Barring an unforeseen international incident, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev will visit Washington on December 7 for a summit with President Reagan. The two leaders will sign a treat to eliminate medium and short range nuclear missiles, and discus reduction in strategic weapons. Their efforts deserve wide support.
The arms control community, in particular, would lend it support regardless of the motives behind Ronald Reagan’s sudden turnaround on the efficiency of nuclear arms control after six years of derailing the arms control process. When the Administration began losing the support of the public as the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed and the economy began to sag, President Reagan turned to arms control to try and rescue his faltering public image. But this does not diminish the importance of arms control. We should welcome sound agreements, and press for the singing and ratification of treaties that enhance our mutual security and, hopefully, reduce the numerically obscene deployments of nuclear weapons.
However, there is one large group of people which ought to be supporting the efforts of the upcoming summit, who nevertheless appear poised to oppose it. Massive demonstrations are planned against Gorbachev to protest Soviet human rights violations and intervention in Afghanistan and Poland.
Certainly, the Soviet Union’s record on tolerating political opposition, allowing the practice of any religion, and granting emigration rights to its dissatisfied citizens is deplorable. The occupation of Afghanistan and political domination over Poland deserve criticism But there is one point demonstrators should consider before setting out to embarrass the Soviet General Secretary. While we may feel he is proceeding slowly, Gorbachev’s attempt to reform the Soviet Union is unprecedented.
His reforms include a dramatic shift away from economic centralization (a hallmark of the Stalin era) towards allowing individual localities and industries to control operation and production. Gorbachev is allowing, albeit on a limited basis, elements of a free market economic system to mix with the Soviet Union’s socialist system.
While allowing this economic freedom, he is offering reforms that lift some of the oppressive restrictions that have persisted since the Stalin era. Newspapers can criticize both local and central government on a wide range of issues, from bureaucratic inefficiency to shortages of goods and services. Political prisoners are being released from psychiatric institutions and areas of isolation, being allowed to return to their homes, and apply for and receive exit visas.
The Soviet Union is not on the verge of offering freedoms to its citizens on a scale approaching that in the West. But Gorbachev is nevertheless meeting stiff opposition from his bureaucracy and political insiders. He is moving too fast for the bureaucracy which can’t adjust to the changes he demands, and he is not moving fast enough to bring the positive results he needs to show that his reforms will improve the society.
HE comes to Washington hoping that success on the international front will buy him time at home so that his reforms will have a chance to be implemented and prove successful. Like Reagan, he is turning to arms control as a way of garnering popular support at home. As Marshall Goldman, director of Harvard’s Russian Research Center, testified before Senate committee in September, mass protests will only serve to endanger Gorbachev’s already precarious position. If demonstrators embarrass the Soviet leader and capture international headlines, the political success of the summit for the Soviet leader will be in jeopardy, and so too will be his position as the Soviet leader.
Goldman predicts that Gorbachev may not last more than 18 more months. Those who would protest against him should consider what his likely replacement will look like. Gorbachev may not be creating a completely free and open society, but he is encouraging change in ways his predecessors never dared. If he fails, his successor is hardly likely to follow in his footsteps.
Those who hope to see extended freedoms for Soviet citizens should applaud Gorbachev’s courageous attempts at reform, welcome his visit, and give him a chance to prove himself. The alternative to Gorbachev may bring a return to the traditional Soviet policies that enraged the would-be demonstrators in the first place. The alternative is also likely to be significantly less flexible in arms control negotiations, and have a much lower incentive to concentrate on improving relations with the United States.
Leave a Reply