Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 320


US-Soviet Confrontations
in Science and Technology

US-Soviet Confrontations
in Science and Technology
Glenn E. Schweitzer

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Schweitzer, Glenn E., 1930T echno-diplomacy: US-Soviet confrontations in science and technology 1 Glenn E.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-306-43289-7
ISBN 978-1-4899-6046-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-6046-7
1. Science and state-United States. 2. Science and state-Soviet Union. 3.
Technology and state-United States. 4. Technology and state-Soviet Union. 5.
Science-International cooperation. 1. Title.
Q127.U6S288 1989

1989 Glenn E. Schweitzer

Originally published by P1enum Press, New York in 1989
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1989

AII rights reserved

recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher


Techno-diplomacy \tek-n-da-'plo-ma-se\ n. (1989)

1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations
between countries with conflicting technological
interests, 2: skill in handling scientific affairs
without arousing hostility, 3: ability to resolve
issues on the frontiers of science and technology
in the direction of peace and not war: TACP

Should the United States help Mikhail Gorbachev succeed? The

stakes are enorrnous. Our human values and our security are on
the line.
The USSR and the United States control most of the world's
military power, adversarial powerthat is the product of science
and technology. At the same time, our two countries have many
common interests in using science and technology both to help
raise living standards and to protect health and ecological
resources on a global basis. Can the Ieaders of the two
superpowers devise practical approaches for channeling
more of the scientific energies of their countries into humanitarian endeavors and away from military pursuits? This is
the challenge which must be met by policies of the two counV



tries, policies which meet on the frontiers of science and

technologyo This is the challenge of techno-diplomacy which
can help to ensure that such policies steer our nations away
from confrontation toward cooperation, for continued confrontation could Iead to war, while cooperation offersthebest hope
for peaceo
The radical changes underway in the Soviet Unionare driven
to a large extent by the determination of the Soviet leadership to
harness science and technology and thereby modernize a sputtering economyo The rewriting of history, the whittling away of
the bureaucracy, the promotion of economic entrepreneurship,
and the turning loose of artists and writers are all part of an
unprecedented attempt to dramatically transform an entire society and to prevent the country from slipping further behind the
technological and economic achievements of other nationso Resources are scarce and incentives to reduce military spending are
great; the time is right for the two superpowers to reach accommodations that can redirect priorities and change the worldo
The United States and the USSR first established diplomatic
relations in 19330 On that occasion President Franklin Roosevelt
emphasized "0 0 0 our nations henceforth may cooperate for
their mutual benefit and for the preservation of peace of the
worldo" 2 Now, 56 years later, our two countries have a new
opportunity to transform this hope of the past into the reality of
the future; science and technology will be a pivotal factor in how
our relationship developso

The shortage of computers and computer illiteracy at all

Ievels of society prevent the USSR from entering the information
ageo The Chernobyl disaster and the crumbling of buildings during the earthquake in Armenia have shattered many of the mythologies about the prowess of Soviet engineeringo Continued



crop failures reflect the limitations of ideologically based agricultural policies.

One-quarter of the world's scientists live in the USSR, but
the productivity of most Soviet laboratory scientists is less than
30 percent of the productivity of their American counterparts.
Few Soviets have mastered the keyboard for typewriters or computers, and few have access to copy machines. Though a small
number work in sparkling new laboratories, most struggle in
dreary, rundown facilities which seem tobe always under repair. 3
An astonishing half of the world' s engineers work in the
USSR. Mostare technologically underemployed, however, toiling as technicians and denied the tools or opportunities to apply
modern engineering skills. Meanwhile, many automated production lines rely on workers to take over when the control
systems malfunction, with the quality of Soviet products unpredictable at best.
For years Western visitors to Moscow and the provinces
have likened the lack of amenities in the USSR and the chronic
shortage of consumer items throughout the country to life in
developing countries. Comparisons of the conditions in the USSR
with survival in the Third World have bruised the pride, riled
the anger, and awakened the consciousness of Soviet leaders.
Despite economic stagnation of the country, Soviet military
might looms as large as ever. The Soviet nuclear arsenal has
doubled in the past 15 years. The nation's conventional forces
span many thousands of miles. And its spectacular space
achievements remain unmatched.
This distorted situation has provided much of the impetus
for Gorbachev's plans to reconstruct Soviet society-perestroika. To many Soviets, perestroika seems tobe the only hope
for reversing the continuing decline of the Soviet Union as a
modern nation. Even the Soviet critics of perestroika offer no
alternative course of action. Gorbachev is pinning many of his



hopes, and indeed his survival, on the effective use of the huge
pool of technical manpower-including the managers of military programs-to revitalize the entire Soviet economy from top
to bottom.
Meanwhile, Gorbachev dazzles the world with his intellect, charisma, and boldness. Under his leadership the Soviet
Union is changing in ways considered unbelievable several
years ago.




This book is about science and technology-a central theme

of perestroika. It is about Gorbachev and Soviet scientists and
about the charting of a nation's course into unknown seas.
This book is also about American scientists and engineers,
about our universities, private companies, and government
agencies. It is about those Americans who have worked long
and hard to blunt the edge of the US-USSR military confrontation by promoting cooperation in programs of considerable importance to both nations and to the world. Frequently these
Americans have experienced the lavishness of Kremlin receptions and the excitement of the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow. But in
Washington their importance as a rodder of political stability in
the rough turbulence of US-Soviet relations has yet to be adequately recognized.
Most importantly, this book is about power. Science and
technology can be equated with power-military power, economic power, environmental power, and the power of new
ideas and hope.
The concept of supremacy through military power lost
much of its earlier significance shortly after the world entered
the nuclear age. Long ago both superpowers crossed the threshold of nuclear capacity to destroy civilizations, rendering additional weapons of little military value. A formidable nuclear de-



terrent is at the ready in Central Europe, and additional conventional forces in the region appeal only to theorists who fantasize that a Third World War might not involve nuclear weapons. Clearly, attempts to achieve military superiority should
become less of a driving force in the development of superpower relations.
Econornic power is rapidly dominating the international
scene. The influx of high technology products from Asia into all
parts of the world shows that economic power is not necessarily
derived from military power. International financial dealings
around the globe transfer the equivalent of more than $1 trillion
across international borders daily; that is where the power
which will shape the next century lies.
The Soviet Union cannot remain isolated from international
economic developments. The country painfully feels the econornic impact of fluctuations in the international price of its oil
exports. The nonconvertibility of the ruble embarrasses Soviet
travellers throughout the Western world. Also, the USSR is in a
quandary as several of its East European satellites sink deeper
into international debt.
The indirect effects of the changing international econornic
scene on the superpower relationship, and indeed on international relationships throughout the world, are profound. Shaping these effects is the revolution in microelectronics; those
countries that can obtain and use information on a global scale
will be the true masters of their economic future. As former
Secretary of State George Shultz frequently observed, the information standard-reflected in the power and compatibility of
computer systems-has replaced the gold standard as the basis
for international commerce.4
National security, or perhaps more correctly national survival, for both countries is also dependent on power to conserve
natural resources, to protect the water and air from pollution, to


prevent the spread of infectious diseases, and to maintain a

healthy population. Such power is fed by the creativity of scientists and engineers. Americans believe that our approach to governance offers the greatest promise for stimulating creativityan approach which springs from a tradition of free thinking.
Now all nations must not only stimulate scientific creativity
but must ensure that it is used to promote the interests of all

Discussions of technological competition between East and

West would not be complete without commentaries on the activities of the foreign intelligence services and the internal security agencies of the United States and the USSR-the CIA, the
FBI, the KGB, and others. These organizations have many roles,
which include keeping track of technological developments
abroad and protecting technologies at home. The publicity attendant to clandestine intelligence activities around the beltways of Washington and Moscow has been so extensive that
many American travellers to the USSR and Soviet visitors to the
United States are sure they are under the ever-watchful eye of
an adversary. Needless to say, such activities of the intelligence
agencies greatly blur the propriety of many cooperative activities between the two countries and confuse and confound Soviet
and American participants alike.
The role of some diplomats and of foreign agents in cat-andmouse intelligence games should not be confused with the role
of scientists in exchange programs. While I was serving
as a diplomat in Moscow, our apartment was bombarded
with still unexplained microwaves for three years, and a microphone was removed from the wall behind my Embassy desk.
Also, I was physically hassled by the KGB on the streets of
Moscow, and my family was harassed on a holiday excursion



outside Moscow; these personal indignities were Soviet retaliations for FBI encounters with Soviet diplomats in Washington
who were apparently engaged in much more sinister activities
than I.
In sharp contrast, as a representative of the National Academy of Sciences, which is a nongovernmental organization, I
have been treated with great respect in both countries. I have
never sensed an effort to distort my position as a promoter of
cooperation in areas of considerable interest to both countries.
Our scientific exchange visitors only rarely have difficulties; yet
once in a while Americans have encounters with the KGB, and
Soviet exchange scientists arouse the concerns of the FBI.

Much of the writing draws on my experiences as the first

Science Officer at the American Embassy in Moscow in the
mid-1960s and on impressions during the past four years as a
manager of a large nongovernmental scientific exchange program between the United States and the USSR. During the intervening 18 years I occasionally visited the USSR. More importantly, I was deeply immersed in directing scientific endeavors
in the United States during this period. This experience in
American research laboratories sensitized me to the sharp differences faced by American scientists working in the United States
and their Soviet counterparts conducting research in the USSR.
I have included many personal anecdotes in the text to add
a human dimension to the discussions. Hopefully, these personal observations will be received in the spirit which prompted
their inclusion. I am just one of many Americans who have tried
to stay in touch with developments in the USSR over the years.
However, I have been fortunate to have witnessed many unusual events in the United States andin the USSR, and this book
offers an opportunity to share some of the most interesting ex-



periences with a broader audience. Given my heavy reliance on

personal recollections as the basis for many of my impressions,
an academically oriented book would not be appropriate. Thus,
footnotes are limited, assertions are manyfold, and conclusions
are frequently controversial.
In short, the book is an unvarnished recording of my impressions of developments in US-USSR scientific relations up to
the end of the Reagan administration. I have benefited enormously from discussions with the Ieaders of the National Academy of Sciences, from debates with my associates at the Academy, from interchanges with American scientists and with specialists in Soviet affairs, and from interactions with Soviet offleials
and scientists over the years. I am profoundly grateful for the
insights which these colleagues have provided. Still, the views in
this book are my own, particularly those views which may run
counter to conventional wisdom about developments in the
USSR or which conflict with policies adopted in Washington.
I am very appreciative of the support provided by the staff
of Plenum Publishing Corporation in the preparation of the
manuscript. In particular, Linda Regan's insights in separating
the wheat from the chaff and her numerous contributions to
improving the logic and readability of the presentation were
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for the support of my family as I wandered the globe over a period of many
years. From our first night in the USSR at the Hotel Bug in Brest
on the Polish border in 1963 until the final reading of this manuscript, Janet, Carol, and Diane have been a source of inspiration
that has seen me through many cold nights in Archangel, Novosibirsk, Leningrad, and Moscow and many lonely days at the
word processor.


Chapter 1: Perestroika, Technology, and the

Uncertain Soviet-American

Chapter 2: Changing Concepts of Military Power

Chapter 3: Soviet Science and Technology Fall
Chapter 4: Changing the Course through
Chapter 5: Scientists March to the Diplomats'
Chapter 6: Scientific Cooperation on the
Chapter 7: Trade, Cooperation, and the TechnoBandits .............................. 191
Chapter 8: Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific



Chapter 9: Economic and Scientific Decline in

Chapter 10: Five Years to Change the Course of





Perestr oika, Techno logy, and

the Uncerta in Soviet- Americ an
Relatio nship
Mikhail Gorbachev is my friend.
Ronald Reagan

Kremlinologists must retool. With the onset of glasnost, the

information drought as to Soviet concerns and intentions has
given way to uncontrolled floods of information about deliberations and debates at alllevels of Soviet society. No Ionger is an
interview with a "well placed Soviet source" or with a Soviet
political dissident the primary objective of Western journalists
and diplomats. So many sources and dissidents are speaking
out on all fronts that Western observers now have the luxury of
emphasizing those Soviet statements which best support their
personal perceptions of trends in Moscow and throughout the
The recent changes in the Soviet media are startling. Soviet
journalists have begun to seize the initiative from the Western
press in exposing corruption, inefficiencies, and other weak3

Chapter 1

nesses in the Soviet system. In recent months I have seen new

Soviet films and read articles in leading Soviet magazines based
on real-life experiences in the USSR which depict prostitution,
extortion, and murder with a violence that deserves R ratings. 1
The Soviet Government arranges formal press conferences for
Sakharov and other controversial personalities who apparently
speak without inhibitions. Name-calling on television among
the party leadership has been in fashion since the 1988 party
Leading Soviet officials make so many conflicting statements
that confusion reigns at home and abroad in sorting out the party
line, if indeed there is a party line. While Gorbachev' s statements
clearly carry far more weight than the pronouncements of others,
even he must frequently modify his views lest he find hirnself
isolated within a party of many conservative forces.
Meanwhile, the spread of activities of foreign visitors in the
Soviet Union during the past several years has been remarkable.
Western business representatives are seemingly everywhere
trying to develop commercial schemes for tapping into the 300
billion rubles of personal savings of Soviet citizens throughout
the country. American military inspection teams travel to formerly secret sites. Hotels capable of accommodating foreigners
are now appearing in some areas which had previously been offlimits to visitors. Meetings of visitors with refuseniks have become routine. Soviet media coverage of statements by Western
Ieaders and ordinary citizens from the West is extensive and far
less selective than in the past. 2

A good roadmap for positioning recent developments in the

USSR within the Soviet commitment to communism is Gorbachev' s book Perestroika, published in the English language in
the United States in 1987 and published shortly thereafter in the

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship

USSR in Russian. Keeping in mind the importance of the American audience, he maintains his vision of the future directions for
Soviet society as a natural extension of Lenin's principles. His
assessment of problems and opportunities within the USSR as
well as on the international scene has provided the basis for
many of the policies which he has advocated at home and
abroad and has frequently put into practice during the past several years. While glasnost has probably shaken more skeletons
in the closet than even Gorbachev anticipated and has prompted
additional proposals for reform, Gorbachev has generally followed the perceptions he setforthin 1987.3
Complementing Perestroika is another book published in
1988 for consumption in the West, The Economic Challenge of Perestroika. This book is authored by one of Gorbachev's economic
advisors, Abel Aganbegyan. lt chronicles many mistakes within
specific Soviet enterprises during recent years and forcefully
makes the case for the economic reforms which should be
introduced. 4
American economists are quick to point out some of the
shortcomings in the rigor of Aganbegyan' s economic analysesat least as we understand economics in the West. Soviet critics
complain that his proposals to change organizational responsibilities are simplistic. Aganbegyan admitted to a small group
of us in Moscow that he has great difficulty being a "partial
virgin" trying to retain the purity of Sodalist equality while advocating introduction of capitalist entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, the book sets forth the basic concepts for moving from rigid
central planning to self-financing of industrial activities at the
enterprise level. Inherent in this approach, argues Aganbegyan,
must be a devolution of decision authority to the factory managers and to the workers themselves.
Gorbachev' s three-pronged program of glasnost, perestroika, and democratization has received enormaus publicity

Chapter 1

within the USSR as weH as notoriety within Western intellectual

circles. All branches of the Soviet media rightfully boast of their
new openness. Many bureaucrats have been prematurely retired. As the concepts of multiple candidates for elected positions ancl of limited tenure for senior officials are being intmduced within the government, those most directly affected by
the democratization process are the party faithful, who in the
past have benefited from the favoritism of a political spoils system. Also, the traditional meddling of the party in the micromanagement of many social and economic activities is being
eroded as economic factors receive greater weight. Meanwhile,
most Soviet citizens have yet to be personally touched by the
program of reforms.
In 1988 a new government research institute for public polling was established in Moscow. An early effort assessed public
reaction to glasnost. This poll found that few Soviet citizens can
define glasnost, and even fewer can give examples of glasnost in
action. Most prefer to "read, Iisten, and watch" rather than
"personally and directly participate in" the process of democratization. According to the poll, glasnost has been most popular with the weH educated and with residents of the two largest
and most sophisticated cities, Moscow and Leningrad. 5

For the first time the Soviet leadership seems to appreciate

the depth of the systemic problems that hold back the Soviet
economy and to recognize the failure of their science and technology in areas outside military systems and space exploration.
Soviet Ieaders are aware of how commonplace high technologies
have become in many countries while recognizing the minimal
Soviet participation in the international process of technology
diffusion. They increasingly appreciate the Iimits of military
power-in the superpower relationshipandin addressing prob-

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship

lems in the Third World, and they see great benefits from arms
control agreements that can Iead to reduced spending on armaments. They have truly been awakened by the German youth
who in 1986 penetrated the supposedly sophisticated Soviet air
defenses all the way to Red Square in a light airplane, by the consequences of their isolation from the information revolution, and
by the eight billion ruble price tag for the cleanup of Chernobyl.
Meanwhile, the Soviet population reacts cautiously to the
rewriting of Soviet history and to the growing discrepancies
between Marxist theory and Soviet practice. But then Marx was
a foreigner, they note. They are frequently confused, occasionally amused, and sometimes bored by the strong drums of selfcriticism. In general, however, Soviet attitudes seem receptive
toward the changes being introduced into society from the top.
Soviets are proud that Gorbachev is receiving international recognition as a world leader-as Time's man of the year (1987), as
an equal with the president of the United States and the prime
minister of Great Britain, and as an advocate of policies aimed at
global harmony.
The Soviet population sees bright sides of perestroika. They
welcome the return of Soviet soldiers from Afghanistan. They
are glad that corruption is being exposed. They are pleased that
the laggards aretobe put in their places. The Soviet population
knows no alternative to communism, and they have backed
Gorbachev's efforts to improve the system. At the same time,
the workers are restless. Shortages of consumer goods are severe, and the promised tools to improve productivity are nowhere in sight. Frustrations will undoubtedly continue to hurst
forth in street demonstrations from time to time as Gorbachev
struggles to quell the population' s impatience with delays in
realizing the economic promises of perestroika.
The concept of entrepreneurship, which is a key to perestroika, will require many years to catch on in a significant

Chapter 1

way. Managers of large state enterprises arenot accustomed to

having responsibility for turning a profit, let alone being motivated to organize the efforts of the workers solely for profit.
Presumably with the help of the central government, enterprise
managerswill begin to mobilize the necessary talent which can
cut through the system and ensure reliable sources of raw materials at reasonable costs. They will also have to find customers
willing to pay fair prices, and they will have to deliver products
of adequate quality in order to prevent the loss of markets to
These economic concerns so familiar in the West are only a
small part of the problern of entrepreneurship in the USSR.
Enterprise managers will have great difficulty in refusing to
comply with directives from Moscow or from local authorities
for emergencies, for exceptions, and for political favors, though
compliance may hurt their profits. Unproductive workers cannot be fired if they have nowhere else to find employment.
Managers will be reluctant to reduce the many social services
traditionally provided to the workers-housing, transportation,
schools, camps, medical facilities, cultural events, political education; but these services have little economic return for the
Are these types of supplementary activities tobe subsidized
by the state? What alternativesexist if domestic cost accounting
is to be brought into line with international cost accounting?
Such alignment seems essential if the Soviets are to be players in
world trade. 6

Parallel to the internal reforms have been Gorbachev' s shifts

on international security concepts. He has linked national security with mutual security, pointing out that a nation's own security cannot be ensured without taking into account the security of

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship

other nations. If other states feel insecure, they will take military
steps to redress the balance, steps that in turn provoke further
military responses by their potential adversaries.
Gorbachev has clearly articulated the need to broaden the
traditional Soviet concept of national security from sole reliance
on military strength to include both political and economic
strength. He has recognized the importance of a genuine interdependence among nations in international politics and economics. He is apparently moving away from the earlier Soviet
concept of international division of Iabor which called for each
nation to rely primarily on its particular economic strengths; this
philosophy had provided a basis for arguing against discriminatory trade practices of the West. Finally, he seems tobe downplaying the importance of national Iiberation struggles in the
Third World, due at least in part to the economic drain on the
USSR from supporting such struggles.
Skeptics in the West give little credence to Soviet rhetoric
concerning new approaches to national security as long as the
USSR continues to modernize its weaponry and diffuse arms
around the world. They are impatient. They welcomed recent
steps toward limited cuts in military expenditures by the Soviets
and reductions in the size of their army, but they want action
and not just promises. These voices in the West argue that the
Soviets will only feel secure when the West does not have the
capability to resist Soviet aggressive ambitions. 7

As to better use of science and technology, Gorbachev's

program of reforms has two thrusts. First, many obsolete Soviet
technologies must be brought up to the world standard of the
1960s and 1970s, and eventually to a contemporary standard, in
industries ranging from automobile manufacturing to textiles.
Second, many new technologies in the fields of electronics and


Chapter 1

advanced materials must be mastered if the USSR is to enter the

information age that is spreading rapidly throughout the world.
Gorbachev vividly recounts the failures of past Soviet policies of heavy reliance on importing technologies from the West.
This dependence on Western capabilities reduced incentives in
the USSR for the development of Soviet technologies. Then the
policies became entwined in embargoes and bans imposed by
the West. While still calling for the use of foreign technologies,
he now advocates accelerated indigenous technological development which can be meshed with the best technologies available from abroad. s
The USSR is not alone in seeking technology from all available sources. Countries throughout the world are pinning their
hopes for a better standard of living and for protection of their
national boundaries on their mastery of science and technology.
In the United States we consider new technologies as the key to
ensuring international competitiveness for our manufactured
products and as the Cornerstone to maintaining military superiority in many regions of the world. As previously noted, improved science and technology in the USSR are to be at the
forward edge of perestroika while also strengthening capabilities to withstand new military challenges from the West. Meanwhile, the developing countries perceive science and technology
as the only bridge across the ever-widening rivers of poverty;
these waters become more treacherous with the continuing population explosion, the ravaging of the tropical forests and other
natural resources, and the emergence of AIDS as a threat in
many countries.
The rapid growth of computer technologies excites leaders
and opens new doors to political and economic power. International capabilities to develop and introduce the latest electronic
devices are rapidly spreading. Industrial firms in the United
States, Western Europe, and Japan have high-tech facilities

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship


araund the globe; and local entrepreneurs are also ernerging in

Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Latin America with capabilities
to produce electronic clones. The research and development
networks and the manufacturing complexes of many multinational companies operating in electronics and other hightechnology fields simply no Ionger respect national boundaries,
despite disparities in regulations controlling financial, production, and export activities in different countries. In general,
Western technologies belong to companies and not to countries.
These companies are now dispersedas never before. 9
The pressures for commercialization today of scien~fic discoveries of yesterday have diminished the distinctions between
research, development, and application. While rapid introduction of the results of research into practice has been an oftrepeated axiom for many years in almost all countries, only
recently has the economic importance of reducing the time lags
in the research and development cycle really hit home. Several
centuries elapsed between Newton's discoveries of the laws of
gravitation and the first artificial satellite. Now, the development cycles for new generations of computers have been compressed to periods measured in months. The cycles for new
generations of software are sometimes measured in weeks.
Even in agriculture, where plant breeders have usually thought
in terms of decades for developing new varieties, biotechnology
promises to truncate the Iead times for new products of commercial value.
Scientists engaged in basic research have always been worried that the quest for quick payoff from science will reduce
support for their activities. They contend that only better understanding of fundamental processes will result in major breakthroughs. Such understanding is obtained through research
which rests on unprogrammed trial and error to gain new
knowledge that in the short run may be totally divorced from


Chapter 1

the development of new products. The most important aspect in

the application of a new technology is a good theory, they
argue. They do have a point. However, in the scramble for limited research funds, tensions will persist among the basic researchers and those forces which seek more immediate payoffs
from science.
Meanwhile, military establishments in all countries have
increased their interest in how science and technology can best
serve their needs. In the United States, the Department of Defense now funds over 60 percent of all research and development supported by the US Government or 30 percent of all
research and development conducted in the United States. This
means that the Department of Defense directly and indirectly
employs a very !arge portion of our science and technology
workforce. The areas of interest to the Department of Defense
span all scientific disciplines from anthropology to zoology. Yes,
anthropology provides background on the likely behavior patterns of enemy forces, and zoology gives insights as to possible
battlefield conditions in remote areas.
With each passing day the distinction between science and
technology for nonmilitary uses and for military uses becomes
less clear. Following W orld War II, many civilian technologies
were spin-offs from military activities-jet engines, communication systems, nuclear power. Now the reverseisalso true, with
many modern military systems being the beneficiaries of Western civilian research and development efforts-computers for
controlling battlefield systems, plastics used in aircraft and missiles, and satellite technology. In the future, military establishments throughout the world will probably be interested in every
aspect of science and technology. Of course, the military interest
is most intense with regard to those technologies which can be
used in weapons systems-radars, heat-resistant materials, undersea acoustic devices. Such technologies which have both mil-

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship


itary and civilian uses are called dual-use technologies. It is in

the area of dual-use technologies that most of the policy debates
concerning East-West trade and technology relations generate
sparks. To what extent should the United States forgo opportunities to sell its products abroad in order to prevent dual-use
technologies from falling into Soviet hands? Given the availability around the globe of dual-use technologies, can these
technologies indeed be protected?
Also of particular relevance to East-West cooperation is the
rapid emergence of big science projects. Big science usually
means very expensive science. It attracts top scientists and involves very sophisticated instrumentation: spacecraft, particle
accelerators, astronomy observatories, and undersea research
vessels. Clearly no single scientist has the capability or the financial resources to grapple with big science, and large facilities
and teams of scientists supported by governments are essential.
Now the calls for international sharing of the costs and pooling
of technical talent in big science are at an all-time high. Potential
Soviet participation in such international arrangements is always a controversial topic. What will they bring to the program,
and what will they take away?
A new dimension of big science is developing rapidly,
namely, the scientific aspects of changes in the very nature of
the biosphere brought about by pollution and destruction of
natural resources. Ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and
acid rain are now household words. The interestininternational
cooperation in addressing these environmental problems is
clear, and many research programs are being initiated, nationally and internationally. The humanitarian nature of such
efforts should be of interest to everyone on earth. Yet concern
over the desirability of sharing technologies even for humanitarian purposes looms in the background. Military analysts are
wary that such sharing could erode our technological lead in


Chapter 1

both the economic and military spheres. For example, will use of
satellites to scan pollution on a worldwide scale compromise
photographic technologies which detect missile sites? Will development of mathematical models of complicated environmental processes require international sharing of advanced computer technologies?

