Editor's Page
The right to know Georgy Arbatov, by definition, is the Soviet Union's leading expert on the U.S. He is director of the Soviet Academy of Science's Institute for United States and Canadian Studies. He is also a member of the Communist Party's policy-making Control Committee. He was recently in the U.S. Among other things, he attended the first meeting of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, held at Airlie, Va., late last month. Arbatov also expected to participate in a televised debate involving three Soviet and three U.S. representatives to be broadcast April 10 on "Bill Moyers' Journal" on the Public Broadcasting Service. It was to be the third program in a three-part series on U.S./Soviet relations. But Arbatov never made it. The Department of State denied him a necessary visa extension and the broadcast subsequently was canceled when the Soviets withdrew their other representatives "as a matter of principle." The State Department's decision, apparently cleared by Secretary Alexander Haig, was made in response to Soviet refusal to allow U.S. representatives to appear on television in the Soviet Union. The department says the move was part of the policy of the new Administration to demand reciprocity in its dealings with the Soviets. Some of the State Department's frustration at not being able to get the U.S. point of view onto Soviet television is understandable. But the Soviet Union is, by our standards, a closed society. Dissident views of any kind get short shrift, on television or elsewhere. To those of us who live in a democracy, this is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Soviet system. It is not readily apparent how this will be changed by moves that undermine one of the U.S.'s greatest political strengths—the right of its citizens to know; to be exposed freely, with no governmental interference, to all views from all sources. Maybe it is what Arbatov did say while he was in the U.S. that helped make him the specific target for the State Department's gesture. He deliberately kept a low profile during his visit, declining invitations from national television networks to appear on interview shows. But he did speak with C&EN and he also addressed the physicians' meeting during a plenary session that was open to public and press. For instance, he pointed out that the headlong arms race in strategic nuclear weapons between the U.S. and the Soviet Union has tremendous political and moral consequences. He said that this race "has made absolutely futile exercises in being tough, playing tough, flexing muscles, and using strong words. This is not only not wise, it is a demonstration of cowardice. You need much more political courage, not to speak of political wisdom, not to find refuge in such machismo but to practice restraint and seek for compromises and moderation." He told C&EN that the scenario of a first strike by Soviet land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's) against elements of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal is the "fruit of sick minds." This scenario—under which the U.S. would lose almost all of its current force of Titan and Minuteman ICBM's and thus be faced with the option of either surrendering or launching an all-out nuclear war—is a very key part of the rationale for building the proposed MX weapons system. He also pointed out that the arms race is the major source of bad U.S.-Soviet relations, breeding the most intense suspicions on both sides. He says that the concept of winning such a race is "stupid." All that happens "is that you only open bottles, and the génies [of increased weapons sophistication] come out—each more horrible and harder to control." Many will maintain that anything that Arbatov or any other high Soviet official has to say is propaganda, carefully structured to encourage the U.S. to lower its guard unilaterally and so open the way to unrestrained Soviet imperialism. If such a charge is true or not, the citizens of the country have the right to hear Arbatov and his colleagues. It is appropriate for the press to report such material in a balanced and analytical way. And the government has no right to interfere—whatever frustrations it may feel. Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
April 13, 1981 C&EN
3
