o f t h e l a rge r f i e l d of a n a l y s i s of Americanp o l i t i c a l d ev el op me nt s. The USA Department c h i e f , Yu.M. Melnikov, r epor ted ly was a s p e c i a l i s t on U . S . a i d t ounderdeve loped count r ie s . H i s p r i o r t r a i n i n g had beenc onf ine d t o t h e f i e l d of pre-194 0 American "economicpe ne t r a t i on" i n La t i n A mer ica. H e was d e s c ri b e d i n e a r l yJanua ry 1969 a s a pa r ty ha c k ,p e d e s t r i a n i n' o u c ~ o o ~a na t ne posstlssor of a p lodd ing ,d u l l min d, d e d i c a t e d t o t h e dogmatic view tha t t h e U . S .w a s c om ple t e ly " im pe r i a l i s t i c . " H e app aren t ly was notc ons ide r e d by t h e S o v i e t l e a d e r s h i p a s t h e man they neededt o make a new s t a r t i n im pr oving t he qu a l i t y of a n a l y s i sof the U . S .

Es tabl i shment of t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA ( f i v eb l o c k s from t h e U . S . embassy a t Khlebnyi pereulok 11/31i n December 1967 w a s a more impor tan t consequence of t h e14 August 1967 decree's demand f o r improved s o c i a l s c i e n c er e s e a r c h of a "complex" na ture . Arba tov , z i t s new d i r e c t o r ,w a s q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e u pg ra de d e f f o r t o n t h e U.S. becauseh e w a s i n t e l l i g e n t , i n f o r m e d o n t h e American scene, andr e l a t i v e l y p ra gm at ic , w i l l i n g t o view American trendsw i t h a minimum of Marxis t d i s t o r t i o n . M o r e o v e r , h e wasreform-minded, having been ac t iv e i n t h e a ppe a l of prag-m at i c men t o b r e a k down t h e o l d f o r m a l i s t i c d i s c i p l i n e si n t h e i n s t i t u t e s of t h e Academy of Sc iences .

-21-

==EL


33/44

Arbatov s t a t e d p r i v a t e l y t h a t t he m ain a r e a s ofresearch emphas is would be t h e U.S. economy, Soviet-A m e r i c a n r e l a t i ons , U.S. f o r e i g n p o l i c y , and U.S. i n t e r n a ldevelopments. U.S. m i l i t a r y m a t t e r s , h e dec la red , wouldbe ana lyzed by o the r i n s t i t u t e s , b u t , r eg a rd i ng t h e p o l i -t i c a l a s p e c t s of t he a r m s r a c e , he s t a t e d t h a t he wasr e c r u i t i n g a group t o produce arms cont ro l and d i sa rmaments t u d i e s a n d t o engag e I n non-government Soviet-Americanarms c o n t r o l t a l k s .I n l i n e w i t h a s u g g e s t i o n made i n September 1968by C e n t r a l Committee m e m b e r A.M. Rumyantsev, Arbatovs t a t e d t h a t t h e I n s t i t u t e would p u b l i s h a mo nt hl y j o u r n a l .

According t o one r e p o r t , s t a r t i n g e a r l y i n 1 970, t h e In -s t i t u t e w i l l i nde e d pub l i s h a monthly journal--USA: P o l i t i c s ,Economics, Ideology--with Va le nt in Berezhkov (fo rmer lyof New Times) a s t h e p r o s p e c t i v e e d i t o r a nd V i t a ly Pe t r us e nko( f o s r F T A S S c or re spondent i n Washington) a s t h e deputye d i t o r . Arbatov a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t ud i e s would a ppe a ri n book form i n c l u d i n g , . f o r example, a monograph on Ameri-c a n p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n s . H e i n d i c a t e d h i s i n t e n t i o n t oa r r a n g e fo r exchanges of newspapers , jo ur na l s , and o t he rpub l i c a t i on s , and he is p r e p a r i n g f o r an exchange of re-searchers . He p r e f e r s t o have h i s own I n s t i t u t e l i b r a r yr a t h e r t h a n work o u t of t h e h o l d i n g s of other i n s t i t u t e s ,and h i s S c i e n t i f i c S e c r e t a r y f o r Fore ig n Re la t io ns , V.P.F i l a t o v , h a s a l r e a d y c o n t a c t e d t h e U.S. embassy and pr iva tel i b r a r i e s i n t h e U.S.--as w e l l a s t h e L i b r a r y of Congress--f o r a i d i n b u i l di n g u p a new co l l ec t i on . Al though Arbatovi n t e n d s t o b r i n g t h e I n s t i t u t e ' s p e rs on ne l ro s t e r up t o500 , by June 1969 he had rec ru i ted 140, of whom 60 weref u l l t i m e researchers . I n a d d i t i o n , 15 p o s t - g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t swere r e p o r t e d t o be engaged I n r e s e a r c h a t t h e I n s t i t u t e .