While developments unfold in the USSR with unaccustomed speed, the process for formulating and redirecting US
foreign policies remains complicated and slow, particularly with
regard to policies affecting the relationship between the superpowers. Many highly influential Americans and institutions of
all political persuasions are directly involved in shaping new US
policies. Many other countries are affected by the superpower
relationship and understandably attempt to influence how that
relationship develops. Also of great importance, most Americans believe that they have a very personal stake in the character
of the relationship between the two countries which could easily
affect the future of humanity. They want to be certain that
changes will indeed improve prospects for survival. Thus, it is
not surprising that we are witnessing dramatic changes in the
USSR which are clearly moving at a much faster rate than adjustments of US foreign policy to these changes.
In late 1987 former Secretary of State Shultz, speaking to an
audience of American foreign policy specialists, articulated a
sophisticated assessment of global developments surrounding
the superpower relationship. The increasing economic dependencies among countries, particularly those involving the Asian
countries, together with the tremendous strides in the speed of
diffusion of information are encouraging democracy, openness,
and freedom, both within and among nations. He argued that
those nations which have adopted greater freedom in their mar~

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship


ketplaces and in their political institutions are the ones which

are advancing. Those that suppress innovation and information
are falling further behind. In Shultz's view, Gorbachev's "new
thinking" is an effort to compensate for historical Soviet weaknesses in these areas of critical importance as the Soviets lose
influence around the globe.1o
As to whether the US Government hopes Gorbachev will
succeed or fall, Shultz and other administration spokespersons
have been hesitant to take a position. They invoke diplomatic
niceties of not interfering in the intemal affairs of the USSR.
However, they note that the USSR is clearly seeking a breathing
period of 10 to 20 years devoid of military threats from abroad in
order to be able to concentrate on improving its domestic economic situation.
Many Western skeptics contend that while the changes
within the USSR are dramatic on the surface, they are little more
than cosmetic in reality. Food lines remain long, consumer
goods remain in short supply, agricultural productivity has not
improved, and the industrial base continues to age. They emphasize that the KGB is still out of control. These skeptics perceive the proposed changes on the domestic front as unworkable and easily reversible. They still see an aggressive Soviet
posturein the Third World, notwithstanding the pullout from
Afghanistan, and Soviet military and economic domination of
Eastem Europe. They argue that if significant changes are to
occur, they will be primarily the result of military and economic
pressure applied by the United States. This pressure, they conclude, must be continued to eventually break the Soviet system.
However, to many other Americans, Gorbachev's ascendancy has brought a great deal of hope that life will be different
in the USSR and that the superpower relationship therefore can
also be different. They identify very easily with the concepts of
glasnost, democratization, entrepreneurship, and human dig-


Chapter 1

nity being espoused by the Soviet leadership. Theseare Western

concepts, and it would appear that we are winning the war of
ideologies. Soviet support of inspection for arms control agreements and advocacy of deep cuts in nuclear arsenals also hit
responsive chords.

Early in the Reagan administration, the United States proposed as a negotiating tactic dividing relations with the USSR
into four areas, namely, arms control, human rights, regional
problems, and bilateral issues. The Soviets eventually agreed to
the structuring of discussions into these areas. However, disagreements arose over the relative importance of the areas and
the interrelationships among them.n
The impact of the four Reagan-Gorbachev summits on the
official attitudes of the two countries was substantial. Both sides
agreed on the importance of continuing bilateral dialogues on a
wide range of issues in the nuclear era. To quote Gorbachev,
"There is no getting away from each other." They recognized
the difficulty in managing the superpower relationship in view
of contrasting philosophies, political systems, and national
interests. Candor dominated discussions. Both sides appreciated the rapid political, economic, and technological changes
throughout the world that affected both countries; and they indicated a willingness to entertain new ideas and approaches.
Clearly, both sides considered the area of arms control of
paramount importance. Enormaus effort was expended during
the four summits and at many other forums to try to come to closure on a number of arms control issues. (At the summit in
Geneva, the US negotiating team occupied 127 rooms at the
Intercontinental Hotel.) Agreement on the INF treaty and substantial progress toward improved verification measures that

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship


could Iead to ratification of two treaties restricting underground

nuclear testing highlighted the arms control progress during the
Reagan administration. The international debate on many other
military issues also reached a new Ievel of seriousness. And
science and technology were on center stage during the discussions of SDI and of the verification aspects of all types of
Reagan's public view of the "evil empire" changed, and
Gorbachev acknowledged that maybe the empire had been evil
in the past. Both Ieaders recognized the growing impact of scientific progress on a broad range of issues confronting the two
Still, human rights has remained of special concern to the
United States. Much of our attention has been directed to the
plight of Soviet Jews, and particularly their imprisonment for
political reasons and denial of their emigration from the USSR.
Many of the Jewish dissidents and refuseniks have been scientists, and the reaction within the American scientific community
to Soviet infringements of human rights has been substantial.
Concern has also been aroused in the United States over nationalistic demonstrations in the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania-areas yet to be legally recognized by the
United States as being a part of the USSR. In addition, as glasnost spread into the provinces during 1987 and 1988, disturbances in Armenia, Georgia, and other republics made headlines in the Western press.
Discussions between the two governments of regional political problems have covered the globe, with special emphasis on
southern Africa, Central America, and the Middle East. The
United States argues that the USSR has little business in these
areas, particularly in view of its emphasis on military involvement. The USSR contends that, as a world power, it has as
much right to participate in the activities of these areas as does


Chapter 1

the United States, whose military aid programs reach many corners of the world.
Discussions about cooperation in science and technology
take place in the forums directed to bilateral issues. Negotiation
of intergovernmental agreements to further some aspects of scientific cooperation has always been an item on the agenda during preparations for summits. At the Geneva summit in 1985,
cooperation in fusion research was in the spotlight. In Washington in 1987 the Ieaders underscored their interest in studying
the impacts of man-induced environmental changes on the climate. In Moscow in 1988 they highlighted cooperation in the
exploration of Mars.
A number of official scientific exchange agreements were
terminated during the early 1980s due to US disapproval of Soviet actions in Afghanistan, Poland, and elsewhere. However, by
1988 the Reagan administration had initiated or restored more
than 10 intergovemmental agreements involving science and
technology cooperation and had seriously discussed other areas
for future cooperation.12
A particularly contentious issue within the US Govemment
during the late 1980s was a proposed intergovernmental agreement for cooperation in basic scientific research-research considered far removed from industrial applications. Several agencies argued for three years against such an agreement, which
they contended would legitimatize Soviet access to American
scientists who could be exploited by Soviet intelligence forces.
Finally, after extensive debates within the US Govemment,
American and Soviet negotiators developed a text of the agreement prior to the summit in Moscow in June 1988. Still, on the
eve of President Reagan's departure for Moscow, conservative
forces within the White House objected, and the agreement was
shelved. Six months later the agreement was revived and finally
signed in early 1989.


Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship

Bilateral economic relations also command considerable priority during discussions between the two governments at summit meetings and at many other diplomatic sessions. The current
Ievel of trade between the two countries is very small. In comparison with American trade with many other countries, it is
almost negligible. Nevertheless, American business executives
continue to participate in both official and unofficial discussions
with Soviet organizations, confident that eventually there will be
opportunities to take advantage ofthelarge natural resource base
in the USSR and to penetrate the Soviet consumer and industrial
markets in a more serious manner. The new Pepsi Cola commercials on Soviet television add considerable spiee to conversations
among American business representatives grasping for indications that the Soviet market is opening up. The Soviets have been
seized with mastering Western approaches to marketing, which
they believe will help internal economic growth within perestroika and aid their linking to the global market. American
marketing consultants are popular visitors in Moscow.
As expected, the USSR is very interested in trade arrangements which provide access to the technological achievements
of American industry. Ideologically, the Soviets continue to argue that Western economic discrimination against the USSR
through embargoes and high tariffs inhibits the prospects for
peace. Meanwhile, they chip away at trade barriers by entering
into as many favorable commercial deals with Western firms as
possible, and they are exploring how they can become fullfledged members of international trade and financial organizations such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

As we have seen, perestroika, the development and protection of advanced technologies, and Soviet-American relations


Chapter 1

on many fronts are inextricably linked. The Bush administration

must address these issues collectively with policies which advance the recent positive trends in the development of the bilateral relationship.
The changes in the USSR are dramatic. Some cannot be
reversed, since many genies are out of many bottles. At the
same time, fundamental reform of the Soviet system will not
come easily. The year 2017, the centennial of the revolution
which led to the Soviet state, seems a realistic target date for the
emergence of a new type of Soviet state.
Changes in the upper echelons of the Soviet leadership are
now occurring with regularity. While some long-term political
leaders remain, new faces increasingly dominate political photo
opportunities in the Kremlin. These changes seem to reflect a
determination to prepare for the long haul. The many Western
predictions of several years ago that Gorbachev' s tenure should
be measured in months have lost credibility as his personal allies
reach the higher pinnacles of political power and as he continues to receive broad international acclaim.
The safest course is to predict that perestroika will fall on
hard times. Given, however, that the inflexible Soviet system
has managed to withstand both the shocks of war and dislocations during peacetime, it may well adjust to this latest call for
change. Indeed, the Soviet leadership may find that the population adjusts too well to newly found freedoms.
In contrast, the American approach to domestic and foreign
policies is generally perceived to be quite flexible but is actually
rather rigid when discussions turn to our adversarial relationship with the USSR. A significant factor is the hundreds
of billions of dollars of defense contracts which are at stake
should there be changes in our defense posture. And our
defense posture is at the heart of the Soviet-American relationship.

Uncertain Soviet-American Relationship


During the 1990s the issue of protecting American technology unquestionably will be a key consideration in the policy debates over our relations with the USSR. This issue is central to
our trade relationship. It constrains many of our scientific exchange programs. And it certainly stirs emotions throughout
The prevailing bureaucratic mind-set has been, "We have
the technology. They want it. Don't give them anything." The
minority voices have argued, "We aren't the only ones who
have it. It's better if they buy it from us than help the foreign
trade balance of other Western countries. Let's not control the
uncontrollable, and let's relax controls when we can obtain
something in return." The debate is not whether we should
control militarily relevant technology. We should. The debate
focuses on which technologies should be controlled and how
they should be controlled.
The superpower relationship is critical to global survival.
How can we best respond to the advent of future technologies
which will drive this relationship? The chapters which follow
explore many dimensions of scientific and technological development to helpanswer that question. We will see that the only
sensible choice involves walking a tightrope of cooperation with
the Soviets on the high-tech frontier-walking the tightrope of


Changing Concepts of
Military Power and National
Our policy is one of deterrence.
Former US Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci
Nuclear deterrence has long outlived itself.
Soviet Defense Minister Dmitri Yazov

Since World War II the wrestling for military supremacy has

played center stage in Soviet-American relations. This competition dominates debates in Moscow and Washington over the
allocation of national resources and molds the foreign policies of
the two countries toward allies in Eastem and Western Europe.
Assistance and coercion in the Third World are often designed
to prevent military expansion by the other superpower.
The notion that this competition can be replaced by EastWest cooperative endeavors in the near term is wishful thinking. However, continued progress in reaching agreements in
arms control and in reducing military involvement of the superpowers in Afghanistan, Central America, and other lands beyond their borders could dramatically change the character of
the competition. Most importantly, the preoccupation of both


Chapter 2

nations with the use of military power to shape the bilateral

relationship between the two countries can and must diminish.
The impact of the electronics revolution is forcing the USSR
to face up to its backwardness in many military and civilian
areas. The Soviet leaders see no alternative but to enter the
international economic arena and become a significant participant in this technological revolution. They finally realize that to
be acceptable internationally, the USSR must become less hostile in words and deeds. The rapid diffusion of electronic and
related technologies throughout the world is also having a profaund economic effect on the United States. "International competitiveness" has changed from a slogan to a matter of necessity.
The United States needs to move away from its preoccupation with the East-West military axis as the principal determinant in its foreign policy. Our nation should recognize more
fully the latent impacts of technological advances in Japan and
WesternEuropeon our economic interests at home and abroad,
and we need to devote more energy to reducing the continuing
turmoil in Latin America. A more constructive relationship with
the USSR could permit greater attention by the United States to
these and other pressing international issues.
Cooperation between the United States and the USSR in
science and technology can help to build trust between important specialists of the two societies who understand many of the
relationships between militaristic and peaceful pursuits. Politically, the time is right for such cooperation to expand in scope.
As we shalllater see, mutual scientific benefits from cooperation
are already on the rise, and such tangible results of cooperation
can help shape a brighter vision of the global future.
However, within both countries, the vested interests in
maintaining the military competition penetrate all aspects of society. The stereotypes of the United States and the USSR as arch
enemies bent on destroying each other have become accepted as

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


conventional wisdom. Most Americans are convinced that the

Soviets will never back away from their historical commitment
to spread communism throughout the world, relying on force
when necessary. The Soviet citizenry remembers the ravaging of
Soviet soil during W orld Wars I and II by invaders from the
West. They remain very nervaus that the Western powers harbor ambitions for still another attack on the Russian homeland.
Meanwhile, powerful voices on both sides claim that strong
military capabilities built on ever-advancing technologies in general, and nuclear weapons in particular, have preserved world
peace for more than 40 years and that any lessening of military
preparedness is therefore foolhardy.
The military Ieaders of both countries play major roles in
shaping the East-West relationship. The choices of new weapons systems and the decisions on the deployment of military
forces at harne and abroad are the most important Ievers they
have with which to influence this relationship. At the same
time, far-flung military exercises provoke minor skirmishes between American and Soviet military forces patrolling along the
Siberia-Alaska frontier, in the Mediterranean Sea, and in the
Indian Ocean. The mock battles between American and Soviet
jet fighters depicted in the popular American film Top Gun are
much too close to reality.
Flexing musdes of military technology at international air
shows and during naval port calls buttresses the political interests of both countries. Using military equipment to break international speed, endurance, and other performance records is
often a peacetime goal of the generals. In short, the confrontation between the two military giants is alive and thriving.
Technology is the fuel which propels the race for new, improved, and more expensive weapons systems to offset perceived advantages of the adversary. At the same time, technology advances the design and production of more reliable


Chapter 2

systems and systems which are easier to control; such systems

are often touted as less likely to provoke unintended military
exchanges. Also, surveillance technology to check on military
actions deep inside the other country is opening the doors for
arms control agreements which require reliable verification technologies. Such agreements should lessen the need for building
up military forces, although some factions in both countries labei this argument specious and dangerous.

Gorbachev's "new thinking" directly challenges many existing precepts of the balance of military power. Even skeptics
who dismiss his concepts as a giant hoax to lull the West into a
state of complacency admit that his intellectual arguments depart sharply from the tired Soviet rhetoric about the superiority
of the Soviet state. Before turning to Soviet concepts, a few
comments on American thinking will help clarify the evolving
context for Soviet pronouncements, actions, and reactions.
For several decades, enlightened leaders of the Congress
and the Executive Branch of the United States have worked hard
to convince the American public that our national security extends far beyond the size and capabilities of military forces. The
timeliness and appropriateness of American political and economic responses to international security crises, they point out,
are critical if our interests aretobe protected. Still, many Americans nurture the belief that if all eise fails in resolving disputes,
the United States can simply use or threaten to use its extensive
militarypower to solve any international crisis. This is no Ionger
true, if it ever was. In recent years we have been sufficiently
bruised from military interventions in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Central America that this lingering conception of
the past can now be unequivocally dismissed.

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


The state of the American economy is an important Cornerstone for the entire international economic and financial system. International security conflicts are increasingly entwined
with economic problems around the world, and particularly disturbances within the developing countries which can be triggered by changes in the international value of their currencies,
losses of international markets, problems of foreign debt, and
fluctuations in foreign aid. While the causes of local economic
crises cannot be easily traced across international boundaries, it
is clear that the health of the American economy plays an important role both in our own national security and in the security of
other countries.
Newly espoused Soviet concepts of the major factors affecting national security mirror concepts that are regularly debated
in the West. Soviet specialists articulate the interplay among the
economies of the world, recognize that military strength does
not necessarily equate to political influence, and frame the concept of interdependence among nations in a very broad context.
Despite these awakenings, the Soviets join us in having difficulty in fully understanding how military, political, and economic
considerations are intertwined in promoting national security.
The Soviet domestic economy is in such dire condition that
the USSR desperately needs some relief from external military
pressures, which in recent years have exacted increasing levels
of financial resources for Soviet military systems. With regard to
the international economic scene, their position is also tenuous.
They can continue to ship oil, gas, gold, fir, timber, and other
raw materials to the international market; but these resources
are not without limit, and their value as primary goods has
slipped in relation to the value of finished goods on the international markets. At the same time, they have much to gain
through more direct involvement in global affairs, particularly in
drawing on technological achievements and management


Chapter 2

know-how of the West. Looking to the future, watchers of the

Soviet scene will continue to see a huge unsatisfied consumer
market, large quantities of undeveloped mineral resources in
inaccessible areas, and a large scientific workforce that needs a
stimulus to raise productivity.
As to more immediate military concerns, Gorbachev emphasizes that a nation' s security is directly affected by how an
adversary judges its own security. If one nation is overwhelmingly strong and perceived accordingly, the adversary will attempt to correct the situation with military buildups which in
turn will eventually threaten the security of the first nation.
Thus, the logic goes that for the USSR tobe militarily secure, the
United States must also consider itself militarily secure; neither
side should take steps which significantly alter the perception
that both nations are secure lest a new phase of the arms race
ensue to correct the situation.
Related to this concept of mutual security is Gorbachev's
contention that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. He does
not accept the notion that some minimum levels of nuclear
weapons are needed to deter war. Rather, he argues that as long
as nuclear weapons exist, the possibility of escalation of violence
to the level of global destruction remains. He apparently accepts
the concept of deterrence based on conventional weapons
which have both an attack and a counterattack capability. However, this concept becomes clouded when considering how the
superpowers, if devoid of nuclear weapons, would counter
threats from other countries that independently develop nuclear
weapons. 1
Such total elimination of all nuclear weapons has never entered into serious strategic thinking in the United States. As an
extreme case, in 1981 during a visit to the headquarters of the

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


Strategie Air Command near Omaha, I asked a leading general,

"How many missiles do we need to maintain a credible deterrent?" His reply was, "As many as we can build." Several other
generals echoed this sentiment, apparently believing that one
side could overwhelm the other-politieally if not militarily-if
that side commanded a significant numerical advantage in the
nurober of deployed strategie weapons. I wondered what had
become of the concept of "overkill." Strategies whieh call for
destroying the adversary more than once surely seem wasteful.
Fortunately, few thoughtful Amerieans share the logie of
simply producing as many nuclear weapons as possible; certainly other military officers whom I have known for many years
do not have such views. However, as the numbers of nuclear
weapons on both sides have multiplied, logie has taken a back
seat to the complexities of military "targeting" requirements to
cover every conceivable contingency-requirements that call for
many weapons indeed. Thus, as one side produces more weapons and introduces defensive countermeasures against nuclear
attacks, the other side responds with new targeting requirements, and the buildup of offensive weapons continues.
In the mid-1970s I listened to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger speak out forcefully against the continued buildup
of strategie forces. At that time, he argued that 500 Ameriean
warheads which could survive a first strike against the United
States were more than enough to retaliate in a manner that
would immobilize any nation that was foolish enough to launch
a first strike. While Mr. Kissinger's views have become less clear
in recent years, the premise he expounded 15 years ago, that
neither country needed the large arsenals then in their possession, remains valid today as the nuclear arsenal of each side
exceeds 20,000 warheads.
For more than 25 years, US strategie forces have rested on
the "triad" concept, involving nuclear-tipped missiles on sub-


Chapter 2

marines, missiles on land, and nuclear weapons deployed on

aircraft. Thus, each of the three military services-the army,
navy, and air force-has its own strategic forces, and each of the
services also has numerous ideas about how it could use more
strategic weaponry of many kinds. The origin of the triad approach can be traced at least in part to interservice rivalries
following World War II; the army, navy, and air force each
wanted a major role in the development and deployment of
nuclear weapons. While great strides have been made by the
Pentagon to integrate the interests and capabilities of the three
services, these rivalries among the services persist. They give
rise to redundancies of quantity, mission, and roles for the nuclear weapons of each service.
The principal rationale for the triad concept is that the United States should not put all its eggs in one basket or even two. If
the Soviets develop effective countermeasures against one leg of
the triad or if unanticipated technical problems arise in one of
the legs, two others remain. However, in strengthening each leg
of the triad over the years, our experts have developed a variety
of weapons systems including different types of aircraft carrying
various types of warheads and different types of missiles with
diverse deployment technologies. In effect, there are many reinforcement bars in each leg to help ensure the viability ofthat leg.
Thus, while the triad concept still draws strong political support, it has lost the technological simplicity that made it so attractive in the first place.
Perhaps the triad concept remains the best approach for
achieving our strategic objectives; perhaps two heavily reinforced legs would serve us better; or perhaps two reinforced legs
and one thin leg would be preferable. As arms control becomes
a much more serious dimension of national security, the approach to strategic weaponry needs careful reassessment. The
point of departure should be the strategic objectives in a chang-

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


ing world without the constraint of sanctity in the need to preserve a role for each leg of the triad.
Since the 1950s, Soviet rocket forces have been proudly on
parade in Moscow and in other Soviet cities at holiday occasions, as the Soviets have repeatedly showcased for the world
their military capabilities to reach any adversary anywhere on
the globe. Initially, the US Government overestimated their
capabilities, both in terms of numbers of missiles and of
capabilities of the systems. Indeed, questions arose whether the
Soviet rockets on display during the early days were really functioning rockets or whether some of them were mock-ups. While
viewing the rockets on the streets of Moscow from a distance of
several feet in the 1960s, I was surprised by the many unexplainable cracks and other imperfections in their external appearance,
particularly around the bolts, joints, and engine casings. They
simply did not look like rockets that would survive on long
journeys. In any event, by the 1970s the Soviet capability in
rocketry was well established, and our remaining uncertainties
related to the details of their designs.
Both sides profess that they do not intend to launch the
initial missile or bomber attacks that could trigger a nuclear war
and that their strategic weapons will be used only in a retaliatory
mode. Neither side believes the other and can cite indicators of
latent first-strike intentions. The Soviets point to the US insistence in reserving the right to use nuclear weapons first if
absolutely necessary and to the positioning of US aircraft artd
submarines near their shores. Our government points to past
aggressions of the Soviet Union and to Soviet underground
shelters where their leaders could retreat to survive a US nuclear
response to a Soviet first strike.
Each side argues that it must use the most advanced technologies to develop systems which will enhance East-West political and military "stability" and thereby reduce the risk of war.


