SOLUTION-ORIENTED POLICY
Perhaps the most important event of 1988 was the understanding reached between the Soviet Union and the United States, which Time magazine (May 30, 1988) aptly described as the “grand compromise.” The Soviet Union and the United States are both regarded as the world’s superpowers. For seventy years, they had been locked in fierce rivalry, each following a policy of confrontation. Their press and media worked mainly to accuse and condemn each other. But after long experience, both sides are now speaking of peace instead of conflict. Instead of pouring energy into an arms race, they are focusing on dialogue. They are moving away from rivalry and turning toward reconciliation.
A Soviet official described this new approach as a “solution-oriented policy.” Previously, all their attention was on proving the other side wrong. Now they are ignoring such distractions and concentrating on how to solve problems. This change between the Soviet Union and the United States offers a powerful lesson for other nations. In today’s world, the policy of conflict and confrontation has become so costly that even great powers can no longer sustain it. Then how can smaller nations afford to engage in such a destructive pursuit?
A Turn Toward Realism
Nikita Khrushchev was Prime Minister of the Soviet Union from 1958 to 1964. Addressing the capitalist world, he made his famous remark:
We will bury you (Hindustan Times, June 28, 1988).
Similarly, in 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” American officials declared that they would push communist Russia into the sea. But seventy years after the communist revolution, in 1988, both countries were finally forced to change their thinking. Soviet leaders began traveling to the United States for talks. Ronald Reagan himself visited Moscow (June 28 to July 2, 1988)—something he had once thought impossible. Before his visit, he said in Washington:
U.S. relations with Moscow must be guided by realism (Hindustan Times, May 26, 1988).
For forty years, the two countries had been engaged in an arms race, each producing the most dangerous weapons in history to destroy the other. But now, they are placing restrictions on those very weapons and even dismantling them. The Times of India (August 3, 1988, Section 2, p.1) carried a report with the headline:
USSR destroys 4 missiles
The report stated that on August 2, 1988, the Soviet Union destroyed four short-range missiles (OTR-22) at Saryozek. The event was witnessed by observers from various countries, including India and the United States. The destruction was carried out under the agreement signed between Reagan and Gorbachev.
According to this agreement, the Soviet Union will, over the next three years, dismantle 1,752 missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States, under the same agreement, will dismantle 859 missiles of the same type.
The reason behind this dramatic change in U.S. and Soviet policies is that the pursuit of weapons and military dominance had stalled both countries’ progress. After spending half a century in an arms race and in a blame-oriented policy, they realized that such a negative course had brought them no real benefit. On the contrary, in trying to outdo one another, they had pushed themselves to the brink of destruction. That is why they have now abandoned the old policy and chosen to adopt a solution-oriented one.
America and Russia
America devoted all its strength to building a war machine. As a result, it fell behind in the economic field—even compared to its defeated country, Japan. Today, America is the largest debtor nation. It has an external debt of 400 billion dollars, while Japan has become the largest creditor nation, having lent 240 billion dollars to the world. The American dollar, which for half a century had stood as the ruler of the economic world, has suffered serious damage to that status. So much so that the question began to arise: can America continue to maintain its position as a superpower? (For details, see Time, July 4, 1988).
In an interview (The Times of India, August 9, 1988), Dr. Henry Kissinger said that a new basic reality has appeared—that some new powers have emerged on the global stage, such as China and India. Japan is becoming more and more powerful with each passing day. In such a situation, America will have to abandon its policy of ignoring other nations. It is essential for America to adjust to the new centers of power:
“US will have to adjust with new power centres.”
The 19th All-Soviet Party Conference was held in Moscow in the last week of June 1988, attended by five thousand delegates from all over the country. On this occasion, the Soviet Prime Minister, Mikhail Gorbachev, delivered a three-and-a-half-hour speech. In this long address, he strongly advocated self-criticism. A summary of his speech can be found in the The Times of India (June 29, 1988, page 11).
Mr. Quentin Peel, who participated in the conference as a journalist, listened to the speeches of the Soviet leaders and met them personally. He summed up Prime Minister Gorbachev’s three-and-a-half-hour address in these words:
“The message seemed plain enough: the party would have to renounce its stifling role in the administration and economy of the country. Power and privilege would have to be curbed, science and initiative given their head, if the Soviet Union were to compete with the rest of the world, let alone be a superpower.”
The message, at first glance, was very simple. The Communist Party would have to give up its tight control over administration, the economy, and the country itself. Limits on power and privilege would have to end. Science and initiative would need to be encouraged if the Soviet Union wanted not only to compete with the rest of the world, but also to remain a superpower.
Perestroika
These circumstances forced the Russian Prime Minister, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face reality. Abandoning the old tone of communist superiority, he launched a new campaign of reform in Russia, which he summed up in two words. One was glasnost—a Russian word meaning “openness.” The other was perestroika—a Russian word meaning “restructuring.” Under this title, Mr. Gorbachev also published a book, whose English name is:
Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World.
