I WILL START WITH A QUESTION USUALLY I FINISH WITH, WITH OTHER PEOPLE. WHAT IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ABOUT?

Can I start? I think Zvi, that the issue that you have raised, I have tried to answer it in one of my previous works. I then wrote the following, that it seems to me that between the United States and the Soviet Union there is no reason for conflict in the usual sense of this concept. Because both countries, both of these great powers, have everything needed to live separately, independently of each other. Usually, a conflict arises where there is a dispute over something that both would like to have. There is no such thing, in terms of raw materials or human resources; we have available sufficient intellectual and technological potential, and everything else. We could live without each other, as Gorbachev said in Washington. But it's much better to live together with each other, rather than separately. The character of the conflict, I think, is based not so much on ideological grounds, but mostly on the large number of historical misunderstandings that have accumulated; this is why, in my view, it can be overcome. If it were something that could not be overcome, something that is inherent in the nature of things, that would be one thing - it would be worse. But now, I think that there is no reason to believe that this conflict cannot be overcome if both sides manifest good will.

SO, HE SAID THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY NO REASON FOR CONFLICT...

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CENTRAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS? BUT EACH ONE IN A SENTENCE, EACH ONE IN TWO SENTENCES. JUST A LIST OF WHAT YOU THINK ARE THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT.

I think that all of the contradictions and differences between the Soviet Union and the United States can be reduced to the following main points: first, the American public opinion developed this hmm ... this idea that the Soviet Union is threatening the United States to deprive them of their safety and their welfare. This is the first idea. Accordingly, the Soviet Union formed the view that the United States infringes on our independence and our right to build socialism, to continue on the path that we chose in 1917. The second is that the United States believes that the Soviet Union wants to impose its system on the entire world, and we, in the Soviet Union, we believe that the United States seeks to impose their system and their ideology on the entire world. These are two points that I would put in the first place. Everything else, it seems to me, is derived from this.

VERY OFTEN, NOW LESS AND LESS, BUT IT IS STILL HEARD IN THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT A PART OF COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY REQUIRES THE UNDERMINING OF THE BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPORTATION OF REVOLUTION. CAN YOU EXPRESS IN YOUR OPINION WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT THINKING ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE SOVIET UNION?

I think that this belief that the Communists want to impose their system on the entire world is based not only on theoretical and political, but also on evil will. Because, if during the initial stages of development of the socialist revolution, in the early years, such sentiments did exist, and such ideas took hold at all, it would be ridiculous to deny. There were people among the Communists, who believed that the revolution must be spread, including by armed means, just as it was at the time after the French Revolution, there were people in France who thought that it is necessary to extend the idea of the revolution by armed means. Here, then, these ideas were later abandoned and if we talk about the whole evolution during this period, then we can say that it has been generally accepted for a long time, starting as far back as the '60s, and the Communist movement has officially announced this, we reject the principle of exporting the revolution as well as the principle of exporting the counterrevolution. Now, a revolution will germinate, if appropriate conditions and the will of the people allow it. At the 27th Congress of the... well... this will do.

IS THERE... ARE THOSE DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUBJECT OF UNDER WHAT CONDITION SOCIALISM SHOULD BE PROPAGATED? ARE THOSE AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITHIN THE SOVIET POLITICAL CIRCLES? OR IS THIS A SUBJECT WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH CLOSED?

I would answer this question thus, that on the issue of the development of socialism, everyone in the world must necessarily understand that when we state that socialism would be moving forward, we mean everything associated with socialism and not just what is associated with socialism in the Soviet Union. This is not to say that, here, under the progress of socialism we mean the victory of the Soviet way of life, the Soviet model of socialism, not at all. We believe that socialism is a very rich, multifaceted phenomenon. This includes things that are done in the socialist countries. This also includes the activity of the revolutionary forces in the developing states who want to build socialism. This is also the struggle of the social movements in the West, including such movements as the Social Democrats, Socialist Parties, although we have different opinions about what socialism is and how it should be installed, but we believe that these movements have their own approaches, their views on socialism. And in the same exact way we find that socialism is inevitable in the future, in the long term. Another question is what form it will take, how it will improve, will merge with democracy, will become better. But just as capitalism took at least two or three hundred years to achieve its best form, socialism, too, apparently, will take many years to establish itself, to develop all its capabilities, its potential... But we believe that socialism is inevitable [unintelligible] because right now we are being reproached, accused of attempting to forcibly extend our system. To which we respond stating that we are not planning to do that, but we believe that the system itself, not this specific one, but socialism in general will arise, so to speak, naturally. People themselves will want to adopt it. Here, let's consider this aspect of the case: humanity is now facing very critical global issues. I know these problems, the problem of war and peace, environment, energy, population growth, and so on. These have now become fashionable, conventional wisdom, so to speak, banal concepts. How do we solve these problems? All people, including the Western theorists who take up these problems, inevitably come to the conclusion that we need socialist methods of solution, the problems cannot be solved otherwise. They cannot be solved by purely capitalist methods, at least for that reason that the solution of these problems requires the combined efforts of all states, requires a certain commitment, a certain redistribution of resources, and so on. And these methods are socialistic. And that's why even many scientists of the Club of Rome, Galtung and others, they have their own ideas about socialism, but they also believe that a new internationalist thinking is required, solidarity, a socialistic approach to these issues. Therefore, we think that the socialist relations are inevitable in the future. But this, I repeat, has nothing to do with that is being attributed to us; that we want to extend the domination of the Soviet Union or to create a world communist state. Nothing like that.