Chapter 2

However, concepts of stability are often conflicting and confusing. One American concept is that military systems which appear defensive and not provocative to an adversary and which
avoid the possibility that an adversary will mistake defensive
measures for preparations for war should be promoted. But one
person' s perception of defensive measures can be another' s perception of a threat, and interminable debates ensue over which
systems are stabilizing and which are destabilizing. Oebaters
often end their arguments with the conclusion that if the military system belongs to their side, it adds to stability. If it belongs
to the other side, it is destabilizing. For example, during the
1970s, Soviet efforts to develop antiballistic missile capabilities
were criticized in the United States as destabilizing. Yet the
same critics argue that our SOl program is a move toward more
stabilizing systems.
At the 1986 Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik, nearterm reductions of 50 percent of the nuclear missile forces of the
United States and the USSR were considered, along with the
objectives of subsequently eliminating all ballistic missiles and
eventually all nuclear weapons. Reportedly, an approaching
consensus on these concepts feil apart when Reagan refused to
compromise on the testing of SOl while Gorbachev insisted that
restraints on SOl testing must be a component of any serious
reductions in strategic weaponry.
Many political and military Ieaders in the United States and
Western Europe were subsequently relieved that such a farreaching agreement was not reached, with or without the inclusion of limitations on SOL Conceptually, they had difficulty
believing that the elimination of US and Soviet nuclear weaponry would promote stability and keep the peace. They considered
a total restructuring of the military fiber of the leading nations of
the world in a short period to be not only dangerous but politically disruptive and indeed impossible. Probably of greatest sig-

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


nificance, they feared that the discussions were based more on

Reagan's personal convictions than on sound strategic analysis.
Many American commentators strongly criticized Reagan' s
performance at Reykjavik, primarily on the grounds that he was
unprepared to discuss such weighty issues which were unexpectedly placed on the agenda by the Soviets. Despite the presence in Reykjavik of all of the top American advisers in the field
of national security, continued the argument, arms control issues are so important that only positions that had been carefully
developed through the technical agencies within the United
States and through NATO should have been discussed.
As noted earlier, the vested interests in maintaining current
armament levels are very strong in both countries. At the same
time, pressures to reduce defense expenditures are increasing,
and the morality arguments put forth in support of proposals to
reduce nuclear weapons attract ever-larger followings. The
views of the many participants in the normal processes of government considering far-reaching proposals for arms control
will always be in sharp conflict. Thus, at least in the United
States, there is no substitute for leadership by presidents who
have carefully weighed the many divergent views in breaking
out of the bureaucratic conservatism within the government
agencies and in setting the framework for meaningful negotiations. Whether such leadership went too far or not far enough at
Reykjavik will be debated for decades.
At Reykjavik, Reagan and Gorbachev projected a vision of a
world with no nuclear weapons. They apparently wanted to
agree on this goal and a timetable for achieving it. This seems
unrealistic, but other far-reaching goals which will avoid nuclear
annihilation are needed. However, we cannot rely simply on the
traditional processes of government or of consultation among
allies to generate the initiative for establishing such goals. Our
government must consult in Washington and abroad, but we

Chapter 2


Americans must look to the president to stimulate visionary

thinking about national security.
"lf we know where we are going, we have a chance of
arriving at our destination. lf we don't know where we are
going, we have no chance of arriving." This timewarn saying
is most appropriate with regard to national security. Eliminating the need for most nuclear weapons by the end of this
century is a reasonable destination point in the area of strategic

The close relationship between nuclear force Ievels and the

plans of both the United States and the USSR to retain strong
nonnuclear military capabilities in Europe has been recognized
for many years. However, only now, as reductions in nuclear
weapons become a reality, is this relationship receiving the attention it deserves.
Since the end of World War II, Central Europe has been free
of serious military conflicts. Of course tensions have sometimes
run high, particularly with regard to the status of Berlin. Many
incidents related to espionage on both sides of the East-West
border and to the escape of refugees from behind the Iron Curtain have also stirred political anxieties. Even today, many of us
receive icy stares from well-indoctrinated border guards from
the Eastern bloc who do their best to make us feel uncomfortable
as we cross the border separating West Germany and Czechoslovakia and as we travel between East and West Berlin. Nevertheless, military forces of the East and West have not engaged
in direct combat despite the large numbers of forces deployed in
close proximity to the borders. If continuation of the status quo
is an indicator of stability, then the border between the NATO
countries and the countries of the Warsaw Pact has become a
model of stability.

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


The United States has unequivocally aligned its national

security interests with the interests of NATO, which in turn has
been preoccupied primarily with the threat of an invasion from
the East. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Europe's shores are
our shores. Europe's borders are our borders. We will stand
with the Europeans in defense of our heritage of liberty and
dignity. " 2 However, going from such political pronouncements
to agreement on deployment and control of military forces has
been a giant and elusive step.
Europeans increasingly question the US commitment to
stand and fight in Europe. Discussions of reductions of the
American military presence in Europe raise their suspicions.
Many other types of discussions between Soviet and American
diplomats are also criticized as not giving adequate attention to
the interests of NATO, and American political and military leaders are constantly flying to Brussels to explain that we have not
sold out the alliance.
A personal experience illustrates the tensions within NATO
that have persisted for many years as the United States works on
several diplomatic fronts to promote its security interests. A
number of years ago, I was asked by the Department of State to
travel to Geneva and meet with the Soviet disarmament delegation considering a treaty to ban deployment of nuclear weapons
on the seabed. We were to discuss some of the technical details of
distinguishing between oceanographic instruments placed on
the seabed for research purposes and nuclear weapons which
might be clandestinely positioned on the seabed in violation of a
treaty. The Department of Defense objected to such a discussion
on behalf of the NATO Military Committee, which had not considered the issues, even though NATO had been informed that
the discussions would be informal and would not address policy.
Thus, the Department of State changed my schedule, and I
flew toGenevavia NATO Headquarters in Brussels where I first


Chapter 2

rehearsed my presentation before the Military Committee. After

introductory remarks by the committee chairman exhorting the
importance of intergovernmental consultation on all phases of
the East-West confrontation, the members of the committee
quickly lost interest in the slides that I had prepared to simplify
my presentation, and many retreated to the coffee um in the
next room. I was simply going through the motions in Brussels
to satisfy a political requirement. An attentive captain from the
US Navy accompanied me to Brussels and Geneva since our
navy was concerned that I, as a West Point graduate selected by
the Department of State, might not adequately represent naval
interests in the seabed. The navy then ensured the diplomatic
propriety of all aspects of the trip by dutifully sending a report
to the NATO Military Committee on the discussions in Geneva,
emphasizing the "usefulness" of the prior consultations in
Many Americans are skeptical of the commitment of the
European countries to their own defense in view of the small
share of their GNPs devoted to defense; Are the Europeans
really paying their fair share of defending their own countries?
these skeptics ask. Also, the US Government bridles at European trade palides which often appear to give the Soviets free
access to high technology, while the United States protects the
same technology in the interest of national security of the Western Alliance.
During my tour of duty with the US Army in Germany in
the 1950s, I understood why, in the aftermath of World War II,
the United States assumed the burden of defending that country
while not allowing it to rearm and prepare to defend itself.
Germany now makes major contributions to its own defense,
although not in nuclear weaponry, yet the deployment of American conventional forces there has shrunk very little. The United
States has always assumed that a large American military pres-

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


ence in Central Europe was politically wise; but changes in the

East-West relationshipandin West European politics require a
reassessment by both the United States and the Europeans of
the role and size of this American presence. 3
The NATOapproach to security has been summarized by
the Department of State:
NATO deters Soviet aggression through its strategy of flexible
response and forward defense. Together they have proved
remarkably successful; for the foreseeable future they continue
to offer a degree of security which no alternative strategy
could match. The essence of flexible response is to convince an
aggressor that any attack on NATO-whatever its nature,
place, or time-would expose him to incalculable and unacceptable risks. This requires NATO to demonstrate its political
resolve to act jointly against all forms of aggression and to
have the military capability to respond effectively at all levels
of aggression. While this strategy does not require NATO to
match the Warsaw Pact man for man or weapon for weapon, it
does require the Alliance to maintain a mix of adequate and
effective conventional and nuclear forces and to keep these up
to date where necessary. 4

This broad definition of the role of NATO provides maximum latitude in developing and deploying weapons systems.
Many Soviet invasion schemes can be postulated. A popular
perception isthat NATO emphasizes preparations for responding to a Soviet armored strike across the heartland of Central
Europe. The first line of defense would be the use of conventional forces. lf they are overwhelmed, nuclear retaliation would
be in order. While such a view greatly oversimplifies NATO
doctrine, this theme remains at the core of NATO planning.
The Soviet view of NATO, at least the view which is articulated publicly, is quite different. The Soviets deny any aggressive intentions, and since 1987 the concept of "defensive defense" has become a cornerstone of the military doctrine which
they state publicly. They say they are now trying to define con-


Chapter 2

ventional force requirements in Central Europe in terms of "reasonable sufficiency" to pursue this defensive strategy. In the
absence of potential aggression from the East, they argue,
NATO has itself become the aggressor; flexible response is simply a framework for preparing for unprovoked attacks against
the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets point to the restructuring of their
conventional forces in Europe, which is discussed below, as
concrete evidence of their movement toward a purely defensive
However, Soviet doctrine does not equate their defensive
posture with a passive posture. They cantend that they are
drawing from the lessons of history in being committed to stopping an attack at or before the borders of their homeland. Once a
battle begins, they intend to conduct the battle as fully as possible on the territory of the aggressor with the objective of terminating the aggressor's capability to continue to wage war. Such
an approach does not accept the sanctity of national borders for
protection of an attacker at the outset, during, or following
armed hostilities. This philosophy signals a strategy which blurs
defense and offense and which calls for a high degree of readiness at the very borders of the Warsaw Pact. Such a posture,
tagether with the high state of readiness of NATO forces which
also clouds the difference between offense and defense, is at the
center of the problern of ensuring future stability of the frontier.
In most arms categories, the conventional forces available to
the countries of the Warsaw Pact clearly exceed the conventional
forces available to NATO. NATO's estimates project a ratio of
tanks, other armored vehicles, antitank weapons, artillery, and
air defense systems at about 3 to 1 and combat aircraft and
helicopters at about 2 to 1 in favor of the Eastern bloc nations. 5
The Soviet estimates acknowledge Soviet undercounting of Warsaw Pact forces in the past, but still they present a different picture than NATO. Soviet estimates are summarized as follows:


Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security

while the ground forces and air forces are roughly equal,
the North Atlantic Treaty has a two-fold superiority over the
Warsaw Pact in naval strengtho The North Atlantic Alliance is
superior to the Warsaw Pact in terms of the number of strike
aircraft of front line (tactical) aviation and naval aviation, combat helicopters, and antitank missiles systemso The Warsaw
Pact side has superiority in tanks, tactical missile launchers, air
defense troop combat interceptor planes, infantry combat vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and artillery 6

Obviously the basis for counting differso For example, the

Soviets include the substantial French forces which have been
withdrawn from NATO control, tanks and armored equipment
assigned to reserve units, and American aircraft positioned on
ships in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea,
whereas most of these forces are not included in the NATO
estimateso Furthermore, reliance on "bean counting" without
attention to the quality and capabilities of the equipment~ which
generally favor NATO, gives a misleading impression of the
balance of forceso 7
Despite the wide divergence in the estimates of forces, few
military analysts believe that either side could overwhelm the
other in a conventional war in Europeo Both East and West now
seem convinced that the overall size of the conventional forces
in Europe can be reducedo While the Soviets propose major
reductions on both sides, NATO has thus far advocated only a 5
percent reduction in NATO forces if the Soviets reduce their
forces drastically to reach a Ievel of numerical parity
Also, scholars from many countries are advocating reductions on an asymmetrical basis across different categories of
weapons: this means that the Warsaw Pact would take deeper
cuts in one or several categories such as tanks and armored
personnel carriers, for example, in exchange for compensating
cuts by the NATOcountries in other categories such as aircrafto
NATO has not accepted the concept, since according to its count0


Chapter 2

ing, the Warsaw Pact forces lead in every significant category;

however, the approachwill probably attract additional support
in the years ahead. While the concept of trade-offs across weapons categories could allow each side to retain the rnix of forces it
considered rnost appropriate in rnilitary terrns, translating the
concept into arrns control agreernents will not be easy. The negotiations involve not just the superpowers but also the other
rnernbers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Trading off the capabilities of different nations in one weapon category for reductions
in the capabilities of other nations in another category in formal
agreernents raises very difficult problerns for political leaders.
In a drarnatic UN speech in late 1988, Gorbachev announced
unilateral reductions of 500,000 Soviet troops stationed in Bastern Burope and the FarBast and reductions of 10,000 tanks in
Bastern Burope and the western rnilitary districts of the USSR.
Of these totals, 5,000 tanks and 50,000 troops aretobe rernoved
frorn Bast Gerrnany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. Also, artillery units in Bastern Burope are to be cut, and the capabilities of
the USSR to deploy bridges which could support the influx of
Soviet reinforcernents across the rivers of Central Burope reduced. s His idea clearly is to dernonstrate that the USSR does
not plan to launch a blitzkrieg across Central Burope. Subsequently, several Bast Buropean countries announced that they
would also reduce the size of their conventional forces.
While the total size of the Soviet arrned forces exceeds five
rnillion with over 50,000 tanks, the reductions scheduled during
the next two years not only have great political appeal but are
also rnilitarily significant. In particular, these cuts rnay deny the
Soviets the so-called "standing-start" option which has always
bothered NATO. The Soviets will probably not be in a position
to launch a surprise, conventional attack across Burope using
only the troops and equiprnent deployed in Bastern Burope and
sustain it until Soviet reinforcernents arrive. Most irnportantly,

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


the Soviets have indicated that they are prepared to reach agreements which substantially reduce conventional force levels in
Europe while also redressing imbalances among categories of
Will the United States and its NATOpartners respond with
their own unilateral reductions? The first Western reaction was
cautious. "The Soviet cuts are a good start, but they should be
deeper. They still retain an overwhelming conventional superiority. Will they allow international inspection of their reductions?" A few voices call for token NATO reductions as an encouragement for the Soviets to consider even deeper cuts.
Formalarms control negotiations are now so complex and technology is advancing so rapidly that our diplomats spend most of
their time negotiating problems of the past rather than of the
future. Reciprocated unilateral reductions offer an alternative
that deserves great attention.
Regardless of unilateral force reductions and the success of
arms control agreements in reducing the military forces spread
from the Urals to the Atlantic, the countries of NATO will continue to press hard to maintain technological superiority over
the USSR on a broad front. NATO has always considered technology to be its trump card over the long haul in countering the
preponderance of conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact.
While Soviet weaponry in some armored and artillery categories
may be more advanced due to heavier investments in specific
technologies, NATO considers the Soviet weakness in the electronics field a serious flaw in Soviet efforts to stay abreast of
Western advances. This technological edge for the West is
bound to become even more important should the numbers of
weapons decrease through arms control agreements. As would
be expected, the Soviets in turn try to introduce constraints on
further technological developments in their versions of arms
control agreements.

Chapter 2


Logically, cost savings should accompany reductions in

conventional forces in Europe. This hope may be illusory, at
least in the short run. Unless there are arms controllimitations
on upgrading existing weaponry, the demand for more sophisticated systems following an agreement limiting conventional
forces will in all likelihood be so great that the actual expenditures on military forces in Europe will increase rather than decrease. Also, the costs of verification attendant to arms control
agreements may be substantial.
Since the Soviets give extremely high priority to protecting
their homeland, the possibility of nuclear attack is of special
concern. Thus, the notion that NATO should have nuclear
weapons in Europe is abhorrent to them, and the elimination of
NATO's nuclear capability to reach the Warsaw Pact countries
in general and the USSR in particular is a priority arms control
objective. The Soviets will undoubtedly press hard to eliminate
tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. This position already commands much sympathy within some of the countries of Western
Europe. However, few Western political leaders will be prepared to abandon totally this counterweight, which they believe
deters an attack by Soviet conventional forces in the absence of
much larger reductions of these forces. In the Ionger term, as
conventional forces are reduced substantially, elimination of tactical nuclear weapons seems like an achievable goal.


At the top of the list of Reagan' s achievements during his

eight-year presidency was the conclusion and ratification of the
Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) treaty. Few would have guessed that he would be the president to achieve the first agreement
which actually reduces the number of nuclear weapons systems
available to the two superpowers. 9

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


Although the INF treaty eliminates all land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5500 kilometers that can carry nudear warheads, it will be recorded in history as a modest
military development. The reductions have limited military significance at this time; the large remaining arsenals of nudear
weapons indude many strategic and tactical weapons that can
cover the targets previously assigned to the INF systems. Similarly, violations of the agreement involving covert production
of banned missiles, if there are any, will be inconsequential from
the military perspective, at least in the absence of more farreaching agreements to cover strategic and tactical nudear
Politically, however, the INF treaty carries enormaus significance. Most importantly, action has replaced rhetoric. The INF
agreement has breathed new life into the disarmament process
throughout the world. It has demonstrated that the two superpowers can be entrusted to reach agreements which do not undermine the interests of other countries. It has returned SovietAmerican relations to a high Ievel of rapprochement. The INF
treaty shows that meaningful agreements to reduce weaponry,
while complicated, are feasible. It has addressed the problems of
verification directly and comprehensively and has established
precedents for intrusive inspection considered impossible just a
few years ago.
The agreement eliminates an entire dass of missiles. Early
in the negotiations each side was to retain a residual force of 100
warheads on missiles in this dass, which would be deployed
outside Europe. However, the marginal military value of such
residual forces became apparent, and the impossibility of designing an inspection system for distinguishing between legitimate residual missiles and dandestinely produced missiles
helped convince both sides to eliminate all the missiles. Also,
the Asian countries, and particularly China, frowned on re-


Chapter 2

sidual Soviet forces close to their borders, and both the United
States and the USSR showed sensitivity to this concern.
The verification requirements for this agreement are quite
complex and expensive. They Ioom important in setting precedents and providing confidence that both sides are living up to
the agreement. Indeed, the arrangements are mind boggling. I
was a participant in the early attempts of the US Government to
develop on-site verification procedures for limitations on missile
production in the 1960s. Then while serving as a diplomat in
Moscow, I visited a few Soviet heavy industrial plants capable of
supporting clandestine production. At that time, we would
have been satisfied with one or two short-term inspections per
year for ensuring compliance with agreements prohibiting or
limiting missile production in such plants. Now, dozens of
short-term inspections and continuing inspections by resident
inspectors from the other country are in progress in the United
States and the USSR.
Undoubtedly, technical violations will occur. Disagreements over the rights of inspectors will arise as they press the
Iimits of their authority. Also, both sides will probably try to use
inspection rights to gain intelligence information ancillary to the
principal purposes of the verification provisions. Complaints
will be raised at the politicallevel providing opponents of arms
control with grist for arguing against future agreements. Still,
the precedents that have been established and the information
on Soviet capabilities that will be gained will far outweigh such
technical problems of little military consequence.
As might be expected, opinions are divided within the West
on the next step after the INF treaty. The supporters of arms
control and disarmament have clearly had their hands strengthened and want to build on the momentum from the INF success
in reaching agreements on other reductions. They point to the
current Strategie Arms Reduction Talks (START) and to the pos-

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


sibility of 50-percent cuts in the Ionger-range weapons systems

including missiles and bombers. The more conservative forces
want to let the dust settle, see how the Soviets perform under
the INF treaty, and maybe in a few years take another modest
step. Meanwhile, the Soviets are ready to consider significant
cuts in many weapons systems, and they have their proposals
for future reductions ready for our consideration at a moment' s
With regard to other types of limitations on armaments,
restrictions on nuclear testing have long been at the center of the
controversy in the United States over the desirability of farreaching arms control measures. Arms control advocates contend that a ban on testing will place a technological cap on the
nuclear arms race between the superpowers and will also encourage other countries, such as India and Pakistan, to refrain
from the testing phase of nuclear weapons development. The
weapons laboratories argue that testing is essential to develop
warheads for new weapons systems which are being introduced
and to test the continued reliability of proven warheads which
are already deployed or in stockpiles. Environmental activists
assert that nuclear testing even at great underground depths
will inevitably release large amounts of radioactivity into the
atmosphere. Others believe that the long-standing Soviet proposal for a ban on testing is only a ploy; once the United States
has disbanded its effort, the Soviets will change their minds and
again start testing, and the United States will be left behind.
Who is right?lD
Let me begin the debate from a personal perspective. As the
senior official of the US Environmental Protedion Agency (EPA) in
southern Nevada from 1980 to 1985, I was responsible for protecting the population living in close proximity to the Nevada


Chapter 2

test site from exposure to radiation during underground tests

conducted at the site. The population of primary concern was
dustered in a few towns and in many small settlements, each
with a handful of people, scattered along the test site periphery,
which cuts through several hundred miles of barren desert. Before each test, which took place about every three weeks, either
I or another EPA representative participated in the decision to
detonate the nuclear device. Wegave particular attention to the
way it had been buried in the ground and to the predicted direction and speed of the wind which would spread radioactivity
should an unanticipated leak from the test develop following
detonation. During each test about 20 EPA specialists waited in
pickup trucks just outside the boundaries of the test site to measure radiation Ievels and to assist with evacuation of the towns
and settlements in the unlikely event of a radiation threat.
Only one incident disturbed my five-year watch. As I was
delivering my daughter to her freshman dormitory in northern
California, I heard on the car radio a news flash reporting a
"major" leak at the test site. A quick telephone call to Las Vegas
confirmed that a very small amount of radioactivity of little consequence had escaped. Following an underground detonation,
the engineers drilled into an area hundreds of feet below the
ground where the device had been buried. They were extracting
"hot samples" for analysis; unfortunately, a small seep developed as they punctured successive geological layers.
The interest of the press and television grew intense. The
groups opposed to nuclear testing, which frequently manned
the picket lines at the gate of the test site, were spreading exaggerated stories of the environmental dangers. They clearly
wanted to use this event to discredit the testing program.
Upon my immediate return to Las Vegas, our EPA monitaring specialists determined that up to 100 residents of a small
town on the edge of the test site could have been exposed to

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


radiation from the seep. Had they remained outside their homes
for several hours as the radiation plume passed through the
town, their maximum exposure to radiation would have been
equivalent to the radiation exposure they would receive while
standing for three minutes in the southern Nevada sunshine.
And this was the most "serious" radiation release in a decade. In
short, objections to underground nuclear testing should not be
based on environmental arguments since we know how to conduct tests without threatening the residents living nearby. We
also know how to protect the workers closer in at the site of the
tests. My American colleagues who have been to the main Soviet test site at Semipalatinsk teil me that while the Soviets are less
concerned with environmental research, they know how to bury
devices at great depths to contain harmful radiation.
However, as I waited quietly in the command center of the
test site at five o' clock in the morning in anticipation of each test,
I often had serious reservations about the necessity for the
tests-about their contribution to our national security, about
their high costs, and about their diversion of highly talented
specialists from other pursuits. Feeling the ground shake at detonation time and watehing the TV screens record the sinking of
the ground surface above the test hole a few minutes later certainly impressed upon me the power of technology. At one time
there were high hopes that nuclear explosions could be used for
peaceful purposes-for large excavation projects, for tapping
into buried natural resources, and for reshaping the landscape.
These hopes have largely faded, and this explosive power now
has no use other than destruction-destruction of people, of
cities, and of civilizations.
Many arguments can be made in support of a continuation of
underground nuclear testing. We need to confirm that our weapons which have been in stockpiles for many years continue to
work properly. We need to test new warhead configurations which


Chapter 2

are lighter, more reliable, or more efficient. We need to test

designs for new weapons systems. We need to understand the
effects of nuclear detonations on communications systems and
on materials used in military systems. We need to permit the
scientists from our weapons laboratories to test their concepts,
or they will grow stale or seekother employment. We need to
test so we can betterunderstand the significance of Soviet tests.
We need to test to show the Soviets that we mean business.
The arguments against nuclear testing are equally persuasive. The United States has conducted more than 700 nuclear
tests, some involving several hundred experiments; and information from additional testing is of decreasing importance. Data
from earlier tests have not been fully utilized, since fresh data
are more interesting than old data. Weapons could be designed
with greater attention to long-term reliability so that proof testing is far less important than in the past. Computer simulation
of testing has advanced to the stage where we can predict performance of weapons with increasing certainty. Testing of many
components can be carried out without detonating the nuclear
device. Periodic testing to check the reliability of weapons already in our inventory has little technical merit: the number of
weapons of any single type that can be tested is so small that
conclusions that are statistically valid about the continued reliability of the other weapons of the sametype arenot possible.
Finally, tests provoke militaristic responses by the Soviets.
American military strategy rests on deterrence. The United
States does not plan to use nuclear weapons. If the Soviets strike
first, the United States is in a position to respond with more
than enough firepower to inffict massive destruction. If both
sides reduce their nuclear stockpiles, both sides will be more
reluctant to launch a first strike, particularly if there are uncertainties about the performance of the nuclear weapons in destroying the other side' s retaliatory capability.