Through this movement, revolutionary changes were introduced into Russia’s former communist system. These changes ranged from granting religious freedom to building friendly relations with its traditional enemy, the United States. On this subject, many thought-provoking reports appeared in newspapers. One such report was released by the Los Angeles and Washington Post News Service. Hindustan Times (16 January 1988) published it under the name of Roy Gutman, with the following title:
Kremlin, White House Now Realistic (p. 20).
The report explained that, after recent events, relations between Russia and the United States had undergone a historic shift. A new way of thinking had developed in both countries. Both the Kremlin and the White House were becoming more realistic in dealing with one another. We reproduce that report below.
Kremlin, White House Now Realistic
By Roy Gutman
Moscow: A high Soviet official, ascribing a dramatic change in approach to the Reagan Administration, says US policy-makers now constitute a Pragmatic “team” that is “solution-oriented” and can work well with Mr. Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s new foreign policy.
“You have realistically minded people on both sides at the moment, in the Kremlin and in the White House, that team and our team... are solution-oriented,” said Mr. Bessmertnykh, who oversees Soviet relations with the United States.
Mr. Bessmertnykh, a veteran diplomat who served 12 years in the United States and is known as a leading exponent of pragmatism, emphasised that the summit affirmed a historic shift in US-Soviet relations.
He asserted that an agreement on a treaty sharply cutting offensive nuclear arms is still possible this year, despite a number of unresolved issues.
Mr. Bessmertnykh also claimed that Mr. Gorbachev’s new offer on conventional forces was “the most practical offer ever made.” Under the offer, NATO and the Warsaw Pact would exchange data on each other’s forces, verify the data on-site and reduce deployments where one side had superiority. He said Regan was non-committal, but Mr. Bessmertnykh urged the United state to give the idea serious consideration.
Mr. Bessmertnykh said changed attitudes on both sides had facilitated progress toward settling regional disputes where the United States and Soviet Union had been an influence. These disputes involved such places as Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Southern Africa, and Kampuchea. In the Soviet Union, the attitude change encompasses Mr. Gorbachev’s “new thinking” in foreign policy, which calls for political solutions based on a “balance of interests” of all the involved parties, and in the United States, a readiness by the Reagan Administration to discuss issues on this basis.
When Mr. Reagan came to office, the administration used phrases such as “we shall draw the line, we shall go to the source, we shall stop the advance of communism...”
But eight years later, “look at the situation,” he said, “the fleet was concentrated in the Persian Gulf. What was the result?” Mr. Bessmertnykh said, “Practical minded people” in the administration “realise the world has changed.” You can’t do it anymore that way. “It’s impossible.”
Just three years ago, when Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev met in Geneva at their first summit, the US aim in the Middle East was “Pushing the Soviet Union into the sea from the Middle East,” he said. The Administration has dropped this “arrogant but very unrealistic policy,” Bessmertnykh said. (The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post News Service).
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Alexander Bessmertnykh, who had served as ambassador in the United States for 12 years, gave an interview to Newsday. He said that “new thinking” had taken root in both countries. Their relationship was undergoing a dramatic change and a historic shift. Earlier, American officials used to say, “We will stop the spread of communism; we will drown them in the sea.” But now they had realized this was impossible. In the past, both sides spent their time condemning and trying to undercut each other. But that policy proved completely useless. Now, people on both sides were becoming realistic. Both their team and ours, he said, had begun to think in terms of solutions:
“That team and our team are solution-oriented.”
What are the aims and goals of perestroika? Mr. Gorbachev explained them in typical communist language as: “More democracy and more socialism; a better life for the working man; greater glory, progress, and prosperity for the nation.” But in truth, perestroika was a retreat from socialism, not the “next step” toward it. For according to Marx and Lenin, socialism could advance only after the death of capitalism. Every step forward for socialism meant a step backward for capitalism. Yet today, under Gorbachev’s leadership, Soviet Russia was making peace with capitalism—in fact, it was dreaming of progress and prosperity by adopting its values.
Perestroika does not prove the truth of socialism’s principles. It proves that success in this world is not possible without recognizing reality. In Reagan’s words: on this earth, we must live with all people, both good and bad. Realism and reconciliation are the true keys to progress and success in this world.
Conclusion
The change in relations between Russia and the United States is without doubt a very significant event. In modern history, it carries an important lesson. This event makes it clear that in today’s world, the policy of confrontation has completely lost its value. Blaming one’s rival, constantly trying to counter them, or engaging in conflict with them—even for powers like Russia and the United States—has proven entirely useless. How then could weaker nations hope to achieve any real results by following such negative policies?
Whether it is a matter of an individual or of a nation, the solution lies in the same approach. In this world, wisdom means focusing on building oneself instead of destroying others. To raise an issue only to make noise about it, or to launch a fight against an opponent in its name, is nothing more than a waste of time and energy. It leads to no other outcome. In short, the secret of progress and success lies in a solution-oriented policy, not in a blame-oriented policy.