JUST TO CONTINUE. NEVERTHELESS, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE SOCIALISM IN EASTERN EUROPE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGES AND EVOLUTION THERE THAN YOU HAVE TOWARD...?

Sorry, what? I do not understand. Why do you say that? We take a very positive view of the changes that are happening now. In many socialist countries the search is on for new ways, new methods of building. Perestroika is now being proclaimed in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, well here ourselves are also changing. We ourselves, as is known... the main slogan, the main ideas of perestroika include merging democracy with socialism. Therefore, if we solve this problem, we will change, we will... rise to a new level of understanding of the socialist...

AGAIN BRIEFLY ABOUT THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS EAST EUROPEAN CHANGES.

Yes, I can of course. He wants me to repeat, right?

Well, I would like to say, that we have a very positive attitude towards the changes that take place in Socialist countries, towards their quest for new forms of development. We are changing ourselves. Our main goal, the major reason for "perestroika", speaking in the words of our leader, is to combine democracy with socialism. Consequently, there is no contradiction between the process taking place in our country and the process of building Socialism in future, as we understand it, in the entire world. In essence it will be the process of gradually improving Socialism. And if the Socialism will become better and better, people all over the world will start adopting Socialist system. People will realize that it is this system that is worth perpetuating in the entire world. This is a natural and inexorable historical process, which is either not very well understood in the West or deliberately misrepresented. Some people in the West contend that we want to impose our ideas and our order by force, to ram them down everybody's throat. We think that this is an objective historical process, that develops by itself is that what you were asking me about?

WHAT IS IN YOUR THINKING THE FUNCTION OF NUCLEAR ARMS IN THESE PROCESSES, OR HOW DO NUCLEAR ARMS COINCIDE PROMOTE OR LIMIT THE PROCESS THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING?

I am of the opinion, that nuclear arms cannot be regarded as a means of preserving peace. I disagree with those, who consider nuclear weapons the major factor that permitted us to escape war. We have been able to avoid war so far not because of the presence of nuclear weapons, but in spite of it. Both sides were wise enough not to start a new war despite nuclear arms. As concerns those processes that I have been talking about, nuclear arms on the one hand, play a very negative role as they are very dangerous, but on the other hand nuclear arms push human society towards integration, towards team efforts in solving the problems that face us. I have just finished an article on governing the world. I believe, that the processes leading towards creation of the world government already exist and develop. In fact, I think, that an entity, that might be called "the world government" already exists, in a certain sense. Some elements of it are the United Nations, international law, World Health Organization, various accords on transportation. Almost in every area of international relations there is some degree of "world government" presence. On the other hand, there are also quite a few areas amenable to this sort of regulation. Our common goal should be to try and draw all the cardinal, major questions into the sphere of international regulation. But in doing so, we must preserve independence of individual states and guarantee the principle of non-interference into internal affairs of other states. This is a very difficult a controversial task. But we must solve it. Especially, when experience shows, that we can do that. Take, for instance, a very difficult problem of human rights. It has always been a strictly internal, sovereign, if I can put it this way, affair of each individual state. Nowadays, the problem of human rights, individual freedoms, regulation of relations between state and an individual, a citizen, rights of an individual, becomes a subject of international agreements, cooperation, and heated debates. These debates and controversy are to be expected. We believe, that there are ways to regulate this problem like any other.

THERE WAS SOME IMPRECISE PROCESS, AND IT'S A PROCESS AS NOT YET COMPLETE, I SUSPECT, IN WHICH A RECOGNITION, THAT NUCLEAR ARMS ARE NOT ARMS, HAS COME ABOUT. THAT, THAT, MCNAMARA SAID, THAT NUCLEAR ARMS ARE ONLY GOOD TO PREVENT SOMEBODY ELSE FROM USING NUCLEAR ARMS, OTHER PEOPLE FEEL, THAT IT IS ONLY I WONDER, WHETHER YOU KNOW AT WHAT TIME THIS KIND OF RECOGNITION OCCURRED IN THE SOVIET UNION?