I n s t i t u t e r e s ea r ch e r s t o l dbhey have a u o m o n iisl; O Xabout 230 U.S. p u b l i c a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Congress iona lRecord, from wh ich t h e y g l e a n u s e f u l s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s ,-ally from t h e "Extension of Remarks" se ct io n. Theva l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e New York Times and t h e WashingtonPos t a re used a s t h e m o s t i m p o m newspaper sources .--

-22-

!!zeMGc

I


34/44

A r ba tov ' s search f o r bright , young, re form-mindedworkers f l u e n t i n E n g l i sh o pe ne d a c o m p e t i t i o n b e tw ee nt h e I n s t i t u t e and o t h e r i n s t i t u t e s . I n J an u ar y 1 96 9, Yu.M. Melnikov, t h e ch ie f of t h e USA De pa rt me nt i n t h e In-s t i t u t e of W orld Econ omics and I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s ,headed by Inozemtsev, s t a t e d p r i v a t e l y t h a t A rb at ov 'so r g a n i z a t i o n was a "rival:'.' Anothe r o f f i c i a l i n Inozemt-s e v ' s i n s t i t u t e asserted t h a t "We a r e a f r a i d t h a t h e w i l ls t e a l o ur bes t American e xpe r t s . He c an p ay t o p s a l a r i e s .H e ha s in f l ue nc e and pr es t i ge . The good people- - the young,p a r t i c u la r l y - - ar e l i n i n g u p t o work w i t h him."view i n B usi nes s Week, 17 Fe br ua r y 1968)s t i t u t e . In Janua ry 1969 h e was r e p o r t e d t o have compla inedt h a t t h e o l d a p p r o a c h f a i l e d t o s t u d y theU.S. i n a l l i t s"complex" a s p e c t s , c o n c e n t r a t e d o n America's i n d u s t r i a la nd m i l i t a r y de ve lopme nt , a nd s im p l i f i e d t h e r e s u l t s ofe l e c t i o n s t o mean a mere p la ce me nt i n n a t i o n a l o f f i c e ofp a r t of a s ingle , homogenous "prof i t ee r ing" e l i t e w h i c hwas no d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e p a r t w h i c h l o s t t h e e l e c t i o n .Thesrsymbol of t h i s "dogmat ic approach" was , accor d ing t oArbatov, t h e I n s t i t u t e of World Economics and In te rna t iona lR e l a t i o n s , where America-watching was l e f t t o a l i m i t e dsubdivis ion--presumably Yu. M. Melnikov's .

( I n t e r -

Arbatov h i m s e l f p r i v a t e l y d i s p a r a g e d t h e o l d e r in -

IV. The New Approach UnderwayA. Arbatov A s I n t e r p r e t e r of t h e U.S. f o r t h eP o l i t bur 0

1. H i s D i r e c t Access t o t h e Sov ie t Le a de r sA r ba tov ' s r i s e from t h e s t a t u s of par ty propagand-i s t t o t h a t of a high - lev e l po l icy-sup por t worke r wass ugge s t e d b y h i s 6 J a n ua r y 1 96 5 P ra vd a a r t i c l e . L a t e r ,on 16 May 1967, Moscow P r a v d a i d e n t i f i e d h i m a s a " re spon-

s i b l e worker of t h n C e o m m i t t e e . " Subs equen t l y ,his new I n s t i t u t e a s si g nm e nt s u g g e s t ed t h a t t h e S o v i e tl eade rs , who a lready had a de pa r tm e n t w i th in a no the r i n -s t i t u t e wo rk in g on t h e U.S., were d i s p l e a s e d w i t h t h e o l dpr oduc t a nd p r e f e r r e d t o make a new s t a r t w i t h a man whose

-23-


35/44

views the y re sp ec te d . Accord ing to1L O m m i t t e e a r l t - - t ha t i s , f ro m t h e p a r t y ' s c e n t r a lapparatus--and he was s e l ec t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o make i tposs ib l e f o r t h e I n s t i t u t e t o b r i n g i t s p r o d u c t d i r e c t l yt o t h e a t t e n t i o n of " t h e h i g h e s t authorities." Arbatovl a t e r s t a t e d p r i v a t e l y t h a t h e is c a l l e d ' u p o n t o makei n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of U.S. p o l i c y " to th e pol i t buro . " Andwhen, i n a tongue-in-cheek a r t i c l e , Herman Kahn playedt h e r o l e of h y p o t h e t i c a l S o v i e t e x p e r t o n t h e U.S. i n aN e w s w e e k a r t i c l e (1 6 June 1969) , i t was Arbatov a s t h e

ba tov was a p p o h n e a n o m &ne urmral?'