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


Thus, it doesn't really matter whether we can predict with

precision the explosive power of nuclear weapons. It doesn't
matter whether they are the most advanced configurations.
There is no doubt in anyone' s mind that they will work, and
they will wreak enormaus devastation. With a heavily armed
world, they will serve their purpose of preventing war. As the
arms Ievels decline, the remaining nuclear weapons will continue to raise serious doubts about the wisdom of a nuclear first
strike or a conventional attack.
In 1963, the United States and the USSR agreed to end
testing in the atmosphere, and they also assumed a treaty obligation to work toward a complete ban on underground nuclear
tests. During the dozen years that followed, the commitment to
seek a ban on underground testing received low priority in both
countries, and underground testing continued at a brisk pace.
Finally in 1974, the representatives of the two countries agreed
to prohibit testing of nuclear weapons with an explosive power
of more than 150 kilotons-a threshold for weapons seven times
more powerful than those used in Japan during World War II.
While this Iimitation was included in a signed agreement, the
US Senate has still not ratified the document. The two countries
have generally refrained from testing larger weapons for the last
15 years. However, the United States has charged that the Soviets have conducted some tests with yields exceeding 150 kilotons. But some scientists in the United States as weil as in the
USSR question this assertion. They doubt the reliability of the
techniques used by our government in relating the size of the
Soviet underground explosions in unfamiliar geological formations to the seismic signals that are generated and then analyzed
as the basis for the estimates.
Despite acceptance of the 150 kiloton cap, the US record in
living up to the commitment made 25 years ago to work for a
total ban on all underground testing has not been very good.


Chapter 2

The United States has not matched the Soviet record, which
most recently included a unilateral moratorium on testing for
more than 18 months. During the past few years the United
States has repeatedly cited the lack of technical verification
capabilities as a principal reason for holding back on further
limitations on nuclear testing.
As previously noted, the principal reasons put forth by the
United States for continuation of an active test program have
shifted to military requirements to "modernize" nuclear weapons and to test the weapons in our inventory to make sure they
work as they become older. The nuclear weapons community in
the United States speaks with a powerful, unified voice which
resists limitations on testing. It is a closely knit group of highly
talented and dedicated specialists with a proud record of major
technological achievements and a tradition of generous budgetary resources. Indeed, this community controls 60 percent of
the budget of the Department of Energy as well as enormous
resources within the Department of Defense.
A total ban on underground testing does not seem likely
in the near future. The argument that a policy of nuclear
deterrence requires some level of testing to ensure that the
deterrent works is politically powerful. Also, the SOl program
includes a nuclear testing component, and this program will
undoubtedly continue albeit in a form other than originally
Assuming that the United States and USSR continue their
active search for areas of agreement in the field of arms control,
new limitations on the yield of underground tests seem to be a
reasonable near-term expectation. Reducing the yield Iimitation
on permissible tests from 150 to 10 kilotons, which would allow
testing of some key weapon components, probably will eventually be accepted by the advocates of continued testing, but
they will strongly resist reducing this Iimitation further.

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


As to the number of tests, there is currently no Iimitation.

The number of announced tests by the United States is between
15 and 20 each year. Occasionally, unannounced tests are carried out. A Iimit of 6 to 8 tests per year should be a feasible nearterm target. Such a Ievel of testing will allow each country to
continue its most important programs and to be in a position to
resume full-scale testing if the international situation deteriorates to the point of withdrawing from treaty obligations. Unfortunately, such a reduction will not cut costs significantly since
the logistics associated with preparing and conducting tests will
not decline in a major way. lndeed, the costs of testing may rise
as the number of experiments attached to a single test will most
likely increase dramatically to compensate for fewer tests. If the
budget for testing is preserved, the financial beneficiaries of the
testing program will probably not object so strenuously as to
block modest limitations on the number of tests.
Developing a technical rationale for a quota on the number
of tests will be difficult. A popular suggestion is to allow enough
tests to check on the reliability of weapons in the stockpile but
not enough to permit development of new weapons. Remernhering that hundreds of experiments can be carried out during a
single test and recognizing the difficulty of verifying whether an
adversary is testing an old or new nuclear device, such a technical argument cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, limitations on
the number of tests can be politically important as a component
of an overall arms control approach and as a step toward an
eventual comprehensive test ban.

Turning directly to SOl, shortly after Reagan' s announcement in 1983 of the SDI initiative, I was waiting for the next
underground test at the Nevada test site together with scientists
from Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the American Iab-


Chapter 2

oratories which designs nuclear weapons. At that time, the most

illustrious alumnus of this weapons laboratory was Jay Keyworth, the former presidential science advisor and a laser specialist who played an important role in developing the SDI concept for the president. Naturally the conversation turned to this
new presidential initiative, which meant a great budget increase
for the Los Alamos laboratory. All of us knew from firsthand
experience the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and we
were eager to see the development of new systems which would
prevent nuclear weapons from ever impacting on US territory.
But could a defensive system be designed that would not be
overwhelmed by offensive systems?
Keyworth's colleagues from his old laboratory were suddenly confronted by a real dilemma. They couldn't be happier
with the news that their laser research program and many related activities would be generously funded for the indefinite
future. They were deeply committed to exploring the potential
of laser systems for improving strategic weaponry. At the same
time, they simply could not accept the technical arguments
being advanced in support of the overall SDI concept. They
shared the views of some of the harshest SDI critics over the
impossibility of ever deploying an effective system at anything
less than astronomical costs and, even then, having only a system which could be overwhelmed by new offensive systems.
The best solution to their immediate dilemma was a retreat to
the bar and a large bottle of Green Hungarian wine, a popular
off-duty beverage at the test site. This wine quickly helped all of
us forget about the world of technical reality while my friends
from Los Alamos concentrated on ways to spend their new research budgets.
Meanwhile, in Moscow the initial wave of Soviet criticism of
this "provocative" act on the part of the United States was unleashed, and Soviet diplomats suspended bilateral talks on co-

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


operation in peaceful space exploration. The immediate Soviet

reaction was to challenge the US contention that SDI was strictly
a defensive system, arguing that the real purpose of the program was to enhance US first-strike capabilities. Soviet scientists
were soon hard at work trying tosortout the technical feasibility
of SDI. They took the position, at least publicly, that the technical problems associated with the construction of an electronic
astrodome the size of the United States were enormous and
probably could never be solved. Their confidence in their assessments was boosted enormously by the many technical arguments presented by American scientists who spoke out against
the SDI pro gram. 11
According to stories circulating in Moscow, a few young
Soviet scientists were stimulated by this new concept of an impenetrable shield and were eager to see if they could contribute
to promoting the concept in the USSR. They apparently were
soon dissuaded by senior Soviet scientists who convinced them
that, even though Soviet military scientists were exploring this
technology, the concept was not particularly promising and
they should channel their energies elsewhere.
The SDI program greatly bothers the USSR. First, the Soviet
leadership believes that even if the motivation for SDI is purely
defensive, many subsystems developed within the SDI program
will have offensive applications-particularly systems related to
communications, to keeping abreast of activities on the battlefield, and to targeting warheads. Also, the Soviets are not
interested in transferring the potential battlefield to space,
where they will have a serious technological disadvantage due
to their general backwardness in the electronics field. Finally,
one result of the SDI program will probably be a widening of the
already large gap between the two countries in electronics.
The Soviet response to SDI depends on technical and political judgments. Initially, they seemed to overreact to the likeli-


Chapter 2

hood that SOl might soon be on line. Later they became skeptical that the United States would sustain the effort in the face of
domestic criticism over technical feasibility. By now, though,
they have seen the program develop through five years of the
Reagan administration, and they are undoubtedly convinced
that the program will continue in some form.
The Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty signed by both countries during the 1970s Iimits testing of antimissile systems and
gives the USSR a powerful argument against testing of SDI by
the United States. However, the US Government contends that
some testing of SOl is permitted under the treaty. The policy
debates become further complicated in view of the Soviet testing
of their older ground-based antimissile system which is permitted under the treaty.
The Soviets are aware of the progress and difficulties in
their own air defense systems and in development of new antimissile systems, including components related to some elements of the SOl concept. The high costs of their efforts to
date will only increase as they move from research to development and perhaps eventually to testing and deployment.
Thus, the depressed state of the Soviet economy and the slow
pace of Soviet technological development clearly add to their
For the time being it appears that the Soviets will continue
with development and testing of their own antimissile systems
but will aggressively pursue strengthening of the existing treaty
and clarifying the grey areas of disagreement to Iimit testing or
deployment in space of any type of offensive or defensive weapons systems. If the arms control route proves fruitless in slowing
down the development of the SOl system, Gorbachev may have
to respond to internal pressures from the Soviet military establishment in a more politically dramatic manner to retain the
Soviet image as a major power in the face of the SOl program.

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


This response would probably emphasize new offensive systems which could confuse detection capabilities and find holes
in the SDI shield.
A particularly undesirable scenario could follow failure on
the arms control front. The Soviets might respond to SDI with a
new generation of offensive strategic weapons. Meanwhile, lack
of strong public support in the United States for an uncertain
defensive system, coupled with technical difficulties, could result in abandonment of SDI. The United States would then be
faced with a new Soviet offensive threat. A likely US response to
domestic pressures to match the Soviets step by step would be
development and deployment of new offensive systems of our
own, drawing on previously developed SDI technology to the
extent possible. This would be a sad concluding chapter to this
phase of military history.

For many years the Western powers have assumed their

technological edge over the Soviets in military weaponry to be
their strongest asset for ensuring our security. The United States
in particular has successfully developed and deployed many
critical strategic systems well in advance of the USSR. The early
capability of the United States to build quiet submarines, to use
solid rocket fuels, to place multiple warheads on single missiles,
and to deploy cruise missiles, for example, has provided important temporary advantages over the Soviets. Now our government looks to SDI and the stealth bornher as additional technological advantages which it must exploit to guarantee national
In each case, however, the technical edge has been temporary, as the Soviets have continued their relentless buildup of
military systems. Generally, they have relied on the brute force
of large numbers of less advanced systems to compensate for

Chapter 2


technological shortfalls until they are able to emulate the American systems. But each innovation on the part of the United
States has added new impetus to the arms race, and eventually
the advantage of any single innovation has disappeared as the
Soviets have mastered the technology or have developed counter measures. The United States in turn has searched for additional technological innovations that would raise the arms competition to a still higher level.I2
The vicious cycle of American innovation, Soviet response,
another American innovation to thwart the response, another
response, and so forth must be broken. It is both costly and
dangerous. A 10-year technological lead has lost much of its
significance, since the technology of the 1970s can still deliver a
potent punch. Numerical advantages have also lost much of
their meaning in view of the large numbers of weapons available
to both sides. Mutual restraint in military spending together
with formal arms control agreements and reciprocated unilateral
arms reductions are the essential ingredients in putting aside
the notion that there can be permanently meaningful technological or numerical superiority when it comes to nuclear




In summary, Soviet and American strategic assessments increasingly recognize that military stability in the superpower
relationship can be maintained with much lower levels of nuclear and conventional forces on each side. Recent history has
vividly shown that neither side has been able to gain a decisive
edge through expansion of its military forces. Now the challenge is for both sides to take actions that will indeed reduce the
military confrontation to a much lower level of military forces.
Eventual reduction of the nuclear force levels of both countries
by 75 percent and substantial cuts of conventional force levels

Changing Concepts of Military Power and National Security


on both sides should not frighten even the conservative elements of the two societies. 13
Placing a qualitative Iimit on the arms race will be more
difficult as each side seeks the most advanced systems, lest the
other gain a technological advantage which will be decisive.
Limitations on testing of new systems, tagether with limitations
on military budgets, are one approach to slowing the technological race that needs much greater attention.
Techno-diplomacy is the art of the possible. We should
work toward realistic near-term objectives while retaining the
goal of more substantial reductions of force Ievels in the Ionger
term. The two countries should promptly agree to 50-percent
reductions of strategic nuclear weapons systems, more stringent
limitations on underground nuclear testing, and the first steps
in mutual reductions of conventional forces in Europe. These
steps will not alter the current balance of power. They can significantly change the nature of the East-West confrontation in a
direction which gives a greater priority to peace. While many
technical details need to be worked out, agreement in each of
these areas seems clearly possible with only a modest amount of
political will.
Also, the two countries should rely more and more on unilateral actions to reduce their armaments while awaiting the
completion of complicated formal agreements to codify such
actions. As the serious dialogues on military matters between
the two countries continue to increase, the specific opportunities for such actions which are in the interests of both countries should emerge.14


Soviet Science and

Technology Fall Behind
Soviet research workers and engineers resemble
soldiers attempting to fight a modern war with
Soviet scientist Roald Sagdeyev

"Plagued by low productivity, lax standards, and bureaucratic

stultification, Soviet science needs urgent attention and reform." These words of Gorbachev' s adviser Academician Roald
Sagdeyev were published in the summer of 1988 in the American journal Issues in Science and Technology. Earlier that year Sagdeyev had leveled similar criticism at the Soviet scientific enterprise in the Moscow daily Izvestiya. Sagdeyev reflects the accumulated frustrations of many Soviet scientists in their efforts to
unleash the potential of the Soviet science and technology
community .1
Sagdeyev, who is a leading space scientist, continues, "For
too long, Soviet science has hidden its inadequacies behind official panegyrics to its success. In academic and political forums
alike, exaggerated claims have been made for the achievements


Chapter 3

of Soviet science. Science has its own criteria for success, however, and Soviet achievements have not measured up to them."
Sagdeyev urges a major revamping of the Soviet approach
to science, including breaking up the massive national research
institutes he describes as "bureaucratic dinosaurs" into smaller
research groups, declassifying much of the research now considered to have military importance, and relaxing limitations on
international scientific cooperation.
"Soviet science has suffered deep, and still bleeding,
wounds from ill-conceived government policies," he states. He
is particularly disturbed over restrictions on the mobility of Soviet scientists, both geographically and professionally, due to the
"rigidity and compartmentalization of the research bureaucracy" and an acute shortage of housing in Moscow, where much
of Soviet science is concentrated. He also bemoans the use of
antiquated equipment, especially the primitive computers, in
Soviet laboratories.
Sagdeyev is not alone in his criticism of Soviet science.
From sharp rebukes by Gorbachev at the top to the complaints
of science students at the universities, Soviet technological
achievements and Iack of achievements in comparison with accomplishments abroad are under constant attack. The Soviet
media are having a field day in publishing exposes of mismanagement of scientific institutions-institutions previously
shielded from public scrutiny and criticism. Economists are particularly eager to jump into the fray and to try to demonstrate
that research must be driven by economic principles concerning
inputs and outputs.
Who is at fault? No one or everyone? Industrialists blame
the poor quality of their products and their inefficient production techniques on the Iack of support from the scientific and
engineering communities. Soviet scientists blame each other,
blame the government bureaucrats who allocate resources, but

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


most of all blame the centralized command and control system

which manages all facets of economic and scientific endeavor.
All the while, Soviet spacecraft circle the earth and explore
the planets, the Soviet military boasts many types of modern
weaponry, and the Moscow subway continues to amaze foreign
visitors. However, the Soviet public is tired of hearing about
these achievements. The public simply cannot understand how
a nation which has over one-half of the world's engineers and
one-quarter of the world' s scientists cannot solve its basic problems of food, housing, and health care. The Soviet scientific
community is equally unimpressed by these accomplishments
of the past. It will never accept the Lenin Prizes for scientific
achievements as an adequate substitute for Nobel Prizes, which
have eluded Soviet scientists for many years.

The roots of Soviet science go back more than 260 years, but
they developed slowly. In 1724, Peter the Great established the
Academy of Seiences in St. Petersburg (Leningrad). One purpose of this new institution was to attract foreign scientists to
the USSR. In the generations that followed, this window to the
West widened. Many prominent European scientists discovered
Russia, often out of curiosity, and a number of Russian scientists
gradually earned worldwide recognition. In particular, Pavlov's
experiments on responses to physiological stimuli and Mendeleyev' s ordering of the properties of chemical elements stirred
great interest in the West. By the beginning of the twentieth
century, the Academy in St. Petersburg had established itself
as a well-regarded institution destined to play a significant
role in the future evolution of the Russian and then the Soviet
The importance of technology, or lack of technology,
gained recognition during the battles on the Russian front in


Chapter 3

World War I. The new Soviet leadership promptly took steps to

enlist the support of the scientific community. Following the
war, the system of central direction of science and technology
seemed appropriate to the needs of the new Soviet state. Indeed, within several decades the Soviet Union changed from a
nation with a very limited scientific effort to a nation with one of
the world's largest scientific establishments.
In the 1920s and 1930s the USSR did not hesitate to adopt
Western engineering approaches and invited hundreds of
American and other Western engineers to assist in developing
the country. The Ford Motor Company, for example, provided
essential technical expertise for the construction of the Volga
automobile plant in the city of Gorkiy on the Volga River, and
several of the large Soviet hydroelectric plants trace their origins
to technologies and engineers from the United States.
Meanwhile, within a few years after the 1917 revolution and
during the period of recovery from WorldWar I, Lenin accepted
the recommendations of his advisers to diverge temporarily
from the road to socialism in deference to an urgent need to
stimulate economic growth. He, like Gorbachev 65 years later,
decided to allow a private sector to develop on a limited scale:
private entrepreneurs could have small factories which employed up to 20 employees. In view of the critical food shortages
in the early 1920s, the peasants could keep and sell some of their
products on the free market after paying a tax to the state. At the
same time, Lenin tried to require the large state enterprises to
account for their costs and to operate in the black.
During this brief period in the 1920s when Lenin's New
Economic Policy was in place, the Soviet economy gradually
revived, and industry reached prewar production levels. The
private sector clearly made a contribution to this revival. Retail trade was dominated by private entrepreneurs. A middle
dass of wealthy businessmen, who were called Nepmen, and

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


wealthy peasants, the kulaks, emerged. This brief interlude

ended abruptly with the death of Lenin in 1924 and the ascendancy of Stalin. A rigid central planning system was instituted,
terminating the flirtation with private enterprise. Nostalgia of
the past has recently come to life in the Soviet ballet Golden Age
which brings to the stage of the Bolshai Theater the cafe life of
the wealthy dass during the 1920s. 2
Returning to science and technology, we note that the Soviet approach has always been greatly influenced by the size,
climate, resource distribution, and demographic character of the
country. As would be expected, Soviet science and technology
are also very much a product of the political and economic systems of the Soviet state. However, the wide diversity in the
geographic and demographic factors of this sprawling country
have seriously complicated attempts to simplify approaches
through central planning and control. Over the years many research institutions in outlying areas of the country operated
as islands unto themselves, with communications between
Moscow and distant program managers and scientific colleagues
limited and, at times, nonexistent. Senior scientists in some instances were simply given blank checks to manage their institutes as they saw fit for many years. Even in the case of the
country's leading mathematics institutein Moscow, the director
remained in place for 50 years until his recent retirement.
World War II provided a great incentive for the Soviet scientific community to pull together. Considerable energy was devoted to the development of nuclear weaponry; fission and then
fusion were mastered shortly after the war. This successful effort encou~aged large increases in allocations of resources to
science and enhanced the standing of Soviet science at harne
and abroad. During the 1950s and 1960s several Soviet scientists
were awarded Nobel Prizes. Relatively narrow Soviet accomplishments in military technology, Soviet pioneering achieve-


Chapter 3

ments in space exploration, and these early Nobel Prizes contributed to an exaggerated view of Soviet science in the West.
Such dramatic Soviet scientific achievements partially overshadowed the research philosophies propounded by a scientist
who became the Ieader of the Soviet agricultural research effort,
Trofim Lysenko. He managed to convince the Soviet political
leadership that the realities of genetic inheritance were grossly
distorted at home and abroad. Consistent with the Marxian
writings on environmental determinism, the genetic characteristics of plants and animals could be modified by environmental
factors, he argued. In the late 1940s, world-renowned Soviet
geneticists were displaced, and laboratory research and fieldtesting programs were redirected to prove misguided theories.
Soviet agricultural research entered a period of dedine from
which it has yet to recover fully.
When Khrushchev appeared on the scene following Stalin' s
death in 1953, he instituted a variety of management changes to
galvanize Soviet industry and agriculture in pursuit of his longterm goal of overtaking the United States. He introduced many
organizational changes, induding some decentralization of
management of industrial activities. However, most administrators and planners remained firmly in place, and the changes
were not dramatic. Agricultural and industrial productivity still
lagged far below Western averages.
One of Khrushchev's most notable achievements with regard to science was to encourage the establishment of a scientific
base near the Siberian city of Novosibirsk as part of his effort to
exploit the potential of the vast Iands to the east of the Ural
Mountains. He supported new scientific research institutes
there and throughout Siberia to coordinate activities from the
Urals to the Pacific. The young scientists who moved to Siberia
to start their own laboratories were very proud to show me and
other early visitors to the region 25 years ago the world' s most

Soviel Science and Technology Fall Behind


powerful research cannon for beaming jets of water at metallic

targets to test the properties of the metals, the most advanced
accelerator which used the principle of colliding beams of nuclear particles, and the world' s leading center for biological research on sables.
Despite all of this, economic development of Siberia moved
forward only slowly. Although western Siberia currently produces almost two-thirds of Soviet oil and gas and the industrial
cities sprinkled across central Siberia continue to grow in importance, Siberia remains a vast undeveloped area with transportation and communication networks still concentrated along a few
important arteries.
The isolation of Siberia hit home in 1965 when my wife and
I first visited Yakutsk, a city in north central Siberia accessible
only by a plane flight of several hours from Irkutsk and, in the
summer, also by a boat trip over several days on the Lena River.
But even in this remote setting science was alive. I visited the log
cabins dustered together in a medical school where open-heart
surgery was performed. I watched the launehing of meteorological balloons and then followed the tracking from the
dome of an old church which had been converted to a research
laboratory. And like every scientific visitor to this city, I wandered through the underground ice caverns to observe research
on construction techniques in permafrost regions. Other more
recent visitors to Yakutsk report that research continues in these
and other directions.
During the Brezhnev era, which Iasted from the mid-1960s
until his death in 1982, funding for scientific research continued
to grow. The research effort put new emphasis on the economic
payoff from research. Introducing the results of research into
practice became a theme which began to dominate all discussions of research priorities and research funding. Whenever a
new technical problern arose, a new research laboratory was

Chapter 3


organized to solve the problern and then to turn the solution

over to a ministry or industrial enterprise for implementation.
However, researchers found few customers for their ideas or
their new designs since the ministers and the enterprise managers were fully occupied with meeting production quotas.
They were not motivated to disrupt work to try out unproven
The British Scientific Counselor in Moscow recently described the Brezhnev era of science and scientists as follows:
" ... a great ocean liner drifting rudderless on the open sea with
a third of the complement beavering away, happy in the knowledge that they were busy, a third keeping their heads down and
enjoying some peace and quiet, and a third controlling what the
other two thirds were doing. "3

Thus, a stage bedecked with talented but frequently uninspired scientists and engineers was set for the arrival of Gorbachev. In the eyes of Soviet scientists, here at last was a man of
vision, daring, and determination. They could relate to him and
he to them. But in 1986 his initial confidence in Soviet science
and technology was jolted by the tragedy at the nuclear power
plant in Chernobyl. Nuclear power was to be a keystone in the
development of the USSR; it would overcome the dilemma
posed by the remote location in Siberia of oil, gas, and coal
reserves and the ever-increasing demand for energy thousands
of miles away in the European part of the USSR. The accident
vividly brought to light the weaknesses in Soviet engineering
practices and in the training and management of personnel responsible for modern technological systems.
Within several hours of the accident, Academician Valeriy
Legasov, a highly respected nuclear scientist, was selected by
the Soviet authorities to play a leading role in the cleanup and

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


investigation. Also, he represented the USSR in international

discussions of the events that transpired. Two years after the
accident in May 1988, at the age of 52, he committed suicide,
perhaps in a state of despondency over this tragedy. Just prior
to his death he prepared notes on the accident, the events that
led up to the accident, and the response to the accident for
publication in Pravda. The following excerpt from these notes is
a telling commentary on the Soviet approach to an important
area of science.
After being in Chernobyl, I drew the unequivocal conclusion
that the Chernobyl accident was the apotheosis, the summit,
of all the incorrect aspects of the running of the economy
which had existed in our country for many decades. There are
not abstract, but specific, culprits for what happened at Chernobyl, of course. We now know that the reactor protection
control systemwas defective, and proposals had been made to
eliminate this defect. Not wishing to become involved in additional work, the designer was in no hurry to change the protection control system. What happened at the Chernobyl
power station had been going on foranurober of years. Experiments were carried out in accordance with a program which
had been drawn up in an extremely negligent and sloppy
manner. There were no rehearsals of possible seenarios before
the experiments were conducted. . . . The disregard for the
viewpoints of the designer and scientific Ieader was total, and
the correct fulfillment of all the technological procedures was a
struggle. No attentionwas paid to the state of the instruments
or the state of equipment before it was time for planned preventive maintenance. One station director actually said,
"What are we worried about? A nuclear reactor is only a
samovar; it's much simpler than a conventional station. We
have experienced personnel, and nothing will ever happen. " 4

Gorbachev' s perspective on Soviet science received a second jolt from the earthquake in Armenia in December 1988.
Poorly constructed buildings collapsed, greatly magnifying the
death toll, which eventually exceeded 25,000 people. Even after

Chapter 3


the devastating earthquakes in the Soviet Central Asian cities of

Ashkhabad in 1948 and Tashkent in 1966, Soviet construction
authorities had ignored acceptable building practices; and serious inspections and rejections of newly constructed buildings
remained virtually unknown in the USSR.
Construction officials throughout the country are under
great pressure to erect buildings fast-to house a burgeoning
population. In Armenia they apparently determined that they
didn't have time or adequate materials to prepare for the most
serious earthquake ever to erupt in a populated part of the region. In 1972 the height Iimitation on buildings was raised from
five to nine stories, despite the known seismicity of the region,
in order to accommodate more people quickly; many of these
buildings were subsequently destroyed. Prefabricated concrete
segments of buildings were not tied together properly; they collapsed like decks of cards. Also, the quality of concrete was
poor; in some cases structures pulverized during the shock. 5
Twenty-five years ago I was shown detailed Soviet maps of
the earthquake-prone regions of the country. The cities were
carefully zoned to account for the small variations in the likely
seismic effects on structures due to the geology of each region.
Building authorities boasted that future construction would respond to these careful scientific investigations. lf only they had
followed through on this boasting.