At what time?

AT WHAT TIME HAS THE RECOGNITION THAT NUCLEAR ARMS ARE NOT A REASONABLE WEAPON TO PURSUE POLICY BY OTHER MEANS?

I think, that it is impossible to answer this question, because different people have, naturally, held different views at different times on this problem. It used to be at the center of controversy. Some people thought that security can only be guaranteed with nuclear arms. I can tell you quite definitely, that these debates took place on the fringes of scientific..., or, rather, in scientific circles, but didn't spill over into big-time politics. But it is only after the 27th Congress of the Communist Party the Soviet Union, that the really new thinking and attitudes towards nuclear arms have been formulated. Without any question, the new conception has been brought to big politics by Gorbachev. Although even prior to that, beginning with 1946, the Soviet Union had been campaigning for the nuclear arms ban - eve before we started deploying our own nuclear arms. We have always had a strong desire to avoid nuclear arms race. We had economic as well as political reasons for that. At present this desire has become the basis of our foreign policy. We aspire to creation of a nuclear-free world. The very concept of the nuclear-free world was made public for the first time on January 15, 1986.

OK. EVEN BEFORE THAT, VARIOUS LEADERS OF THE SOVIET UNION HAVE SAID THAT THE NUCLEAR WAR WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA. SOMETIME, SOMEWHERE THE NOTION THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS CANNOT BE USED TO—I'M QUOTING CLAUSEWITZ—"TO PURSUE POLICY BY OTHER MEANS," HAD TO COME TO THE FOREFRONT. SOMEBODY... AND I WONDER, WHETHER YOU CAN HELP ME TO IDENTIFY THE TIME AND THE PLACE, OR A TIME WHEN A DISCUSSION WITHIN THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP WAS THE MOST ACUTE ABOUT THE SUBJECT, WHETHER IT WAS REALIZED BY THE MILITARY OR BY THE CIVILIAN... WHAT, HOW IT CAME ABOUT?

Well, I can tell you with absolute precision, that starting in 1946, and from then on, it was always clear to all of us, that the nuclear arms should not be used. All our doctrines were always based on this principle. I mean, military doctrines. So in this sense you can say, that we have always regarded the nuclear arms as a means of deterrence, a means of retaliation. From the very beginning. Well, I would like to remind you, that at that time, back in 1946, the Soviet Union proposed to ban nuclear arms. Then we took upon ourselves a commitment not to be the first to use nuclear arms. All this happened before the 27th Congress has put forward a proposal to scrap nuclear arms in the next 15 years, i.e. before the beginning of the 21st century. I don't know, is that what he wants from me? Do I read him correctly? .... such a point, a period in time or an exact minute, when this re-evaluation has taken place. Although this process must have gone on in peoples' minds on both sides. Well, the Americans started by devising attack plans of Soviet cities, for instance,..."Dropshot", etc. It was disclosed in the recently published data, that Eisenhower's advisers wanted him to deliver a preventive nuclear strike to the Soviet Union. He declined. Then the Caribbean crisis has, roughly speaking, scared everyone. It brought us to the brink of a nuclear war. So the realization, that the nuclear arms cannot serve even as a means of deterrence, has been building up over time. The price of its use would be too high. So this realization has been building up. But I consider the proposal of the 27th Congress to work on the nuclear free world program to be the final watershed event. Prior to this, both sides have considered nuclear arms to be a means of deterrence, with minor differences in their approach to this problem. Even today many people still think that to be true. Unfortunately, even today there are some people in Western Europe and the United States, who think that peace can only guaranteed by the presence of nuclear arms. We consider this to be a great delusion of our times, because sooner or later, if left in place, the nuclear arms will be used. Especially if the build up goes on. There are some calculations, based on the theory of probability, to the effect, that if the arms race continues, a point will finally be reached by year 2015-2020, when the probability of setting off a nuclear war will reach 100 percent. The precipitating event could be an accident. And if this happens, this will be the end of humanity. If we do no get rid of nuclear weapons, it will destroy us. That is how most reasonable people see the problem now.

AND SO IT IS VERY HARD TO IDENTIFY THIS.

... the United States, in order to overwhelm its defenses. This is a blueprint for a preventive first strike. We do not have such plans and never had.

I DID NOT MEAN TO START THE ARGUMENT.

Argument. I understand, that he didn't want to start an argument. I am telling him this, so that he will not necessarily....