' leading e x p e r t o n - t h e U.S. who rep l ied t o him (Newsweek,2 1 J u l y 1969).There is evidence of A r ba tov ' s a uc e s s t o s p e c i f i cmen i n t h e p o l i t b u r o . H e opened hi 's p r i v a t e i n t e r v i e ww i t h former S e c r e t a r y of Defense McNamara on 31 J a nua r y

e p o r tn-t o him which i m -p l i e d t h a t h e was " qu i t e close" t o Sus lov . The sames o u r c e asser ted t h a t Arbatov had d i r ec t access to t h el a t e p o l i t b u r o member O t t o Kuusinen, and had l a t e r w r i t t e nKuus inen ' s ob i tua ry . H e almost c e r t a i n l y h as d i r e c taccess, ha v ing w orked i n t h e pa r ty a ppa r a tu s , t o such mena s head of t h e C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ' s I n t e r n a t i o n a l Depart-ment Ponomarev and former head of t h e B l o c DepartmentAndropov, who is now head of t h e KGB. S o v i et aca de mi ci an swho had di sc us se d Arbatov have.s t a t e d t h a t h i s v a r i o u s h LCI l.ar;l. i t a t et h e process of r ec ru i t me nt f o r h i s i n s t i t u t e .-W or k ing d i r e c t l y for t h e p a r t y ' s c e n t r a l a p p a r a t u sand t h e po l i t bu r o , A r ba tov was c om ple te ly po l i c y - o r i e n t e d .He r e j e c t e d , a s s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e .new approach t o America-w a tc h ing , h igh ly t h e o r e t i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n of t h e kind con-d u c t e d b y c e r t a i n American i n s t i t u t e s ( su c h a s t h e C e n te rfo r Advanced Behaviora l Studies a t Stanford and HermanKahn ' s Hudson Ins t i tu te ) . H e informed a q u e s t i o n e r , whohad asked i f h i s I n s t i t u t e would resemble American "thinkt a nks , " t h a t " In p o l i t i c a l s t ud i e s , I don ' t be l i e v e muchi n t h e s o r t of h ighly spe cu la t ive and pro phe t ic work yours o - c a l l e d t h i n k t a n k s s p e c i a l i z e i n , " ( I n t e rv i e w i n B us i-n es s Week, 17 Feb rua ry 1968)

-24-

3EemaL


36/44

Papers prepa red b y t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r policy-makersa p p a r e n t l y a re e s t i m a t i ve i n na tu r e and hew close t o mat-t e r s of p r a c t i c a l p o l i t i c s . According t o A.M. Rumyantsevo f t h e C e n t r a l C o mm i t t e e , t h e I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e USA (amongo t h e r s ) is r e q u i r e d t o keep i t s work i n a "close r e l a -t i o n s h i p " w i t h t h e f o r e i g n a n d domestic p o l i c i e s of t h eUSSR. (Problems of H i s to r y , #9, September 1968) Duringa ' Jd i scuss lon be tween Sov ie t academic ians and Sen a to rs Goreand P e l 1 i n Moscow on 20 November 1968, Arbatov indicatedh i s i n t im a te know le dge of c u r r e n t S o v i e t p o l i c y o n arm sl i m i t a t i o n t a l k s ; he a pp a re n tl y was a s s i g n e d t h e t a s k ofu r g i n g t h e s e n a t o r s t o i n t e n s i f y t h e i r appea l s f o r a d i s -a rmament " in i t i a t ive" from t h e U.S. Adminis t ra t ion .2. His Object ive Approach t o America-Watching

S h o r t l y before h i s f i r s t v i s i t t o t h e U.S., Arbatovt o l d It h a t -me nt on t h e p r os pe c t s f o r t h e U.S. In t h e process ofde t e r m in ing t h e r e l a t

Caesar 46 - Institute for the USA: The Kremlin's New Approach to America Watching

Documents

Transcript of Caesar 46 - Institute for the USA: The Kremlin's New Approach to America Watching