The annual Soviet investment in research and development

(R & 0), including both military and civilian programs, is on the
order of 70 percent of the US investment, even though the Soviet GNP is one-half of the US GNP. A reliable breakdown of
Soviet expenditures between military and civilian R & D is not
available, but the Soviet Union clearly devotes a much higher
percentage of its R & D investments to military systems than

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


does the United States. The Soviet investments in military R & D

probably approach US investments. Regardless of uncertainties
in budget ailocations, the Soviet R & D effort is very !arge. This
high Ievel of expenditure is particularly striking since in many
fields the Soviet Union lags behind Westerncountries with far
more modest research expenditures. 6
Soviet research is dispersed throughout several thousand
scientific institutes and laboratories. The most important activities are concentrated in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, and
Novosibirsk andin several satellite science cities near Moscow.
In addition, most of the capital cities of the outlying republics
have sections dedicated to scientific institutes and experimental
facilities. The staffs of the institutions in these cities are very
graduaily moving into housing in nearby residential areas as
new construction is completed. The dustering of scientists in
science cities and science districts of !arge cities reduces commuting problems and permits employers to provide cultural and
social services as weil as professional opportunities. However,
dustering also contributes to the isolation of science from practical reality, isolation that has been the target of criticism not only
in the USSR but in other countries as weil.
Many field-testing programs are concentrated near these
scientific centers. They also take place in other cities where
heavy industrial activity is located, particularly in central Russia,
the Ukraine, the Baltic republics, and western Siberia. Military
testing of weapons systems and military detection devices is
also conducted in more remote areas of Siberia, Central Asia,
and the far north.
The Academy of Seiences of the USSR is the most important
scientific institution in the country. Since moving its headquarters to Moscow in 1933, the Academy has played an increasingly
important role both in directing the national effort in fundamental research and in providing advice to the government through


Chapter 3

its individual members and through a network of standing and

ad hoc committees. Among its 900 members are many of the
most influential scientists of the country. Many members hold
key positions in the government, and others manage large scientific and engineering complexes. A few hold senior posts in
the Communist party, and they influence the general policies
guiding Soviet science. Over 150,000 scientists and support personne! work in the 250 institutes of the Academy. Offering relatively good working conditions and considerable prestige, the
Academy attracts many of the best young scientists of the country. The Academy also exerts considerable influence over the
programs of another 300 institutes which belong to the Academies of Seiences of the fourteen outlying republics of the USSR.
These institutes are generally not as strong as the central institutes, although a few, such as a welding researchinstitutein
Kiev, have achieved international stature.
The Academy receives only a modest portion of the nation' s
resources devoted to R & D, less than 10 percent. Its share
includes about two-thirds of the resources devoted to fundamental research removed from applications, which is far less
costly than development. The bulk of the nation's R & D resources are earmarked for technology and go to the many other
institutions conducting applied R & D in direct support of the
industrial ministries. A very limited amount of research support
is provided by the government to the universities and other
institutions of higher education. Research resources are also devoted to the agricultural and health sectors, largely through the
separate Academies of Agricultural and Medical Sciences.
Soviet research seems to cover almost every aspect of science. The principal exceptions are those research areas which
depend on very high speed computers or on sophisticated experimental facilities that are not available to researchers in the
USSR. There is hardly a topic of scientific interest which is not

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


being studied by a Soviet scientist somewhere in the system.

Frequently when a new product appears in the West, Soviet
researchers immediately initiate a project to develop a Soviet
analog, even though they may already be three to five years
behind when they begin their project.
Heavy concentrations of Soviet scientists focus on specific
research areas which have been determined to be of high priority by the government-genetic engineering, polymer
chemistry, nuclear physics, to name a few. Indeed, no other
country can match the Soviet capability for mobilizing scientific
manpower to address selected topics. Most research programs
have been determined by top-down planning; only now are
individual Soviet researchers being encouraged to come up with
their own ideas as to research areas of greatest promise.
As to the quality of Soviet scientific research, a good descriptor is "uneven," with fewer bright spots than dark spots.
The best Soviet theorists equal their Western colleagues in some
fields of science. They have made pioneering contributions in
mathematics, physics, chemistry, and the earth sciences, for
example. More specifically with regard to physics, their current
work in laser physics, dense plasmas, and fusionrank at the top
of the world level. I recently heard the president of the Academy
of Seiences of the USSR state that his experts estimate that Soviet achievements in basic science are at a world level in about 50
percent of all scientific fields; however, such estimates seem
high, based on reports of many Western scientists who have
visited research facilities throughout the USSR.
While many Soviet experimentalists are extremely talented,
they are greatly hampered by the lack of equipment and supplies, as previously mentioned, and they lag behind the West
in most experimental areas. Exceptions are noted, primarily in
areas which are not dependent on sophisticated electronic techniques. Moving closer to applications, Soviet efforts fall far be-


Chapter 3

hind. In Moscow I learned that British experts have a very low

opinion of Soviet applied research: they classify only 10 percent
of the applied research activities supporting the 24 principal
branches of Soviet industry as world-level technology.
Soviet facilities which hause the civilian research effort are
generally poor. Most of the buildings are too small, frequently in
a state of disrepair. Labaratory space is at a premium. Heat,
power, gas, and water can be unreliable. There are exceptions:
for example, the Institute of Bio-organic Chemistry in Moscow is
an outstanding modern facility as the result of heavy investments, including $75,000,000 in Western currency for the purchase of foreign equipment. I, like other visitors to the Institute,
was particularly intrigued by the layout of the buildings, which
when viewed from above simulate the structure of a complicated molecule. As another example, the Space Research Institute in Moscow is sufficiently well equipped to be a hub for
planetary exploration. Modern nuclear research facilities can
also be found in several cities.
Despite the harsh criticisms currently being directed at Soviet research by both Soviet and foreign scientists, the severe
lack of hard currency for research, and other constraints surrounding Soviet scientists, the Soviets have made and continue
to make many important contributions to international science.
Even in those fields where an overall assessment will clearly
show a lag of many years behind Western colleagues, Soviet
scientists are laboring in narrow subfields at the frontiers of
science. These activities reflect much of the 50 percent of Soviet
scientific excellence referred to by the Academy president.
Soviet science has occasionally profited from its deprivations. As the Western world rapidly changes its approaches to
research in response to new technological developments, Soviet
institutionsoften stick to the older, unsolved problems. For example, the Soviet effort in studying agricultural viruses, which

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


is a labor-intensive research activity, has achieved excellent results. Also, for many years the Soviet research effort has been
forced to rely on long-term approaches using proven experimental technologies. The most dramatic example is the consistent use of standardized space rocketry and instrumentation.
These standard approaches have high reliability, and scientists
can usually predict with assurance the types of results that are
likely to ensue from experiments. The Soviets have also developed a high level of craftsmanship in fashioning experimental
equipment using only those materials available in the USSRfor example, electronic measuring devices, chemistry glassware,
and metal-testing equipment. On occasion Soviet scientists have
successfully improvised to stay abreast in fields which are driven by computer technology in the West, developing alternative
approaches and programs that rely more on "brainpower" than
computer power.
In addition to shortages of space, facilities, and equipment,
isolation fastered by the closed nature of Soviet society has had
a stifling effect on more rapid advancement of Soviet science.
Soviet scientists are isolated from colleagues abroad working on
similar problems. Very few Soviet scientists travel, only a limited number of laboratories hast visitors from abroad, and foreign scientific journals are a scarce commodity everywhere. As
already noted, the shortage of copy machines and the high level
of control over their use further limit attempts to exchange information of common interest.
Soviet scientists are even isolated from each other. They
seldom change jobs. National scientific conferences are few in
number, visits to other institutions even in the same city let
alone in other parts of the country are infrequent, and multidisciplinary projects within institutes are the exception. Indeed,
most Soviet scientists have historically confined their professianal interests to the narrow problems for which they are re-


Chapter 3

sponsible. Over the years they have learned, as has the general
population, that too much knowledge concerning the activities
of others can often create unfounded suspicions about their interests and motivations.
The gloomy picture of Soviet science painted by Sagdeyev
has been reinforced by personal observations of many Western
visitors to the USSR. Over the years I have walked through
dozens of Soviet research facilities, toured many industrial
plants, and discussed developments with hundreds of Soviet
scientists and engineers. While I am always discouraged by the
cramped space, idle equipment, and narrowness of Soviet perspectives, I am repeatedly amazed by the Soviet ingenuity in
working around physical shortcomings. From arranging computers in parallel to support the space program to cutting gaskets
from discarded tin cans for repairing field equipment, Soviet
specialists have learned to use what they have to the fullest
extent possible. Though the environment in the USSR hardly
seems conducive for high-quality research activities, many Soviet scientists regularly obtain results of broad international interest in a variety of disciplines. No matter the hardships, Soviet
science will survive and surprise.

Since the beginning of the Communist era, Soviet engineers

have been called upon to play a key role in developing the
economic base of a society whose goal is to emulate and eventually to surpass the West in its technical achievements. Steel,
concrete, electricity, machinery, and chemieals comprise the tools
of development. These are the domain of the engineers. Engineers are to guide the industrial workers, and the workers are to
be the vanguard of the modernization effort based on Sodalist
principles, principles which are currently being redefined.

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


Engineers have been weil suited to the task of managing

enterprises-Soviet style. Directing production has been considered to be a technical task: the managers were given quotas to
meet and were not bothered with determining costs of raw materials or prices of their products. Nonetheless, they had to be
ingenious in compensating for unreliable supplies, unsuitable
production equipment, and inadequately trained workers. They
relied on the party and the trade union to ensure that the workers received appropriate treatment and that the benefits of successful production efforts were distributed in accordance with
Communist principles.
While many enterprise directors have historicaily been
engineers, there is a growing trend to recruit directors from
other professions as weil who are sensitive to economic concerns and to the intricacies of the overail planning and ailocation system. Still, an encounter with a chief engineer at a
heavy industrial plant in the USSR quickly dispels doubts about
the continuing influence of the engineering profession on
The chief engineer remains in charge of activities on the
factory floor. He commands the attention-and usuaily the
respect-of both enterprise management and the workers, like a
drill sergeant ensuring that schedules are maintained and that
problems are resolved at the lowest possible level. On a number
of visits to Soviet factories, I have witnessed directors take back
seats to the chief engineers during discussions of specific production activities. Obviously there are strong directors who do
dominate, but the chief engineer will continue to have high
status in the USSR. His status does not seem much different
from the position of Counterparts in Western plants, but it is
striking that the Soviet chief engineer has retained such authority within an autocratical system where directors of organizations have been the dominant figures.


Chapter 3

In many ways the engineers have provided the wherewithal

for transforming a backward Soviet society into a modern industrial state. The USSR now Ieads the world in timber, oil, gas, and
steel production. It ranks second after the United States in electricity, second after China in cement, and third after the United
States and China in coal.7 Soviet ships ply the seas of the world,
and Soviet trains and planes continuously span a vast land mass.
But the Soviet approach has only partially succeeded. The quality
of Soviet products is generally poor with few takers on the international markets and complaints and disenchantment at home.
The concept of quality control has received little more than lip
service except in the military sector. Even in Eastern Europe,
ordinary citizens constantly curse the quality of Soviet products
which are imported as the result of compulsory trade arrangements. This reality was brought home to me while speeding
along the highway from Sofia to Plovdiv in Bulgaria in 1985. We
experienced a near fatal calamity as the tread separated from the
rest of a tire on our newly imported Soviet car.
Modernization of Soviet industrial facilities is finally in vogue.
It had always seemed simpler, and certainly much more photogenic, to build new plants or to install new production lines
rather than to upgrade existing facilities in a systematic and
economical manner. Now hundreds of outmoded and inefficient
production processes clogging the country must continue to operate lest the entire economy break down. On the other hand,
punctuating the countryside are a few outstanding factories employing the latest world technologies. In most cases these are
based on imported foreign technologies. This foreign technological influence has clearly strengthened Soviet capabilities in specific areas, but it has had a relatively .minor impact on the overall
performance of the economy.
At some of the new facilities the Soviet workforce has great
difficulty coping with advanced technologies. Both the engi-

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


neers and the technicians are simply out of date with new technological developments and particularly with those that involve
electronic components. Mechanical systems have been instailed
by either foreign or Soviet specialists who promptly depart after
instailation. The workforce, including the engineers, is often
uncertain about the intricacies of the new controls and frequently uses the old manual systems while the automated
equipment stands idly by. In some cases automatic control systems become inoperative because of the Iack of key spare parts
or the absence of repair skiils at the enterprise.
Soviet engineers cope with the Iack of specialized materials
and components and frequently rely on older technologies to
design and manufacture modern products. This approach has
led to a propensity to overdesign by adding bulk and weight to
ensure performance in products such as automobiles and airplanes, which operate quite weil but inefficiently by Western
standards. In some cases, the engineers have no choice but to
design products with short lifetimes or with requirements for
frequent maintenance checks. Many advanced ailoys, lubricants, electronics, and other high technologies which buoy industrial processes and products in the West simply are not
readily available in the USSR, where older technologies dictate
other approaches as the only alternative.
Traditionaily, Soviet planners have ignored the real cost of
energy, and particularly energy used throughout the industrial
complex. Only when international oil prices feil in the early
1980s, which sharply reduced earnings from oil exports, was
serious attention directed to the implicit policy of subsidizing
energy for almost ail applications in the USSR. The opportunities for energy conservation within industry appear substantial, provided there are internal price adjustments to force
the ministries and enterprises to adjust industrial processes


Chapter 3

The current waste of energy clearly needs attention, particularly as the ambitious Soviet nuclear power program slows
down due to safety concerns. Many relatively simple engineering adjustments could save large quantities of energy-improved
design and construction of buildings, better operating procedures in power plants, and better organization of industrial processes. Without economic incentives, however, the likelihood of
such adjustments on a broad scale seems low.
The industrial workforce in the USSR has lost much of its
earlier zest which was entwined with patriotic loyalty to the
workers' state. As in other countries throughout the world, the
workers have become interested primarily in their own wellbeing in the short term-the hours they work, the energy they
expend, and the pay they receive. Respected Soviet social scientists documented this development concerning the laziness of
Soviet workers in unpublished manuscripts that circulated
quietly throughout the USSR and the Eastern bloc during the
mid-1980s. They underscored the weaknesses of an economic
system devoid of real incentives. I first heard about these manuscripts while visiting Eastern Europe in 1985, and these stories
were subsequently confirmed during my trips to Moscow the
next year. Now, discussions of low worker productivity are on
the agendas at many government and party meetings in the
USSR. This is one problern that engineers cannot solve.
Finally, under the headline "Decline in Prestige of Engineers," a Moscow journal recently noted that young engineers
at research institutes spend 60 percent of their time at menial
tasks. They become construction workers, organizers of sports
competitions, and members of "people patrols." They work as
couriers, typists, and accountants, hardly tasks that inspire engineering creativity or hone basic engineering skills. Thus, the
frequently quoted statistic showing that one-half the world' s
engineers work in the USSR is very misleading. 8

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


Military science and engineering are sharply segregated

from civilian activities in the USSR. In the view of the noted
Soviet historian Roy Medvedev, Americans conclude "Since
Russia can't run a hotel, it can't build a rocket either." He adds,
"They don't realize that we put everything into rocketry." 9
The dichotomy in the USSR between world-class achievements in the military sector and the problems of quantity and
quality in the civilian sector is truly a startling phenomenon
witnessed nowhere eise in the world. Will the Soviet Union be
able to sustain over the long term a military capability which
rests on the leading edge of technology within a country whose
aging industrial base is falling further and further behind international technological standards?
The explanation for the gap between military and civilian
achievements lies in priorities-priorities at alllevels. The highest quality design and production facilities are dedicated to military production. Raw materials and supplies needed to keep
these facilities functioning are skimmed off the top during the
national planning process and at the operational Ievel when
planning targets and delivery schedules are in jeopardy. Consequently, many civilian enterprises competing for the same materials and supplies inevitably come up short or must be content
with inferior materials and supplies.
Many of the best scientists and engineers work in the defense sector, often recruited while still students at higher educational institutions. They are provided with at least indirect access to Western technologies obtained through a variety of open
and covert mechanisms. They are generously rewarded financially for particularly noteworthy accomplishments. In sharp
cantrast to the civilian sector where the customer has little influence on manufacturing practices, quality control and efficiency


Chapter 3

have long been concepts incorporated into the consciousness

and actions of personnel throughout the industrial complex
which serves the military. The military establishment is a customer with rigorous acceptance standards and considerable
clout to enforce these standards.
This system of priorities for military projects has similarities
to the wartime effort in the United States in the 1940s when we
diverted our best resources and people into supporting defense
programs. We had only minor difficulties in sustaining this effort for a few years. However, in contrast to the Soviet scene,
not only could we see the light at the end of the tunnel early in
the effort, but we also had a tremendous stock of high quality
civilian products to see us through the years of shortages and
The Soviets are having increasing difficulty sustaining a
comparable "wartime" effort over many decades. There is a restlessness among the general populace over the retarded state of
the civilian economy, a restlessness that is beginning to stir in a
morevisible manner during the glasnost era. Also, a completely
closed military technology effort denies the military sector important benefits from direct interactions with worldwide technological developments. The international technology collection
efforts of the military intelligence services provide only limited
compensation in this regard.
The Pentagon's annual publication Soviet Military Power: An
Assessment of the Threat, 1988 highlights technology as the key to
military capabilities of the two superpowers. This publication
wisely notes, however,
Competition between the Soviet Union and the United States
is not purely technological ... technology does not, in and of
itself, revise any of the military balance . . . it is how well
technology is applied, and how thoroughly its contributions
to military operations are absorbed by those who use that

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


technology, that have the greatest impact upon the military

balance. 10

Thus, as military operations become more diverse and as

military systems become more complex, the country with the
broadest base of technology and the highest level of technological
literacy among the population has a tremendous advantage in the
military competition. This message has been highlighted during
the debates over SOL As we have seen, in the Soviet view the
question is not whether SOl will destroy a small number oralarge
number of incoming missiles or whether SOl will ever be deployed. The real issue is whether, under the SOl umbrella, the
United States will develop a vast array of new electronic and
related technologies which can be oriented to many types of
military applications. The Soviets are clearly concerned that they
cannot compete successfully in this arena, for they do not have
the mature industrial base and supporting technological infrastructure that is available in the United States to supportsuch a
program. This concern over the across-the-board weakness of
Soviet industry is at the core of the support, albeit tenuous, of the
Soviet military establishment for perestroika.
Several hundred Soviet R & 0 institutions devote a substantial amount of their effort to support defense programs. Most
of these institutions are affiliated with the ministries and enterprises responsible for production; and a number of them
also contribute to civilian R & 0 in fields such as aviation, shipbuilding, and electronics. A few of the institutions are directly
subordinate to the Ministry of Oefense. These institutions are
concerned primarily with defining military requirements for
weapons systems and improving effective utilization of new
military systems. Many institutes of the Academy of Seiences
and individuals and groups of scientists at higher educational
institutions receive funds to work on research projects of interest to the defense establishment.


Chapter 3

There are several similarities between the Soviet and American approaches to military research. Key defense laboratories
in both countries sharply orient their R & D programs toward
military requirements. Both countries rely heavily on industrial
facilities to design and to develop new systems and system components. Also, they rely increasingly on the academic communities to investigate scientific areas of future interest.
But the differences are very pronounced. For example,
American aerospace and other high-technology firms compete
against each other for military contracts, and during this competition they continually advance the state of the art. Competition of this sort is less common in the USSR. Only in the field of
aeronautics do Soviet design bureaus concemed with missiles
and aircraft in effect compete for Soviet "contracts." Second,
laboratories of our Department of Defense have long had technology spin-off programs to help the civilian sector-in construction technology, in electronics, in advanced materials. This
concept is in its earliest discussion stages in the USSR.
Perhaps most important, American scientists working on
defense projects are reasonably weil integrated into the broader
American scientific community, participating in scientific conferences, publishing unclassified papers, and consulting regularly with a wide range of colleagues. Mobility of American
scientists between jobs located in different institutional settings
has become perhaps the most important mechanism for technology diffusion, a mechanism virtually unknown to scientists, and
particularly military scientists, in the USSR.
Looking more closely at Soviet military technology, we see
many technological advances that have been incorporated into
very potent weapons systems with capabilities equal to or better
than our systems. Some of these technologies had their origins
in the West while others are clearly Soviet designs. Many of the
most impressive Soviet technological breakthroughs are reg-


Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind

ularly cited in Pentagon assessments, and particularly assessments set forth to justify budget requests. For example, Soviet
submarines are noted for their speed and diving ability, in part
because of light, strong titanium hulls. Modified Soviet MiGs
hold world speed and altitude records. Soviet achievements in
rocketry fill a variety of record books. With regard to conventional armaments, Soviet armored vehicles have several advanced offensive and defensive features.
Even with these impressive accomplishments, limitations
abound. For instance, Soviet submarines are sometimes unreliable, partially due to problems with their nuclear reactor propulsion systems. Soviet aircraft also have problems of reliability.
Some developing countries are reluctant to use Soviet commercial aircraft, and Soviet fighter planes which have fallen into
Western hands have displayed outdated electronic systems and
very short-range fighting capabilities. The vaunted space program has its limitations. Again, reliability is a key concern, with
the lifetimes of Soviet satellites much shorter than the lifetimes
of comparable American satellites, probably due to limited propulsion and control capabilities.
Many relatively crude Soviet technologies generally perform as designed, and weaponry based on the technologies of
the 1960s and 1970s remains a potent factor. Indeed, in many
military settings American systems may be much too sophisticated and costly. Advanced technology is not always synonymaus with fighting capability, although in many situations a
direct correlation exists.