STRATEGY AND MILITARY DOCTRINE OF CONVENTIONAL FORCES AND VISIONS OF PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS NOT A FIRST STRIKE, BUT IT COUNTS FIRST. AND IF... AND IT'S A FINE POINT, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU RATIONALIZE THE DOCTRINE. I THINK IN MILITARY TERMS, IT IS PROBABLY A WISE THING. IN ACTUAL TERMS IT WOULD MEAN THE SAME THING AS THE FIRST STRIKE.

That is the case. You see, because in one American book, I do not remember exactly whose idea it was, maybe Herman Kahn, or somebody else. But he said that it is very possible to unleash a nuclear war by means, as a result of series of misunderstandings. For example, he saw that I would like to attack him, and he, and that is why he attacked me first, and so on... Of course, it could be, but nowadays, especially after the last session of Warsaw Treaty Pact, where we declared that our doctrine...

SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SECURITY IN EUROPE AND THE WARSAW PACT POLICY. WILL YOU EXPLAIN IT?

Explain what?

YOU WERE GOING TO EXPLAIN THE NOTION OF INCREASING EUROPEAN SECURITY IN TERMS OF, IN THE POLICIES OF WARSAW PACT FORCES.

Of disarmament, you mean? I didn't understand him.

...AND THEIR POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO EUROPEAN SECURITY, OR POLICIES THAT WOULD INCREASE EUROPEAN SECURITY.

Well, I think that the question of European security is a part and parcel of the problem of world security, because the situation in Europe is similar to that in any other part of the world. If we leave the nuclear arms in place, it will sooner or later be set off. You know, as the theatrical convention goes: if they hang a rifle on a wall in the first act, it has to go off in the last act. That is why we think, that nuclear arms should be scrapped everywhere. So far Great Britain and France do not take part in negotiations, but sooner or later they will have to take part in them. We are working towards getting rid of nuclear weapons everywhere. Some people are now forcing the issue that there is a disparity in conventional armaments. Well, our proposals are on the negotiating table, let's agree to cut conventional armaments and personnel on the whole continent - from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural mountains. The mandate for these negotiations will soon be ready, I think. We think that it is totally within the realm of the possible. As concerns chemical weapons, the same applies. There is every possibility to come to an agreement on these arms as well. We can refine the mean of verification, etc. The most important thing now to let the process continue, prevent it from coming to a halt. Since we have started it, we have to move forward with it. If there are any suspicions, that one side might take advantage of the other, they should be dealt with by practical verification. We must move forward. I think that chances of reaching an agreement on disarmament in Europe are very good we should definitely try to achieve it. Such an agreement will also be a good example for other parts of the world, which we still have not reached with our concrete proposals. We have such proposals, but the process has not started yet.

IF WE HAD THIS... I ASSUME THAT WE HAD ARGUMENTS ON SIMILAR SUBJECTS OR IDENTICAL SUBJECTS IN THE STATES, IF WE HAD TO CONVINCE A FRIEND, OR...

YOU ARE TALKING TO DOCTOR SHAKHNAZAROV NOT TO ME.

I AM SORRY. SO IF YOU... WHAT SET OF THE MOST PERSONAL ARGUMENTS COULD YOU MAKE TO A WEST EUROPEAN OR AN AMERICAN TO CONVINCE HIM OF THE SOVIET GOOD WILL, OR IF NOT GOOD WILL, A PREDICAMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT NOT IN A FORMAL SENSE, BUT IN SOME KIND OF A PERSONAL SENSE. WHAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENTS TO REASSURE WEST EUROPEANS OR AMERICANS OF SOVIET GOOD INTENTIONS? I AM NOT DOUBTING IT, IT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF DOUBT, BUT IT IS A WAY OF ELICITING ARGUMENT.

Yes, I understand. I think that there are very good arguments, that must convince anybody - a West European or an American, that we are not planning to at tack them. First of all, because we have quite enough of our own territory and quite enough of internal problems. So we can definitely do better without so me sort of bellicose plans. But even if we had those bellicose plans, at present we are so concentrated solving our internal economic and social problems, preoccupied with improving our society and way of life, that we just have no time for aggressive plans. So all these misgivings and fears are total rubbish. On the other hand, we would also like to be convinced that nobody plans to conquer our country. Many people in this country still harbor such apprehensions. And it is easy to understand why. I have been to the front myself. I remember very well how my battery was bombed by German planes. At the time the Germans had a superiority in the air. We were sitting ducks for them and they shot us at will. They would bomb the guns and machine gun the personnel. We were totally helpless. Many perished. I remember five service women of the Signals Corps killed with one bomb. We do not want this horror to repeat. So many our people are very worried and ask whether there is a guarantee that we will not cut the defense so much as to be overrun by an invader. So we see a dramatic situation. Both sides are apprehensive that the other side will attack. We must convince each other to do away with this attitude.

...SUBJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR AGE THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO, I AM SORRY, I AM AGAIN TALKING TO YOU. DID WE, DID WE LEAVE OUT AN ELEMENT OP YOUR THINKING, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NUCLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND THE USSR?

Sorry, I didn't get it...

(INTERPRETER TRANSLATES THE QUESTION INTO RUSSIAN)

In respect of nuclear armaments?

Well, it seems to me, that it is very important at the present moment to keep in mind, that the nuclear war could be precipitated today not by the evil designs of someone, but by accident. This is the most dangerous thing right now. That's what we should think about. Such an accident can be brought on, on the other hand, by the evil intent, but not necessarily evil intent on the part of some states or governments. Recently, I have been re-reading a book by the German physicist and author by the name of Mashkovsky. He writes about his conversations with Einstein. It is interesting to note, that way back in the twenties, when Einstein himself still didn't believe it possible to split the atom and develop a nuclear bomb, he used to say, nevertheless, that if nuclear fission ever became feasible, humanity would effectively disarm itself and be defenseless before any ill-intentioned per son or a terrorist, who might have access to the bomb. Such a person would be able to destroy a whole city. Einstein foresaw such a possibility back in the twenties. If the present increases in nuclear armaments and related research will proceed at the pace they are going now, the momentum may become irreversible. That is why we are so insistently against The Strategic Defense Initiative. The point of the matter is not that we consider, or, I should rather speak only for myself and say, that it is not that I personally consider the President of the United States and some other influential people in America so bloodthirsty as to launch a nuclear attack against us, especially when they know that we would mount a counter-attack. The point of the matter is that it is extremely dangerous to introduce into the outer space a whole series of very sophisticated devices with enormous striking power that could, among other things, be aimed at targets on Earth. Some data also suggests that these devices can be equipped with powerful lasers capable of burning whole cities. This is very dangerous, as any malfunction of instruments on board of these devices could lead to the precipitation of nuclear war. Well, "both sides can not afford to run such a risk. That is why we are against adding a whole new dimension of complexity to the already over complex balance of nuclear forces in the world. We must reduce nuclear arsenals, destroy and discard nuclear arms, get rid of them and not vice versa. That is what I wanted to say.

WELL, YOU SAID...

Well, up till now practically all more or less significant changes for the better in the areas of disarmament, improvement of relations, cooperation usually followed some sort of a crisis. For instance everyone was scared by the Cuban missile crisis an so the Red Line was installed. Communication improved, some other positive steps were taken. Now then, the Chernobyl tragedy led to the sharply increased cooperation in the field of nuclear energy use for peaceful purposes and its control. When AI has emerged, everyone has pooled efforts and start to cooperate in the common cause of coping with the disease. As concerns nuclear arms, we should not wait for the next crisis, which could be disastrous but work to prevent the possibility of it happening The most important thing that we should learn is h to act before the crisis, not afterwards. That is why I consider the progress made in Washington a major breakthrough - not only because it marks the beginning of nuclear arms abolition, but also because it was made without any prior crisis, without any mutual scare. We just tried to understand each others' positions. From now on, we must move in this direction.

I THINK THAT IT IS RELATIVELY EASY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE FUTURE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE COOPERATIVE WITH THE SOVIET UNION, OR WILL COOPERATE IN ARMS AGREEMENT WITH THE SOVIET UNION. WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE THE SOVIET POLICY IF THE NEXT AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION IS COMPETITIVE WITH THE SOVIET UNION?

What our policy will be if...

(INTERPRETER TRANSLATES THE QUESTION INTO RUSSIAN)

I think that we shall pursue the same policy. It will remain unchanged, because it stems from the fundamental interests of the Soviet people and, for that matter, of all the peoples in the world. This is not propaganda, this is my deeply held conviction. So we shall follow the same policy. But if the future administration will misbehave and be worse than the present one, then everyone will be worse off. It could not be helped then. You can de pend on us. We'll not digress from the present political course. We'll consistently press for disarmament. We'll be persistent and patient in reaching our goals. I am absolutely convinced of that.

(INTERPRETER TRANSLATES THE ANSWER INTO ENGLISH)

WHAT MORE DO WE NEED, WHAT ARE WE MISSING? ANY OBSERVATIONS?

Alexei, have you missed something important?

I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THESE FOUR SCENARIOS FOR THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS OF SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS.

This will be shown to the Japanese?

NO, THIS WILL BE...