As military systems continue to grow in sophistication and

complexity and to involve innovations of every kind, the overlap between military and civilian technology in both countries
becomes increasingly apparent. The defense establishment in


Chapter 3

the United States has historically drawn heavily on civilian technologies for materials and fuels for its weaponry and for components of its fire control, navigation, and detection systems. In
contrast, a great gap exists in the USSR between defense needs
and the relatively low level of available civilian technologies.
Many important ceramics, chemicals, and electronic components, for example, simply have not been developed for civilian
uses. One objective of perestroika is to close the military/civilian
technology gap by increasing the flow of technical achievements
from the military to the civilian sector and eventually from the
civilian to the military sector.
Abrieflook at Soviet capabilities in the fields of computers,
machine tools, and advanced materials will help set the stage for
consideration of US policies which must address technologies
with important applications in both the civilian and military
sectors. These three fields have long been focal points for debates over our trade and technology transfer policies. 11
Intensive use of computers began in the United States in the
mid-1950s. A comparable effort in the USSR had its origins
about 10 years later. In both countries, the first 10 years of development saw a sharp growth in the production and use of mainframe computers. The growth continued rapidly in the United
States with high speed mini- and microcomputers appearing in
the 1970s. By the mid-1980s the nurober of powerful computer
systems totaled in the millions. In the USSR the growth has
flattened in recent years, and the powerful computers available
within the country nurober only in the hundreds of thousands.
The 10-year lag has stretched to 15 years or more, with little sign
of early closing of the gap.
A particularly telling indication of the poor state of Soviet
computers is a statement repeated to me several times by Bulgarian specialists and quickly confirmed by Soviet specialists:
the computerpower per capita in Bulgaria in 1987 added up to

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


three times that in the USSR. Soviet specialists can tolerate lagging behind the United States, Japan, or Western Europe. But to
be compared with Bulgaria? Tolerance does have its limits.
The Soviets can of course mobilize large quantities of talent
to design computers with respectable speeds, although not
rivaling the speeds which had been attainable in the West, say,
five years earlier. However, transferring technology from development to production to use takes several times Ionger than in
the United States. The Soviets are skilled at producing the first
several prototypes of sophisticated equipment, often at an experimental factory associated with a research facility. Moving to
mass production, on the other hand, is plagued with problems
of quality control. The compartmentalized nature of Soviet activities greatly hampers effective installation, use, and maintenance of computers. And once the computer is delivered to the
doorstep of the users, they are immediately on their own.
Visits to Soviet scientific institutions, large business establishments, or industrial enterprises usually reveal startling arrays of computers of all sizes, capabilities, ages, and origins. The
Novosibirsk Computer Center, for example, relies on a Soviet
mainframe which I first saw there in the mid-1960s, on a newly
acquired Soviet mainframe, on a more powerful minicomputer
imported from the United States in 1980, on recently acquired
personal computers from the West and from Asia, and on an
assortment of computer components and systems obtained from
several East European countries. An enormous amount of effort
is devoted to ensure the proper functioning of these systems, to
develop a limited degree of compatibility among the different
software operating systems that they employ, and to train specialists who can use them efficiently.
Each time I am in Moscow, I visit the single retail store
where personal computers may be purchased. During each visit
I receive the same reply to my query as to the procedure for


Chapter 3

purchasing a personal computer. "We have no computers in

stock right now, but we are expecting a shipment in several
months. Come in at that time, and we will take your order."
While Soviet computers are slowly becoming available to both
institutions and individuals, the only effective approach to gaining possession of a Soviet computer is to work through an acquaintance who is employed somewhere in the chain between
the factory and the retail store. Also, it is easy to understand
why Soviet visitors to the United States try their best to save
money to purchase a computer which can be taken back to the
As to computer software, worldwide developments since
1980 have been revolutionary. Much of the effort in the West has
been devoted to computer applications for ward processing,
publishing, and printing; to storing, formatting, and accessing
large amounts of data; and to supporting systems for financial,
medical, and other everyday needs. A much greater portion of
the modest Soviet effort has been devoted to automation of
industrial production processes.
Many well-qualified Soviet specialists work in developing
software. Their rigorous training in mathematics provides a
strong basis for responding to computer operating and programming requirements. The software explosion in the West
will eventually impact the East as well and will assist these
Soviet specialists in areas which have eluded them in the past.
With regard to machine tools for cutting and shaping metals, development and production of many types for use throughout industry have lang been a high priority within the USSR.
When the United States expanded embargoes on the export of
advanced machine tools in the mid-1970s, the Soviets decided to
devote the necessary financial and manpower resources to the
development of their own world-class machine tool industry
rather than to rely on uncertain Westernsources of equipment.

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


In the last 10 years they have succeeded in producing a few

machine tools which now compete on the international market.
Several Soviet plants are producing large quantities of these
tools which are in demand at home and abroad.
The Soviets face a great handicap in developing and producing the microprocessors and related components for the control
of modern machine tools, given the primitive state of their electronics industry. In some cases, they export the machine tools
without the electronic components. For example, Canadian importers buy stripped-down machine tools from the USSR and
then instaU Japanese electronics in Canada. In other cases, and
particularly with regard to relatively simple machine tools, the
Soviets have developed very clever software which permits the
use of their own bulky systems for controlling the operations.
The East European countries play an important role in providing the USSR with machine tools and machine tool components for industrial use. Soviet production levels cannot yet satisfy local demands as well as export requirements. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria are providing systems and
components for the large Soviet market, and Hungary has
gained a reputation as a world leader in software systems for
automated machine tools.
One significant area of Soviet excellence, as we have noted,
is titanium metallurgy. Lightweight titanium alloys have very
desirable heat-resistant properties at high temperatures. Advances in this field are particularly important in the manufacture
of modern submarines and aircraft as well as turbines for power
plants. During my visit to the Leningrad Metal Works in December 1988, the deputy director beamed while discussing the properties of the titanium-tipped turbine blades produced in the factory. The plant recently joined forces with an Italian engineering
firm in bidding for a major contract to supply power equipment
to Greece, including turbines manufactured in Leningrad.


Chapter 3

The USSR needs a substantial overhaul of many of its production facilities as a step toward larger production of highquality steels. In particular, many of the antiquated open-hearth
furnaces should be replaced. A major shifting of priorities, technologies, and scientific talent is required if the USSR is to compete effectively in the West.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the training of Soviet chemical
engineers was at its peak, Soviet research was at a world level in
investigating lightweight ceramies which could be used in both
civilian and military products subjected to high temperatures.
Now the USSR has slipped badly as the number of outstanding
young specialists entering the field has dropped. Many specialists in the overall pool are narrowly trained and not ready to
shift into new and promising areas. For similar reasons, the
Soviets continue to lag in the field of chemical polymers with
many applications in both the military and civilian sectors.
The science of advanced materials in the USSR has suffered
from a preoccupation with basic research to the detriment of
sufficient emphasis on applications. And once again, the common problems of inadequate experimental instrumentation and
bureaucratic insulation between the researchers and the production organizations have magnified the dilemma.
Exemplifying this insulation, The Economist writes,
If you want to see the best Soviet technology, go to Japan ....
The Japanese aresuperbat spotting a Soviet idea (for example,
for making continuously cast steel), buying the license and
racing ahead to apply it across the industry; back in Russia,
meanwhile, the technology spreads slowly, if at all. Russia's
problern is not any shortage of inventiveness. It is lack of
incentives to make the jump from research to the production
and diffusion of a new process . . . the technology had spread
to only 12 percent of the Soviet steel industry 27 years after its
first use at the Novolipetsk metallurgical factory; in West Germany it had spread to 62 percent, and in Japan to 79 percent. 12


Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind

Capabilities in science and engineering spring from a nation's educational system. Now, as high technologies enter
the scene, a wide diversity of well-developed scientific skills
throughout the Soviet economy is more important than ever
before. Only through a reinvigorated educational system will
the Soviet Union develop the capability to apply science and
technology to economic requirements on a broad basis. However, decrying the failures of the past, the Soviet Minister of
Higher Education in 1987 described the approach to education
in the USSR as follows: "In our pursuit of technological achievement, we tried to cram into our school children and students an
amount of knowledge they could not possibly digest. " 13
There are about 900 institutions of higher education in the
USSR. Education ministries in the 15 republics direct most of
these institutions. A few of the most prestigious ones are administered directly by the national government in Moscow. This
organizational fragmentation has often been cited as a problern
in effecting across-the-board adjustments and improvements in
the Soviet approach to education. In contrast, the United States
boasts of the diversity of its more than 3,000 institutions of higher education. Most of our institutions have independent Boards
of Trustees; diversity rather than standardization is considered
an important strength of the US approach.
The Soviet higher educational system has historically emphasized technical training. The output of graduates in science
and engineering each year greatly exceeds the output of graduates in the United States. The Soviets say they produce four
times the number of engineers and twice the number of scientists that graduate in the United States. The definitions of scientists and engineers are not comparable in the two countries, and
these comparisons may not be entirely fair. For example, many


Chapter 3

types of social scientists and technicians are included in the

Soviet definitions of scientists and engineers. Still, by any measure, the Soviet technical training effort is huge.
An important aspect of the Soviet approach is the heavy
emphasis on evening and extension courses. Forty percent of
the students are enrolled in these programs, including many
which are held after working hours at enterprises and other
convenient locations. Some educators within the USSR have
reservations concerning the quality of this type of technical
preparation for such a !arge segment of the scientific and engineering community. They are not convinced that educations
received on a part-time basis can substitute on a very !arge scale
for full-time educational experiences.
A few of the Soviet science and engineering faculties are of
very high quality. These are concentrated in Moscow, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Kiev, and several other major cities. Hundreds of other science and engineering faculties stretch from
Lvov on the Polish border to Vladivostok. Many are less impressive-in terms of the quality of the students, the preparation of
the instructors, and the availability of facilities and equipment.
At the undergraduate Ievel, students attend many lectures
during the week and on Saturdays. They rely heavily on lecture
notes and on a limited number of textbooks. The students simply do not have time for supplementary reading or independent
study due to the number of required dass hours. Examinations
are often oral. Each student must complete an independent project during the final year, which is usually the fifth year of
study. A few science students spend their final two years affiliated with research institutes-sometimes institutes of the Academy of Sciences-where they are exposed to advanced research
and where they often initiate their job searches.
Almost all educational institutions suffer from inadequate
research capabilities of their own. The Soviet philosophy has

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


historically been to concentrate research in the institutes of the

Academy of Seiences and in institutes of the industrial, agricultural, and health ministries. This approach is quite different
from the Westernapproach which emphasizes the mutual reinforcement of education and research located under the same
Under new educational guidelines, Soviet science students
are to be provided greater opportunities to participate in research. In practice this philosophy works well for the best students, who pair off with the most important professors. However, the average student has limited exposure to significant
research. While 70 Soviet educational institutions have recently
been selected as centers for an expanded research emphasis,
including construction of better research facilities within the institutions, the opportunities for research even within these institutions continue tobe limited and very uneven for faculty and
The situation with engineers, and particularly the weaker
engineering students, is better, in view of the ample opportunities for practical work at enterprises in connection with their
studies. Still, the lack of emphasis on engineering research within the educational programs reduces the likelihood that latent
creativity will be nurtured and that innovation will become a
significant concern of the graduates.
With regard to advanced degrees, the best science students
often go directly from the universities to research institutes.
Same institutes have the authority for granting advanced degrees when the young scientists continue their education while
working on research projects of interest to the institutes. Another common raute is for an aspiring young scientist to be
assigned by his or her employer, such as an enterprise or industrial institute, for full-time study at a leading university or Academy institute. After two, three, or four years, the successful


Chapter 3

scientist eams a Candidate degree, which is roughly equivalent

to a PhD. The scientist then retums to the original place of
employment to continue his or her career. There are many variations on this approach, including encouragement of older scientists to take time off to eam their Candidate degrees rather late
in their careers.
An advanced degree requires a thesis, as in the United States.
The student is usually required to demonstrate the usefulness to
society of the research reported in the dissertation. The student
is also expected to publish articles on the thesis topic. Prior to
acceptance, the thesis is commonly circulated to institutions and
individuals who may be interested in commenting on it. The student then defends the thesis in a forum open to the public which
has been advertised in advance. I have attended some of these
sessions; sometimes they are filled with scientific controversy,
while on other occasions they seem almost pro forma in satisfying
an academic requirement.
The final degree in the USSR is the Doctorate, which has
traditionally been reserved for a limited number of senior scientists who have prepared numerous scientific publications. Late
in their careers, particularly successful senior scientists take off a
year or more to compile their most important works into a dissertation which qualifies for this prestigious recognition. Recently, in efforts to lower the average age of the recipients of this
degree, the education authorities have developed procedures
for scientists under 40 to receive sabbaticalleaves of up to three
years to work on a doctoral thesis.
As in the United States, discontent in the USSR is growing
over the quality of science education at the secondary school
Ievel. National achievement Ievels seem to be slipping, even in
mathematics, a field of traditional strength. Of special concem is
the stifling effect of reliance on rote leaming within curricula
which are too ambitious for available dass time.

Soviel Science and Technology Fall Behind


A few special Soviet secondary schools have received

worldwide recognition for the achievements of their students in
mathematics and science. Also, the Soviet annual "olympics"
for the most outstanding students in these fields is weil known,
and the results of the participants are impressive. However, as
in all countries, the achievements of a few do not reflect general
Overall, the Soviet educational system gives great attention
to rigorous training in the basic scientific disciplines with a
heavy emphasis on technical subjects at alllevels. While there
has been some decline in the interest in science among the Soviet youth, the competition for admission to the best universities
and engineering schools remains intense. The graduates of
these institutions are highly skilled in the fundamentals of science and engineering. However, the educational experiences
even for the best and the brightest are often narrowly based.
Individually tailored educational programs and interdisciplinary
programs are seldom available. This tradition of narrow educational preparation is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the
general Iack of personal incentive for mobility of specialists between jobs later in life.

Scientists and engineers in every country are dissatisfied

with the Ievel of financial support for their activities, and the
Soviet Union is no exception. They are impatient with the slowness of personal promotion opportunities and they crave greater
peer recognition. They bemoan the Iack of appreciation within
the government and industry, and indeed within the general
population, of the importance to society of the results of their
research efforts. Can incentives and investments improve the
opportunities for better science and more rapid industrial
growth in the USSR?


Chapter 3

Perhaps the most stifling aspect of research in the USSR

is the attitude of resignation that often develops among researchers, and particularly among the researchers who do not
have academicians as mentors and who do not find themselves
in the select laboratories of the country. While the standards in
their laboratories may be high and the research activities important, they have little hope of moving from their individuallaboratories or of stretching beyond the limits of the laboratories'
traditional research profiles during their entire careers. There
are few opportunities for peer recognition outside their immediate research groups. In a short time, research becomes simply a
job, a comfortable job offering a reasonably good salary and
considerable prestige, but a job largely devoid of the excitement
that initially attracts many bright students to science in all
Still, in most areas Soviet science is moving forward. Technology moves more slowly, but technological breakthroughs are
well ahead of the application and diffusion of these developments. Constrained by a tradition of not sharing important technological advances, Soviet industry has great difficulty absorbing any new development on a wide scale. Individual plants
rather than industrial sectors are the principal beneficiaries of
technologies acquired abroad or developed internally. New economic incentives for using and diffusing technologies which will
enhance productivity and quality are repeatedly cited as the
linchpin to industrial progress in the USSR.
Everyone favors incentives for innovation, particularly budget officials, who prefer incentives to more expensive approaches to promote economic growth. But what is meant by
incentives? Monetary rewards for harder work, for closer attention to the needs and interests of customers, or for better organization and management of research or manufacturing activities?
The Soviets talk about all these types of rewards.

Soviet Science and Technology Fall Behind


The enthusiasm for incentives rests on two premises. First,

not only is there room for improvements, but the overall system
can accommodate and reward approaches which will Iead to
improvements. Second, improvements are technically feasible
and can be reflected in research or manufacturing. As we have
seen, these conditions are not always present in the USSR.
Further adding to the difficulties of fastering more productive research and engineering, individual firms and research
institutes may be accustomed to making all components of a
product or conducting all aspects of a research project. Reliance
on other Soviet institutions whose dependability is in question
is to be avoided even though there may be comparative advantages of specialization within different organizations. In contrast, the opportunity to draw on a variety of organizations with
many types of skills has proven to be very important in improving efficiency and productivity in the West.
Innovative ideas become reality only if they are tied to investments. Up-front financing is usually necessary to initiate a
new type of production activity. While the Soviets have attempted for many years to link their investment plans and their
technological development plans, the results to date have not
been very encouraging. For instance, the key industrial areas
which are being highlighted by Gorbachev-machinery, chemicals, and electric power-have been priority investment areas
for more than 25 years, yet technologies have lagged. Given the
severe Iimitation on investment resources in the USSR even for
priority areas, the likelihood of major new investment thrusts to
stimulate the use of more productive technologies does not
seem high.
Of critical importance, support from the Soviet military
Ieaders for a reduced emphasis on military spending cannot be
taken for granted. They may reluctantly accept the trade-off of
less funds for procurement of military goods in exchange for


Chapter 3

greater investments in a broad and more sophisticated technological and industrial base. They will probably be more than
willing to share the burden for development of technologies
with both civilian and military applications. However, they are
clearly wary about eroding the favored status of the military
sector. They will surely become impatient with delays in implementing civilian R & 0 programs. Finally, they will become
increasingly apprehensive if the United States continues to widen the military technology gap and uses this superiority for
political advantage.
Just as the strengths and weaknesses of Soviet technology
are often difficult to explain, the effects of imports of Western
technologies cannot be easily predicted. Sometimes acquisitions
of technology from the Westreinforce Soviet efforts and accelerate the development of an indigenous technological capability.
In other cases, Soviet dependence on Western technology has
led to an atrophy of ernerging Soviet R & 0, with the result
being a greater rather than a smaller technological gap.
The Soviets are fearful of long-term dependence on the
West in any area, but they are increasingly faced with this reality. Technology transfer is a people problem. Until Soviet specialists become more fully attuned to the international technological movement, the USSR has little chance to capitalize on
Western technological achievements short of simply buying
Westernhardware and management skills.l4


Changing the Course through

Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent.
Thomas Edison

Gorbachev has set the goal of Soviet achievement of world

technological standards in all areas of the Soviet economyautomated factories, highly efficient power plants, modern
highways across the countryside, plentiful high-quality consumer goods. He talks about reaching this goal in many branches
of industry during the 1990s. His advisers predict that within 25 years the USSR will attain a level of economic productivity and a standard of living that are second to none. But bear in
mind, these targets are to be realized by a country where 60
percent of the workforce is currently engaged in manual labor;
where more than 50 million pensioners depend on heavily subsidized goods and services; and where the economy has been
labeled by Soviet economists as "no-growth" for more than a


Chapter 4

For many years the Soviet leadership has promised to overtake the industrial accomplishments of the West, and these new
assertions continue a favorite form of Soviet fantasizing about
achieving the impossible. However, the long-term time frame
now being espoused is still a refreshing contrast to the more
bombastic predictions of the past. Gorbachev' s sincerity is probably genuine, and his optimism spurs the nation forward. Nevertheless, the race with the West was lost before he was summoned to the starting line, and now his task is to stay as close to
the Ieaders as possible until he passes the baton to his successor.
With regard to the short term, current plans call for financial
and technical manpower priorities in industrial development:
machine tools, computers, electronics, steel, and chemicals. Soviet Ieaders believe that an overhaul of the entire industrial base
is an essential first step before the benefits of perestroika are feit
throughout the economy.
Still, the workers are impatient; they crave immediate benefits. In recognition of the need for prompt and visible improvements in the general standard of living, Gorbachev has singled
out three sectors for particularly urgent attention, namely, food
processing, housing construction, and health services. The govemment has promised substantial new investments in these
areas; and these are Soviet priority areas for international joint
In the meantime, the Soviet political elite is reluctantly giving up some of the personal privileges that have placed them
outside the daily hassles of survival in the USSR. For example,
the Moscow press recently revealed that the state-subsidized
grocery Iist for the weekend summer homes of high officials in
the Ryazan region southeast of Moscow for the first six months
of 1988 included 394 kilograms of caviar; six tons of crab, pte,
and other delicacies; and 565 kilograms of cured sturgeon.l N ow
these aficionados of high living are beginning to lose their access

Changing the Course through Perestroika


to special stores, imported goods, and many on-call delivery

andrepair services. According to Gorbachev's philosophy, they
too must learn to cope with long lines at every turn, with housing shortages that throw newly married couples and parents
together for many years and thereby contribute to the growing
divorce rate, and with an unquenched thirst for Western luxuries which they can see only in Westernfilms or during travels

Agricultural deficiencies Ioom !arge and are now one of the

targets of Gorbachev's efforts. Throughout his recent career,
Gorbachev has been close to agriculture as the party chief in the
Stavropol agricultural region and as Brezhnev' s top aide for agricultural development. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, most of the
initial attention in the USSR during the 1980s for more effective
use of science through economic reforms has been directed to
the complicated industrial sector.
In contrast, early reforms in China were heavily concentrated in the agricultural sector: food was the first priority before
raising the calls for harder work in the factories. Soviet economists belittle any comparison between agriculture in China and
in the USSR, agriculture which they emphasize evolved from
entirely different historical and cultural roots. Still, the Soviet
Ieaders somewhat belatedly recognize the urgent need to restock the markets at affordable prices if their repeated calls for
reform throughout the country aretobe supported by the population. Greater personal incentives for the workers and the peasants are to be the key in the agricultural sector. Gorbachev
wants farmers to be "masters of the land" again. He has little
patience with the Russian adage, "We pretend to work; and
they pretend to pay us."


Chapter 4

Apologists for the perennial agricultural shortfalls in the

USSR have usually blamed the uncertainties of the weather.
Weather is but apart of the story. Poorly developed road networks quickly turn to mud quagmires in the rural areas. Storage
facilities are inadequate to prevent the rotting of crops following
harvest. Mismatches between the distribution of agricultural
equipment and local needs for mechanization are commonplace.
Technological fixes to address these and other obvious problems
are critical. As an immediate step, the govemment has promised
expenditures of 40 billion rubles to improve roads in the agricultural heartland. However, better hybrids, massive investments in tractors, intensive use of agricultural fertilizers, and
other technological approaches have not in and of themselves
provided promised retums in the past. Thus, the uninspired
fortitude of the farmers in the past and at present is also a major
During the late 1920s and 1930s, Stalin planned to solve the
problern of lagging agricultural production through forced collectivization of the peasants. In the process millions died from
starvation. The collective farms which call for common ownership of the land and common sharing of the harvest have varied
widely in their productivity over the years, andin some cases
they have been very successful. However, over time they frequently have become more like state enterprises which simply
pay each worker a fixed salary, with financial incentives for the
individual farmers tied to overall productivity of the collectives
gradually fading in significance.
Within Soviet planning circles, the economic aspect of agriculture has begun to drown out the remnants of the ideological
emphasis that depersonalized the farmers and hampered past
efforts. The Soviets now recognize the importance of a small but
dynamic private sector. A significant step in this regard is the
new policy of offering individual family farmers 50-year leases


Changing the Course through Perestroika

for plots of state Iands and rental agreements for use of state
equipment. Relaxation of some of the price controls on agricultural products of both the state and private sectors is also
needed; the resulting higher prices may be painful to the consumers in the short term but should be helpful in raising production Ievels and bringing down prices in the long term. Also,
improved scientific management of the farmlands must become
more of a reality than a slogan if production is to rise. 2

Turning to the problems of upgrading the performance of

Soviet industry, American skeptics doubt that the Western concepts of marketing and profit motivation can be transferred to an
economy which must rely on a heavy element of state ownership and central planning for the indefinite future. Nevertheless, the centerpiece of the Soviet economic reforms is the designation of each state-owned enterprise as a self-sustaining profit
center with its own responsibility to ensure that it operates in
the black. Some sales of most enterprises, say 50 percent, will be
guaranteed under contracts with the State ministries. These
ministries are to decide which production is absolutely essential
for the continued functioning of the economy and then control
all aspects of the production and distribution through contracts
with the appropriate enterprises. The remainder of the sales are
to be carried out through a free market system which is only
now being defined and developed. Contrary to the spirit of
perestroika, some enterprises are reluctant to enter into the uncertainties of the free market and are trying to maintain state
contracts for 80 to 100 percent of their sales. "Let others experiment with the new system while we are assured of at least a
steady income Ievel," they say.
Industrial modernization in the USSR requires extensive
renovation of many, if not most, of the production facilities,


Chapter 4

since the costs of simply scrapping obsolete facilities in favor of

new modern factories on a wide scale are prohibitive. Indeed,
the traditional bias in the USSR toward building new facilities
rather than retrofitting existing plants must now be tempered
with solid economic analysis of the trade-offs between new and
old. Renovation in turn will be difficult, for it requires extensive
custom building of machinery which will function properly within existing facilities. Unfortunately, manufacture of customized
machinery is not a strong suit in the USSR: the system has
rewarded managers who are successful in serial production of
identical machines, because production targets have been based
on quantity. In addition, production lines must stop when new
customized machinery is being installed in existing facilities. The
managers and workers ask, "Will the new equipment really outperform existing lines and warrant downtime for installing the
equipment-downtime which can jeopardize fulfillment of current production quotas?" But in many plants there will be no
alternative to major revamping of the existing lines.
Better quality control is essential. However, managerslose
interest in quality when, in view of nationwide shortages, they
are able to sell everything they manufacture regardless of quality. Thus, efforts to promote the idea of quality control find little
receptivity in the civilian sector.
Regardless of changes in the incentive system, neither enterprise managers nor their workers will see the promised
bonuses, improved living conditions, and heightened personal
status unless the technical tools at their disposal are adequate to
the task of raising worker productivity. Eliminating the hand
cranks and the shovels, mating new equipment with existing
tools and apparatus of another vintage, installing automatic control procedures, and operating quality control systems are not
easy tasks. They require both technical know-how and investment capital. Technical know-how is the challenge of the educa-


Changing the Course through Perestroika

tional system, the management system, and the scientific research and development system.

Repeated references to Soviet military achievements must

color any discussion of reforms in Soviet industry. Surely, if
Soviet space vehicles can reach Mars and their nuclear weapons
can destroy Los Angeles, Soviet engineers can design buildings
that do not begin to crumble as soon as the first occupants
arrive, and Soviet workers can produce jeans that do not rip
during the first stretch. It is not surprising that the Soviet leaders give high priority to enlisting Soviet military capabilities to
bolster the civilian industrial base on a broad scale. In the past
some Soviet plants have produced both civilian and military
products-trucks, planes, ships, cranes, electronic equipment;
but the military products have always received priority over
civilian requirements. Now a number of highly successful managers of Soviet military production activities have been moved
to new posts where they have responsibility for the management of many more civilian production activities at the national
level. In some cases, reorganizations have placed both military
and civilian plants completely under their control.
Representatives of the State Planning Committee repeatedly underscored the importance of drawing on Soviet military
experiences in boosting civilian production during a seminar I
attended in Moscow at the end of 1988. Reflecting recent Soviet
political statements calling for every military plant to produce
something for the civilian economy, a top official of the committee was particularly interested in the conversion of military production lines to civilian lines. As an example, he wanted to
know how to produce dairy equipment side by side with equipment to support missile activities. A cautionary suggestion was
put forth by visiting American industrialists that in such situa-


Chapter 4

tions the requirements for workforce skills and for efficient facilities may be so different that sometimes the best approach is
simply to walk away from a defense facility and start over with a
different type of plant and new workers. The Soviet official was
clearly not prepared to accept this suggestion which would further complicate his task of formulating general policies for conversion programs.
One of the most important management skills in the USSR,
at both the national and enterprise levels, is the ability to ensure a
steady flow of critical materials and supplies required for production in a country where there are not enough materials and
supplies to go around. The objective is not to achieve the success
of Japan in having materials and components arrive only a few
hours before they are needed and thereby reduce inventory costs;
the problern is much more basic, namely, to ensure that materials
vital to keeping the production lines flowing are on hand at any
cost, even if they have to be warehoused for many months.
We have already looked at how the planning process in
Moscow accords first priority to the production needs of the
military sector and how national delivery schedules for materials and supplies for military programs are developed accordingly. Sometimes, these delivery schedules arenot met, despite
the enormous planning effort and their priority. When shortages occur, however, the managers of military facilities can call
on local party offleials where the production facilities are located
to intervene through their channels. These officials do not hesitate to arrange for the prompt diversion of connectors, cabling,
and other items from the television factory, for example, to the
missile plant. Similarly, military production managers, reinforced by party officials, have little difficulty in emphasizing to
their suppliers the importance of high-quality materials and
components that meet military specifications. In short, when
the military establishment speaks, suppliers listen.


Changing the Course through Perestroika

The new management teams transferred to the civilian sector from the defense sector are now experiencing a rude awakening. Ensuring on-time delivery of high-quality materials for
civilian factories is not so easy. Regardless of the personal Connections and clout of the managers, materials that don't exist in
the civilian sector cannot be delivered. Further, the many people
involved in the procurement process in the civilian sector have
become so accustomed to a sluggish system that doesn't work
very weil that inspiring them to more determined action is a
Herculean task.
An important aspect of Gorbachev' s perestroika is the outreach to the West for technologies which can truncate the economic development process. Joint ventures, licensing agreements, and cooperative programs with foreign firms are being
pursued as never before. Similarly, in the area of basic science,
many Soviet organizations are pressing for East-West exchanges,
international collaboration on global problems, and cooperation
on big science projects which exceed the financial resources of
any single country. The Soviet Ieaders grasp the potential significance of the rapid spread of science and technology throughout
the world for advancement of the Soviet society. They clearly
intend for the USSR to become an active participant in this diffusion as the only alternative to continued technological backwardness.3

The reduction of the size of the Soviet bureaucracies is

underway-painfully, sporadically, but persistently. Already
many senior officials have retired, and more are scheduled to
become pensioners every month. Many younger office workers
have been dispatched to middle-level management jobs in industrial enterprises. Frequent Western visitors to government
offices in Moscow regularly encounter new faces at the table

Chapter 4


with no information volunteered conceming the fates of their

Some of the former bureaucrats who now spend their time
in their gardens rather than their offices are quite bitter about
this treatment, and particularly about their loss of power and
influence. Forabrief time they try to use their old-boy networks
in rebeHing against the system, but usually to no avail. However, other early retirees have accepted their loss of bureaucratic power as simply fate and are rapidly fading into the
The younger generation of displaced bureaucrats is accustomed to being programmed, and they believe that the system
will take care of everyone. Indeed, this usually has been the
case. Somehow !arge numbers of displaced, young white-collar
workers find new jobs in the same geographicallocations. Earlier suggestions that new jobs awaited them only in distant cities
of Siberia apparently have remained simply suggestions.
Before the advent of perestroika, 15 million govemment
administrators served throughout the country. About 3 million
of these were layered at the upper Ievel of the bureaucracy in
Moscow and in the capital cities of the republics. Gorbachev
aims to eliminate one-third of the 3 million jobs. The staff of the
State Committee for Science and Technology of more than 2000,
for example, is being reduced by more than 30 percent. Cries of
anguish emanate from the department chiefs of the committee
who lose not only their staffs but also much of their office space.
Comparable targets for staff reductions have also been set for
the many other govemment agencies responsible for the administration of scientific programs .




With regard to the evolving private sector, a few ingenious

Soviet entrepreneurs will undoubtedly become wealthy in the

Changing the Course through Perestroika


months and years ahead, as was the .case during the Soviet
experiments with private enterprise in the 1920s. The Soviet
leadership is clearly concerned about the societal implications of
the private cooperatives springing up in all cities which permit
private entrepreneurs to pool resources and share profits. By the
end of 1988, over 700,000 people were working for cooperatives
in the industrial and service sectors; leading Soviet economists
have projected a tenfold growth of cooperatives during the next
decade, but at that time they still will account for only about 5
percent of the workforce. Plansare being formulated, for example, for a new cooperative in Moscow to manage the country's
largest hotel and to build and operate a steel mill; another
Moscow cooperative now directly and indirectly employs 2500
people. In the Soviet republic of Georgia, the feasibility of a new
internal airline managed by a cooperative is being considered.
The government initially placed a Iimit on the number of employees in each cooperative and has been trying to establish a
tax structure which will provide some control. However, the
specter of large profits excites many talented Soviets to devise
ways to circumvent such controls. At the same time, most Soviet
citizens even under perestroika have great difficulty coping psychologically with the notion that a handful of Soviet citizens
may become very rich.
One widespread hope in the USSR is that cooperatives will
serve as agents for transferring technology which is currently
isolated in a few state enterprises into other parts of the economy. To date many cooperatives have been established which
rely on moonlighting engineers to provide the materials, equipment, and services for the repair of heating, plumbing, and
electrical systems in both industrial and residential facilities.
Sometimes they share profits with state enterprises in exchange
for access to needed materials and equipment. Initially, these
types of cooperatives worked primarily for private customers,

Chapter 4


but they increasingly receive contracts from state organizations

as weil. This low Ievel of technology diffusion is desperately
needed in the USSR.
One extraordinarily successful cooperative which is composed of moonlighting scientists from an electronics research
institute has succeeded in producing with a small Iabor force
high-precision lenses using materials that cost 100 rubles per
lens. The factory which has been producing this type of lens. is
either so inefficient or so clever that it has been selling its product to a state trading company for 10,000 rubles per lens. The
trading company is now buying the lenses at the higher price
from both sources. The scientists are delighted, the factory is
embarrassed, and the government does not know what to do.
Cooperatives devoted to computer software pique both military and consumer interests. Will engineers from the defense
sector be able to moonlight? Will such cooperatives be able to
link with Western partners? Who monitors the software products to exploit them for military applications? 4

Soviet intellectuals, and particularly scientists and economists from the Academy of Seiences of the USSR, are playing a
pivotal role in developing practical solutions to the systemic and
technical problems which block Soviet industrial progress. Some
of these recent allies of the party leadership were lonely critics of
the shortcomings of the approaches of Gorbachev' s predecessors, and they are now trying to energize the entire society
through support of perestroika. They are studying Western
management techniques. They are preparing the nation to use
computers. In many ways they are manning the tiller of a ship in
its earliest stages of renovation as it sets out prematurely but
necessarily into unfamiliar waters. Never before has such a

Changing the Course through Perestroika


heavy burden been placed at the doorstep of scientists in the

USSR or anywhere eise.
It is not surprising that Gorbachev has repeatedly called
upon Soviet scientists and other intellectuals for support and
personal counsel and that many leading Soviet scientists have
embraced his approach. In contrast to his predecessors who had
little formal education, he feels completely at home with the
intellectual community, having graduated from the law faculty
of Moscow State University. He seems to thrive on the controversial debates that are now adding spiee to party meetings, and
he relishes encasing his pragmatic program pronouncements
within sophisticated conceptual assessments.
Gorbachev has great hope in the potential of science. As
already noted, he witnessed the dismal failures of poorly conceived agricultural policies while science was contributing to
spectacular agricultural successes abroad. At the same time, he
has been mightily impressed by the Soviet achievements in the
fields of military and space technologies.
The Academy of Seiences has become a focus for many of
the hopes and the frustrations of the Soviet leadership. At its
formal sessions, the Academy engages political Ieaders in debates of the most pressing issues of the day. Gorbachev in turn
invites selected academicians to partake in debates within the
upper echelons of the party. The Academy has established advisory commissions on issues ranging from prevention of
nuclear war to the cleanup of Chernobyl to protection of the
ecology of Lake Baykal to reconstruction of Armenian cities.
Moreover, many Soviet academicians are regularly consulted by
government offleials on energy, health, and other major issues.
Similar to practices in the West, the advice coming from the
Academy and from its individual members is not always the
type of advice being sought, however. Academicians have been
particularly critical of what they consider to be outmoded ap-

Chapter 4


proaches to education and of the generallack of ecological concerns by Soviet industry, for example. While the institution remains cautious in its criticisms of the Soviet Ieaders of the past
and present, it has joined the chorus of public criticism of fundamental flaws, particularly the emphasis on quantity rather than
quality, in an economy that only responds to commands from a
central authority.

The geriatric character of the Academy of Seiences of the

USSR has been a target for perestroika. Surprisingly, in 1987 the
governing body of the Academy, the presidium, accepted without great controversy the concept of mandatory retirement of
Soviet scientists from senior management positions at age 65. As
exceptions to this rule, the 400 scientists who have been elected
to full membership in the Academy can continue as managers
until age 70, and the 43 members of the Academy's presidium
until age 75. When the vote was taken, many presidium members were in their 70s and 80s.
Prior to being asked to vote, the presidium members were
assured that there would be no loss of financial benefits for
retirees. They would retain their full salaries, their chauffeurs,
their country homes, and their access to laboratories and support staffs. The general consensus of the presidium members
was that such a radical proposal with its substantial financial
implications for the government would never be implemented
regardless of their vote. Therefore, they saw no need to oppose
the latest "policy fad." How wrong they were.
Now the retirement policies are in effect within the Academy system. Institute directors are being replaced. Younger scientists who are in touch with the political and technical realities
of the day have been elected to the presidium and are having a
major impact on developments within the Academy. The Tues-

Changing the Course through Perestroika


day morning meetings of the presidium have even taken on a

lively atmosphere as participants vigorously press their often
conflicting viewpoints.
Related to mandatory retirement is a recent change in the
former policy that new members could be elected to the Academy only when positions opened up due to the death of members. Now academicians are considered to have passed on-for
the purpose of opening positions for new members-when they
reach the age of 75, although they retain their status as academicians. When this rule became effective in late 1987 more than 100
academicians were elected to the Academy, increasing the nurober of full members by 30 percent and reducing the average age
of Academy members by more than seven years.
Another proposal by severalleading academicians to bring
fresh blood into the management of Soviet research programs
calls for directors of Academy research institutes to step down
after two five-year terms. The proposal has not been accepted by
the Academy, however. As noted in the previous chapter, many
institute directors have settled into these comfortable and powerful positions for the lifetimes of their working careers. Directors have commonly remained in place for 20 or more years. In
many cases institutes with staffs numbering hundreds of scientists become highly personalized operations, with only the director and his closest friends even aware of many of the activities of the institute. However, reform may gradually come
into effect as five-year terms expire and some incumbents agree
to step aside in the spirit of perestroika.
Pay scales have long been criticized by Soviet researchers
and particularly outstanding young researchers. Beginning in
1985, salaries for scientists have been on the rise-within the
Academy, within the educational institutions, and now within
the institutions of the various ministries. An important step has
been to establish additional pay Ievels for researchers that en-


Chapter 4

able them to progress higher up the salary scale without moving

out of research and into management. In very general terms,
starting pay Ievels for young scientists are comparable to pay
Ievels for skilled workers and other professionals-up to 200
rubles per month. However, promising scientists have a chance
for early increases, and within a few years they may be earning
400 rubles, which is generally more than the salaries of counterparts in many other professions. While relative salaries among
workers, scientists, and other professions will always be a contentious issue, an improved framework for compensating researchers is now developed.
For many years the government has urged Soviet researchers
to come up with new inventions and with patents that will make a
difference for Soviet industry. An elaborate system of financial
and political rewards is in place. However, the committees to
recommend rewards frequently have difficulty finding enough
applications to make the system function. Indeed, as previously
underscored, encouragement of individual creativity has never
been a strong dimension of the Soviet research system. Most
scientists are housed in !arge institutes which are structured in a
hierarchical way, with successive Ievels of management having
increasing control over the research activities. Forthose achievements deemed very important, the institute directors or the deputy directors quickly become the focal points of the efforts. For
achievements of secondary importance, the division and laboratory chiefs take charge, at least in name. The junior researcher
may have difficulty even publishing his or her most important
findings, Iet alone sharing credit for any breakthroughs.
The Academy of Medical Seiences of the USSR recently borrowed a concept from the West and established a competitive
grants program. Individual researchers prepare proposals and
compete for funding for their own projects. In the first round of
competition, researchers from a variety of institutions submitted

Changing the Course through Perestroika


about 400 applications-impressive for the Soviet Union but

very modest for the United States, where many scientists build
careers around grant proposals. About 100 Soviet scientists received grants, totaling approximately $1 million in hard currency, which can be used to buy equipment and supplies from the
West to support their research activities. Given the difficulty for
Soviet scientists to obtain foreign currency and the underdeveloped state of the Soviet industrial capacity to produce reliable
scientific instruments, these funds are very important to the
successful applicants.
A competitive grants program has long been under discussion within the Academy of Seiences of the USSR but has not
yet been adopted. A few senior Soviet academicians familiar
with such programs in the United States repeatedly press for
such an approach. The president of the Academy has expressed
concern that the proposed diversion of funding from support of
projects developed by institutes to projects developed by individual scientists could cause many problems for the institutes
and weaken their overall programs. According to other Soviet
scientists, this reluctance to aggressively pursue a policy of competitive grants for individual scientists is attributable to "conservative" forces within the Academy which prefer research projects to be planned from the top rather than initiated from the
While programs of individual grants might be a step toward
encouraging individual creativity, many institutions in the
USSR simply are not prepared to release their most valuable
researchers for work on projects that are not the top priorities of
the institutions and to provide the required logistical support for
such individual activities. I had related experiences as the director of a US Government laboratory. Our Iabaratory received
substantial government funding each year largely because of its
reputation of being able to provide useful research results of


Chapter 4

interest to government agencies within a reasonable period of

time. At the same time, many of our best scientists wanted to
have their personal research grants so they could work on their
own and search for the "real breakthroughs." In a university
setting, such searches for the unanticipated aretobe applauded;
but in a government laboratory such diversions can undermine
the entire funding base of the laboratory. Institutes of the Soviet
Academy have historically had characteristics of both US Government laboratories and our university laboratories: they are
responsible for exploring the unknown, and in this regard their
scientists should have greater freedom in choosing their own
projects; but they also have shouldered a heavy burden to respond to priorities established at the top. Given the inevitable
conflicts between these two responsibilities, questions are frequently raised within the USSR of the future viability of the
Academy system as it is currently structured.
Increasingly, young science "superstars" are beginning to
have the opportunity to emerge from the lower echelons of the
Soviet institutes, usually under the personal patronage of Academy members. An important aspect of recognition of young talent is
the increasing openness of Soviet institutions to foreign visitors.
Many visiting scientists who meet promising young researchers
in Soviet laboratories do not hesitate to bring this potential to the
attention of their senior Soviet colleagues. Foreign recognition of
Soviet scientific achievements is very flattering, and Soviet administrators pay attention to unsolicited comments by visitors.
These administrators are now responding more positively to
suggestions of greater international exposure for young Soviet
scientists through participation in international conferences.S

As reviewed earlier, education is big business in the USSR,

with over 55 million people enrolled in some area of formal

Changing the Course through Perestroika


education. A high degree of standardization and rigidity compensates for the absence of an adequate supply of well-trained
teachers. The lack of a well-developed printing industry in the
USSR greatly hampers preparation of a diversity of up-to-date
written materials for classes, adding further pressures for standardized approaches. At the same time, reformers call for education tailored to the needs of individual students, needs which
depend both on the capabilities of the students and on employment requirements after graduation. However, significant
movement toward individualized education on a large scale
seems unlikely. Centrally programmed approaches must persist
for the foreseeable future, with the primary focus of reform
targeted on the standard Curriculum.
Education officials recognize the necessity for upgrading
the cadres of teachers, and particularly science teachers, at the
primary and secondary level. Salaries have been raised, although they remain low in comparison with other professions; a
factory worker often receives 20 to 40 percent more than a secondary school teacher. Retraining of teachers who are out of
date with recent trends in the education fieldisalso expanding.
No educational program has received more publicity in the
USSR in recent times than the introduction of computer instruction into the secondary education system during the past several
years. The concept of computer literacy training for every student is certainly laudable. However, comments in 1988 by a
realistic Soviet scientist were quite telling: "Learning computer
skills from a book without access to a computer is like learning
to ride a bicycle without access to a bicycle."
The Soviet Government has ambitious plans for equipping
schools throughout the country with personal computers, and
now a few schools in every majorurban area have computers for
classroom instruction. Also, the government has formed computer clubs in Moscow and other large cities where young Sovi-


Chapter 4

ets can spend their time after school hours. The size of the effort
to date is small, and the quality of the computer facilities is
modest, but the enthusiasm of the few participants is very high.
As in all countries, skills in the computer field are considered a
passport to desirable employment. One advantage that Soviet
youths have in the field of computer science is the strong emphasis on mathematics at all levels of the Soviet educational
system. Thus, they develop software skills with relative ease.
Illustrative of the responses of Soviet scientists to their frustrations over the slow progress in advancing computer literacy is
the program of computer education for secondary school students in a suburb of the Siberian city of Novosibirsk. This suburb, named Akademgorodok, or Science City, is home for many
scientific research institutes. A Soviet academician from the
Academy' s computing center has succeeded in equipping a
number of local schools with personal computers. While visiting
some of these schools in 1988, I was very impressed with how
he had purchased so much equipment by obtaining funds from
the budgets of research institutions in Akademgorodok. He had
then taken the lead in introducing computer courses into the
curriculum for several years before his recent death. While he
was greatly admired throughout the USSR for his initiative and
determination in putting this program in place, some education
officials in Moscow question the pedagogical basis of introducing computers on a piecemeal basis prior to development of an
overall educational approach for computers which is integrated
into the more general curriculum. Perhaps at the outset, any
type of computer instruction is better than none; and in the
years ahead the education officials will have a chance to build on
his pioneering efforts.
Tuming to research at the Soviet universities, or perhaps
more correctly the paucity of research, the highest party leaders
have repeatedly called for greatly expanded cooperation be-

Changing the Course through Perestroika


tween the science departments of the universities and the research institutions of the Academy of Seiences and of the ministries. In practice, more of the bright science students who
favorably impress their professors should have an opportunity
to carry out course work at research facilities of the Academy
and ministries. Also, the number of graduate students working for their advanced degrees at Academy institutes should
Universities are expected to raise research funds through
contracts with industry in an effort to link research and education more closely together. A few talented professors and even
graduate students will undoubtedly have new opportunities to
supplement salaries and stipends through such contracts and
consulting arrangements. However, universities in the USSR
simply do not have much to offer industry in the way of research that has short-term payoff.
As already noted, the education and research programs of
the many engineering colleges in the USSR are usually of a
highly applied nature. While Americans tend to consider most
technical colleges in the United States as a cut below our universities, this is not the case in the USSR, where a number of
engineering schools stand out. It has been said that Soviet society was built on the backs of its engineers, who led the early
industrial drives of the 1920s and 1930s. Most of these engineers
were products of the engineering colleges.
The linkages between the engineering colleges and industry
are often strong, and industry continues to draw its new engineers from such institutions. These institutions are often
equipped with engineering hardware similar to equipment used
in industry, and the college faculties and students have the luxury of time not available to those in industry to experiment with
new ways of using the equipment. As a new step to strengthen
the link between industry and the engineering colleges, indus-


Chapter 4

try is being asked to pay fees to the colleges to hire graduates,

with the fees helping to subsidize research. Industry, in turn, is
taking a greater interest in the direction and quality of the research that it subsidizes.
Many years, and probably decades, will be required to
bring about fundamental changes in the nature of the Soviet
educational system. New facilities, new generations of teachers,
and new materials and equipment are needed on a massive
scale. On the other hand, the organizational and personallinks
between educational programs and activities in other parts of
the scientific community should improve substantially as the
government encourages freer flow of information throughout
As in all countries, the challenge is to preserve the best of
the educational system while strengthening or replacing the
weak links. The basic problems in the USSR are rooted in decades of financial deprivation of the educational sector, in an
educational approach that reflects the central planning philosophy of the Communist system, and in historical compartmentalization of intellectual processes by discipline. Many of the excellent science and engineering students will continue to thrive
regardless of the system. Somehow, they will find the right
textbooks, they willlink up with leading experts, and they will
find time on the computers. The real challenge is to raise the
level of opportunities and expectations for a broader range of
The ever-present concern over translating research into
practice is at the heart of the science reforms. In every country
technical, financial, and other hurdles must be overcome in
moving an idea from the laboratory to widespread industrial
practice. In the compartmentalized Soviet economy the prob-

Changing the Course through Perestroika


lems are extreme. The reformprogram in theory andin practice

concentrates on improving the delivery systems for bringing the
results of successful research with potential near-term applications into the production and service sectors of the economy as
quickly as possible.
How is this tobe done? The enterprise managers contend
that the scientists have failed in the past-their discoveries are
few and far between and with an occasional exception are irrelevant to the needs of the industrial organizations. The scientists
argue that the significance of their efforts is not appreciated, that
they do not receive adequate support to take their research to
completion in a timely manner, and that the enterprises are not
sufficiently enlightened to change their ways even when presented with new technological opportunities. The bureaucrats
often throw up their hands and say, "Bring in the Germans or
the Japanese."
New organizational structures have been devised to place
research an~ production under the same management team, an
approach commonly encountered in American industry. New
long-term planning mechanisms are to ensure that investment
funds will be available when technologies emerge for improving
industrial processes on a nationwide basis. Also, financial rewards are promised for scientists and plant managers who successfully introduce technologies that improve efficiencies.
Other new management, financial, and organizational
ideas to link research and applications are suggested every
week-at party meetings, at scientific conferences, in technical
journals, andin the press; and many are in place. Academicians,
engineers, and economists now head !arge complexes that include research facilities, design bureaus, experimental factories,
and production facilities. Many temporary research laboratories
have been established to solve very specific problems facing
industry. Researchers have part-time assignments to work in


Chapter 4

the enterprises, giving advice on how to upgrade manufacturing

processes. Research institute budgets must be shored up with
contracts with industry, thereby forcing close institutional contacts as a basis for survival. Administrators are increasingly
siting research institutes immediately adjacent to industrial
At the individual industrial enterprises, the plants are expanding technical staffs, and exploration of research opportunities within the factory boundaries is gradually becoming a
legitimate industrial activity. Political exhibitions of industrial
achievements regularly require displays by the enterprises
showing how they have introduced innovations and how modern technology has raised productivity. Special funds of the enterprises support research investments.
Everyone seems to be keeping score as to how many innovations are introduced into practice each year. The research institutes list all of their developments that can be seen on the
factory floors, and each ministry and the Academy of Seiences
keep master lists of how they have put science into action.
While these approaches will help improve the linkages between research and production, some fundamental problems
will persist. Most production personnel and research scientists
have simply operated on two different planets. Traveling from
one to the other is indeed a galactic voyage. Job mobility between these two spheres is virtually unknown. Exchange of
technical information is often equated with suspicious behavior.
Also, each employee is expected to complete his or her own
task, and the results then become someone else' s problem. Any
proprietary interest of researchers in trying to guide the result of
their research as it makes its way toward application can only
lead to trouble for the researchers, so they believe.
Until such travel from the research setting surrounded by
scientific publications to the domain of industry, where fulfill-

Changing the Course through Perestroika


ment of production quotas still rules the day, becomes routine

for many technical specialists, the separation of research and
applications will continue. In the United States we have product
champions who superintend research ideas from their earliest
experimental phases until they are eaming money in the marketplace. Such follow-through is sorely lacking in the USSR.
Many years ago the Soviets established a system of centralized research institutes to service each branch of industry. A
few of these institutes have always had close working relationships with some of the enterprises that they serve, and particularly enterprises in the Moscow and Leningrad areas. Naturally,
these institutes strongly object to the insinuations that there
exists a decoupling between research activities and the interests
of the enterprises. Yet, two fundamental weaknesses stand out.
First, the institutes are so attuned to the near-term problems of
the enterprises that their activities are usually more of a service
than research nature. While such services are important, they
are not a substitute for research into new and better ways to
produce industrial products. Second, some enterprises are so far
away from the institutes-often more than 1000 miles-that
they seldom feel the impact of the programs of the institutes.
In order to create effective coupling between research institutes and industry, institutes must have something to offer.
Their technical staffs must understand the industrial processes
as well as or better than the staffs of the enterprises. Their research results must indeed be relevant and hold high promise
for improving products or processes. The process of adaptation
on the factory floor must be within the realm of the possible. In
the past many Soviet research institutes have had little to offer
other than talk.
While the Soviet craving for usable research products is
intense, Gorbachev and other politicalleaders have also accepted the idea that fundamental research to explore the unknown


Chapter 4

irrespective of potential near-term applications should not be

ignored. The president of the Academy of Seiences has noted
that the Soviet effort in fundamental research that does not have
immediate application is only one-fifth that of the American
effort. According to his statistics, twice as many American scientists are engaged in fundamental research, and they are almost
three times more efficient given the modern equipment at their
Meanwhile, the directors of many Academy institutes and
some institutes of the ministries are rebeHing against what they
consider to be an excessive emphasis on contracts with industry
which distort their research plans. Within the Academy the institutes seem tobe enforcing an upper limit of 30 percent of their
budget coming from industrial contracts, and the Academy
seems to be willing to continue to subsidize the remaining research ranging from 70 to 100 percent depending on the type of
research of the institute. Clearly industry will be more interested
in contracts with an institute for electrical engineering than an
institute for botany.
I recently visited a Soviet drug research institute that was
required for the first time to identify the drugs it would develop
before it received its annual budget allocation. Previously, the
institute simply had a general fund to pursue research on drugs
in any fashion it desired. The institute was unaccustomed to
such advanced planning and accountability. Desperate to respond quickly to its instructions from the Ministry of Health to
detail its research plans, the institute simply selected 100 drugs
which were sold in large quantities by Western companies but
which were not available in the USSR. The institute then asked
the Ministry of Health to select from these drugs the most interesting ones, which the institute would replicate for the Soviet
market. Given the underdeveloped state of Soviet pharmacetiticals, this approach is understandable. However, should Soviet

Changing the Course through Perestroika


research talent be directed simply to copy Western products?

Directives from the ministry should be designed to encourage
the creativity of individual scientists, not to force the scientists
simply to rely on the work of others .




While the outward appearance of the buildings, the contents of the shop windows, and the availability of consumer
products within Soviet cities have changed very little during the
past decade, the recent changes in attitudes, policies, and plans
have been profound. Glasnost and perestroika are indeed making their presence felt throughout the country, and particularly
among intellectuals within the scientific community.
Freedom of scientific and political expression and the delegation of control of research activities to the levels of the institutes and the laboratories are becoming realities. More and
more scientists have stronger voices in their future as many of
the older, autocratic generation leave the scene. But scientists
are realists and do not expect the entire approach to research to
change overnight. However, they will surely resist areturn to
the straightjackets of the command and control approaches of
the past.
The problems facing Soviet science are formidable. Until the
formal and informal information systems that characterize science the world over gain significant strength in the USSR, Soviet
scientists will have great difficulties staying abreast of developments at home or abroad. Large investments in facilities and
equipment are required to let Soviet science reach the world
levels so often mentioned. Most importantly, scientific creativity
cannot be stimulated overnight, and Soviet scientific leaders
must be patient.
Revamping the educational system will also not be easy.
Hundreds of thousands of teachers and professors at all levels


Chapter 4

are not eager to see the programs that they have developed
replaced by new approaches yet to be tested in the USSR. The
educational establishment has adopted a siege mentality, and
many of the leaders feel they have not received a fair hearing.
The old guard is unimpressed by the call for new approaches
and for innovations such as computer education without computers. Still, the academicians who have joined the struggle for
educational reforms enjoy tremendous prestige among the public. With easy access to the media, they press their cases for
Turning to industry, the Soviets will be hard pressed to
enter the twenty-first cenhiry with the high-technology strengths
of West European or many of the East Asian countries. Organizational fixes and turnkey plants from the West will undoubtedly be emphasized for the next few years. Some inefficient Soviet
enterprises will probably fail as the concept of bankruptcy gains
legitimacy, and a private sector may begin to takehold in a few
areas of interest to Soviet consumers-clothing, building maintenance, vehicle and equipment repair, publishing, health services-but not in those of critical importance to the functioning
of the Soviet economy.
The Soviet model for future industrial growth has yet to be
defined. It will not be patterned after the renowned Hungarian
model or any other Sodalistmodel nor will it resemble the Western capitalist models. The USSR is simply different-in its natural endowments, in its ideological commitments, in the talents
and interests of its people, and in its leadership. The Soviet
modelwill be unique. It will undoubtedly be designed to ensure
the continuation of the USSR as a world power under a changing definition of power that recognizes the importance of economic prosperity at home as well as military strength. Soviet
scientists will be expected to play central roles in promoting this
economic prosperity while maintaining the military capabilities.


Scientists March to the

Diplomats' Drums
Man is by nature a political animal.
We are handicapped by lforeignl policies based on old
myths rather than current realities.
Former US Senator J. William Fulbright

The adversarial relationship between the United States and the

USSR since World War II has led to careful control by the two
governments of interactions between American and Soviet scientists. This control has affected all aspects of cooperation, from
the initial negotiations of scientific exchange agreements to goverilmental debriefings of scientists after visits abroad.
In recent years detailed negotiations have usually been the
first step in establishing serious cooperative programs involving
scientists and engineers from the two countries. In most cases,
governmental representatives from the two countries have conducted the negotiations. In a few instances, and particularly
during the past several years, private American institutions have
carried out their own negotiations with Soviet organizationsorganizations which of course are governmental.


Chapter 5

Negotiations may last a few days, may extend over many

months, or may even continue during a period of years. The
negotiators usually address every word and every comma in the
proposed agreements, memoranda of understanding, and implementing protocols. Formal documents cover planned activities in excruciating detail. They usually establish quotas for
person-months of exchange visits, set forth the scientific fields
which are appropriate for cooperative activities, and specify the
financial details including the per diem allowances. They establish deadlines for exchanging correspondence and timetables for
implementing exchanges. They may address protection of patents and copyrights and sometimes specify the reports which
aretobe prepared.
While a diplomat assigned to the American Embassy in
Moscow in the mid-1960s, I experienced the painstaking aspects
of negotiating formal agreements between the two govemments. Initially, I witnessed the final stages of the negotiations
of a consular agreement which led to the opening of a Soviet
Consulate General in San Francisco and an American Consulate
General in Leningrad, negotiations which had Iasted 30 years.
Then I was a participant in negotiations of an intergovemmental
exchange agreement between the two countries in the fields of
education, culture, and science.
Our negotiations of that exchange agreement took place
during a cold Moscow winter. They Iasted eight consecutive
weeks as we huddled each weekday in heavy sweaters and
coats in a poorly heated conference room at the Ministry of
Culture. Most of the text of the agreement had been worked out
in advance of the negotiations. The remainder required about
two weeks of discussions conceming several difficult points and
some of the details of carrying out exchanges; the appropriate
resolution of these issues rapidly became clear. But the political
setting was not right to reach final agreement. So we continued

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


to meet, but we waited; and we waited. The end came quite

abruptly at a luncheon on the fifty-third day after both delegations received almost simultaneously instructions from their
governments that the time was appropriate for a significant political step to help reverse the deterioration of bilateral relations.
In short, the major disagreements were resolved without delay,
and compromises on details were easy to devise. However, the
political will was the critical ingredient.
As another example, in the summer of 1985, I had the task
of negotiating in Moscow the details of a seientific exchange
agreement between the National Academy of Seiences and the
Academy of Seiences of the USSR. The National Academy is a
nongovernmental nonprofit organization chartered by Congress
to provide advice to the US Government. It also conducts a large
program of international activities which includes seientific
exchanges with many countries. Its program of seientific exchanges with the USSR dates from 1959. In January 1985, the
leaders of the two Academies had agreed on a lengthy set of
general prineiples to provide the framework for the agreement.
While there was continuing Soviet reluctance to stick with these
prineiples, in the end we incorporated them fully into the
Our negotiations lasted only three days, with each day
punctuated by an alcohol-free luncheon in accordance with the
new policy of Gorbachev. The Soviets had five negotiators who
had many difficulties agreeing among themselves. Both sides
were determined to conduct the discussions expeditiously and
without polemics; and during our word-by-word review of the
texts prepared by the two Academies, we quickly resolved all
but three issues. We agreed to refer to the presidents of the
two Academies the preeise formulation of clauses concerned
with human rights and with the role of individual seientists
in selecting their collaborating partners in the other country.


Chapter 5

Also, the Soviet financial authorities needed time to determine

how much support they could provide for dependents accompanying American exchange scientists to the USSR. Within a
few weeks these issues were resolved by correspondence, with
both sides ratifying language which had been worked out in
Since the National Academy of Seiences is not a US govemmental institution, I was far less constrained in 1985 than in
1965. Also, the Ieaders of both Academies had set the policy
tone in their agreed principles, and we were therefore concemed primarily with elaboration of these policies and the mechanics of implementing exchanges. Nevertheless, telephone
calls frequently interrupted our meetings as the Soviet Govemment kept in close touch with the negotiations, particularly as
we crafted language on human rights issues. From our side, I
was not operating under governmental instructions in any
sense. At the same time, our Academy wanted to develop a
document that was compatible with provisions being proposed
by the US Govemment for inclusion in an intergovemmental
cultural exchange agreement under negotiation at the same
time. The National Academy also needed tobe sensitive to concems within the American scientific community over human
rights issues and the Soviet preoccupation with secrecy in limiting the flow of information between Soviet and American scientists. More specifically, one negotiating objective was to ensure
that the agreement facilitated rather than impeded access by
American scientists to Soviet colleagues in the USSR; and we
stood firm in rejecting standard Soviet language that could complicate such contacts, namely, "will comply with the regulations
of each country" and "will not interfere in the intemal affairs of
the host country." Interna} security controls were tight in the
USSR, and such phrases could provide additional reasons for
Soviet crackdowns on contacts with foreign scientists.

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


The US Department of State and the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintain general oversight over formal and informal scientific and technical contacts. In the USSR, the State
Committee for Science and Technology also plays a key role in
arranging and watehing scientific exchange activities, and it has
had strong links to the intelligence services in the country. Domestic and international political considerations influence the
policies of all of these organizations toward exchanges. This
political aspect of US-Soviet exchanges is in stark contrast to the
tradition of minimal influence of the US and other Western governments on the travel of scientists and the open sharing of
scientific information and facilities among most countries.
Many other governmental ministries, departments, and
agencies within the two countries have major interests in scientific exchanges. At the highest levels, decisions concerning
exchanges are sometimes made by the White House and the
central committee of the Communist party after internal debates
among politicians, diplomats, generals, and scientists. These
high-level decisions have recently included the approval of new
intergovernmental agreements, for cooperation in basic research
and in space sciences for example, and review of highly visible
cooperative projects such as US and Soviet involvement in multilateral cooperation in fusion research. In the United States the
White House sometimes reviews requests for governmental
funding by private organizations interested in specific exchanges, as illustrated below.
Proposals for exchanges often originate within the technical
agencies of the two governments-the agencies responsible for
energy development, space exploration, environmental protection, geological studies, and basic science. These agencies negotiate the details of the cooperative programs, and they carry out or


Chapter 5

fund most of the exchanges. In the United States, during times

of political stress between the two countries, the agencies try to
maintain momentum in existing programs but are hesitant to
make new proposals for cooperation lest they appear tobe meddling in the foreign policy arena. During the times of detente,
they may seize the moment to press for favorite additional activities. The agencies clearly are responsive to the political process.
Representatives of the intelligence agencies in both countries argue within their governments over proposed cooperative
programs. They seek opportunities to obtain information about
an adversary, and from that vantage point they favor exchanges.
At the same time, they are concerned that exchanges could provide the same adversary with comparable opportunities. Sometimes they brief exchange scientists, particularly scientists from
government agencies, before their visits and debrief them after
the visits.
However, the KGB has been much moreaggressive in influencing exchange activities than have US intelligence and counterintelligence agencies; as we will see later, this aggressiveness
is attributable in large part to the role of the KGB in collecting
technical information for both military and civilian applications.
American agencies do not have similar responsibilities since we
rely to a large extent on the normal commercial contacts of
American companies to stay abreast of worldwide technological
developments. Indeed, the roles of the intelligence and security
agencies in the two countries are simply not comparable.
In the United States many political personalities, particularly congressmen, press for their personal agendas for bilateral
programs. One currently popular theme is cooperation in the
environmental field; and many Congressmen repeatedly urge
the Executive Branch to expand activities in this field. Notwithstanding such pressure, the Department of State continues to
play a central role in the determination of the extent and charac-

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


ter of cooperation and the appropriateness and timing of specific

exchanges. The Department of State usually defers to the technical agencies once exchange programs are in place, but occasionally foreign policy considerations override the preferences of the
agencies. The State Department has the most comprehensive
overviews of interactions between the two countries at any
given time as weil asthelegal authority concerning international
activities, and, therefore, is able to mount persuasive arguments
favoring or opposing exchange proposals.
Very importantly, the Department of State and the Soviet
Ministry of Foreign Affairs control the issuance of entry visas for
visiting scientists, with each issuance being decided on a caseby-case basis. These decisions are often made just prior to the
visits; while such last minute visa decisions are frequently due
to the administrative delays in the system, they are repeatedly
interpreted by the affected scientists as being motivated by foreign policy or internal security concerns. There is no more powerful reminder of the governmental control being exercised over
exchanges than the uncertainty in the mind of the American or
Soviet scientist as to whether a visa will be issued on the very
eve of departure to participate in an exchange.
From time to time, American scientists suggest new types of
East-West cooperation that raise political concerns, such as cooperating with Soviet scientists in politically sensitive Third World
countries. Also, with glasnost Soviet scientists may propose cooperative programs that have not been scrutinized by their government. Still, the launehing of major cooperative ventures by
public or private institutions without the active support, or at
least the acquiescence, of both governments is highly unlikely.

In view of the key roles played by the foreign affairs organizations of the two countries in cooperative endeavors, ex-


Chapter 5

changes are inevitably entwined in foreign policy deliberations.

In some cases, scientific cooperation has provided the concrete
evidence of changes in foreign policy. Andin many ways, the
Ievel of intergovernmental exchanges in general, and scientific
exchanges in particular, has become a bellwether of the state of
political relationships between the superpowers.
As summit meetings of the Ieaders of the two countries
approach, officials in both countries traditionally search for
areas of scientific cooperation which can be incorporated into
new agreements, communiques, and joint statements. Heads of
state enjoy announcing areas of agreement which will benefit
mankind, even if the announcements simply expand programs
which are underway. As previously noted, at the 1985 summit
in Geneva, calls for expanded cooperation in fusion (which began 30 years ago) were to signal an eventual end to energy
shortages. At the 1987 summit in Washington, joint research in
the area of climate change (which had been underway for several years) was to help ensure that the hole in the ozone belt over
the Antarctic region would not spread. In 1988 in Moscow, the
Ieaders of the two countries trumpeted cooperation in the exploration of Mars (which had been discussed for almost 20 years) to
open exciting new horizons.
In the early 1970s, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger launched
a decade of expanded bilateral scientific and technological cooperation as one of the Centerpieces of US efforts to improve relations between the two countries. This cooperation was brought to
life in 11 formal intergovernmental agreements in science and
technology. The direct costs to US agencies for these overtures
reached millions of dollars annually, as many hundreds of scientists from each side made trips abroad to plan and implement
cooperative efforts. These programs had the desired political
effect of translating the concept of detente into highly visible
terms. They improved mutual understanding of the relative tech-


Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums

nical capabilities of the two countries. In some cases they resulted in discernible advances in science and technology. At the
same time the cost of this cooperation was insignificant in comparison with the expenditures on science and technology directed to military confrontation-millions versus tens of billions
of dollars.
Conversely, intimes of political controversy, scheduled scientific exchanges become an easy target for postponements to
demonstrate unhappiness with the policies of the other country.
For example, during the early 1980s, four agreements in space
sciences, energy, transportation, and other areas of science and
technology were allowed to lapse by the United States in response to Soviet actions in Afghanistan, in Poland, and elsewhere. Also, Soviet destruction of the Korean airliner 007 and
harsh Soviet treatment of political dissidents led American officials to slow down cooperation under other agreements.




In 1984, President Reagan began his search for new exchange programs to improve US-USSR relations, which eventually led to the announcements of scientific cooperation at the
summit meetings. While arms control clearly was the major
focus of Reagan's efforts to improve relations, scientific cooperation served as a useful political complement to arms control
initiatives with uncertain outcomes.
Spokesmen for the Reagan administration disavowed what
they called the "Kissinger approach" of promoting scientific and
technical exchanges primarily for foreign policy reasons. They
began to emphasize that scientific merit was tobe the overriding
criteria in deciding whether to move forward with future cooperative arrangements. However, the internal debates in the
mid-1980s in Washington over scientific cooperation with the
USSR were often politicized. Arguments over possible future


Chapter 5

military applications of science were always on center stage.

Conservative forces unwilling to admit that the United States
might obtain useful information or that science might benefit
from cooperative programs frequently dominated the discussions. They were determined to avoid the possibility that the
Soviets might benefit in any way from scientific and technological exchanges.
In 1986, the White House overtumed an earlier decision of
the National Science Foundation, aUS Govemment agency, to
accept a contribution of $2.5 million from the Soviet Academy of
Sciences and to include Soviet specialists in a geological program for drilling from American ships deep into the ocean floor.
The Soviets proposed to contribute considerable scientific expertise to the project in addition to the money, expertise which had
been developed during previous cooperative activities in related
fields. The reason for the reversal was that the Soviets might
gain access to advanced technologies with naval applications,
and particularly seaboard navigation systems. However, there
clearly was a political aspect of the decision. One year earlier,
the same government agencies had approved the project. Also,
the equipment which was in the center of the controversy was
more than 10 years old, and Soviet specialists had already
worked on American research ships with similar equipment.
In the same year the White House tumed down another
recommendation of the National Science Foundation to contribute $500,000 to the support of programs of the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna (IIASA)-an
institution established by Soviet and American scientists as an
East-West meeting place to address global issues of interest to
the two countries. The stated reason for the denial was that
direct bilateral cooperation was more effective than multilateral
cooperation through the Vienna institute, which is now staffed
by scientists from many countries. At the same time, top US

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


Government leaders had become convinced that the IIASA was

a haven for Soviet spies with particular designs on Western
computer technologies, and this view was a significant factor in
the decision. In 1987 this decision wasreversedas new personalities became involved in the reviews.

For many years the possibility of bilateral cooperation in

science and technology was treated by the US Government as a
bargaining chip in extracting concessions from the Soviet Government in other areas of higher interest to the United States.
The US Government has always considered science and technology to be an area where the USSR lags considerably behind the
West. Therefore, the US negotiating strategy was to hold back
on cooperation in science and technology until the Soviets were
more forthcoming in other fields, such as education and information exchanges. Now the US Government has apparently
abandoned such linkages between scientific exchanges and other cooperative programs, although broad foreign policy considerations will inevitably play a role in reaching decisions on
specific exchange activities.
If political relations deteriorate during the implementation
of science exchanges, the traditional view has been that postponing the exchanges in science and technology is an effective
way to apply pressure on the Soviet Government since such
delays hurt the Soviets more than they hurt the United States.
However, little evidence supports the contention that once
agreements for cooperation are in place, politically inspired delays of exchanges can be used to influence Soviet policies in
other areas.
Going back in history, we should recall that soon after the
first scientific exchanges were carried out in the late 1950s, they
earned the reputation as a particularly good trade-off in gaining


Chapter 5

Soviet agreement for greater cultural contacts. For example, during the early 1960s the US Information Agency was having difficulty distributing in the USSR its magazine Amerika, which
featured interesting snippets of life in the United States. This
distribution was to be based on sales of the magazine at corner
kiosks in various Soviet cities. The Moscow distributors of publications in the USSR and the kiosk vendors in the cities shared
the Iack of enthusiasm of Soviet officials for promoting Amerika.
They were much more interested in distributing more politically
acceptable publications in very large quantities.
The US Information Agency was also having difficulty with
the Soviet authorities in arranging for large exhibits of American
accomplishments in a variety of technical and cultural fields
in cities outside Moscow. Such exhibits had earlier attracted
throngs of curious Soviets in the smaller Soviet cities which had
little exposure to the West.
Therefore, the Department of State delayed headway in arranging scientific exchanges waiting for progress in expanding
the sales of Amerika and in arranging US exhibits. This tactic
probably had some influence on Soviet attitudes in the information field, but it also reduced opportunities for exchanges of
interest to the US scientific community.
During this same period, a high priority of the Soviets was
the exchange of large artistic presentations, such as the Soviet
ballet troupes and circuses, which could earn foreign currency
during tours of the United States. While these and many other
interests of both sides were eventually accommodated in the
exchange arrangements which could then be hailed as balanced,
much of the potential for scientific cooperation was lost in the
process. Also, difficulties in implementing cultural exchange
agreements took away some of the anticipated payoff from the
exchanges. Defections of Soviet performers while on tour in the
United States and demonstrations by anti-Communist groups

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


before and during Soviet performances in some American cities

resulted in Soviet retaliations, including cancellation of scheduled visits to the USSR by American artistic groups.
Policy offleials from the United States have never fully appreciated the contributions of scientific exchanges in opening up
Soviet society to Western ideas, which has always been a major
US foreign policy objective. The Iasting nature of international
contacts among scientists and the willingness of scientists
throughout the world, including within the USSR, to address
issues logically and openly are consistently underestimated.
Meanwhile, American officials repeatedly laud the potential impact of cultural exchanges on the behavior of Soviet artists and
literary figures who can reach large Soviet audiences through
their performances and writings.
As a group, the scientists of the USSR are more open to
considering ideas from abroad than are many other segments of
the society. In the glasnost era the Soviet media has become a
free market for new and radical ideas; the Soviet scientific community has not hesitated to inundate this market with concepts
obtained from the West-genuine competition among investigators for research funds, expanded research in universities,
elimination of censorship of scientific articles, and greater opportunities for young scientists to travel to professional meetings. Thus, the concept of trading scientific exchanges for opportunities for greater contacts in other fields where there can be
more political impact has always been very questionable. Hopefully, such thinking is behind us.
Meanwhile, Soviet science officials repeatedly protest the
United States' approach of holding back their scientific exchanges until progress is made in other areas. They simply do
not want to recognize reality; politics and science will always be
linked to some extent with superpower relations. Soviet scientists will remain bored with the prolonged debates among offi-


Chapter 5

cials of the two countries over the importance of "balanced"

approaches. Their repeated arguments that if there is an important scientific problern which could benefit from cooperation,
the two countries should address the problern without delay
appeals to American scientists but will not carry the day.

Several examples reflect US efforts to tie very specific exchanges to foreign policy concems over the years.
In 1965, the US Govemment abruptly cancelled a scheduled
visit to the USSR by the world' s only astronaut-aquanaut, US
Navy Commander Scott Carpenter. The navy was upset over
Soviet denial of a request for a US Navy oceanographic ship to
call at Leningrad at about the same time as Carpenter' s proposed visit. Oceanographic ships of other countries were being
allowed to make the port call in connection with an oceanographic congress in the USSR, and US intelligence agencies
were very eager to send a navy ship equipped with the latest
electronic gadgetry into the naval port of Leningrad for the occasion. The Soviets were not interested in such sophisticated
snooping in their own waters.
The Soviet authorities had gone to unusuallengths to provide Carpenter with access to a broad spectrum of influential
political, media, and scientific Ieaders and Soviet cosmonauts.
His visit was widely pq.blicized in the USSR since at that time
astronauts and cosmonauts were publicly revered for their accomplishments. Carpenter, who had lived at the bottom of the
sea as weil as in outer space, had very unusual and exciting
credentials, with particular appeal in the USSR. Thus, by cancelling the visit and trying to punish the Soviets, the United
States passed up this excellent opportunity for interactions of
Americans with Soviet space scientists who seldom appeared in

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


public. Also, the United States missed out on a public relations

In the early 1980s, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, the United States backed out of a cooperative program of exploration of the White Sea on the northern periphery
of the USSR after the Soviets had constructed a special guest
house for American scientists in the coastal town of Chuba. In
this instance an opportunity for a continuous American presence in a geographic area that is seldom open to Westemers was
sacrificed for political reasons.
More recently, the Soviet Government made repeated overtures to the United States concerning their interest in cooperation in AIDS research. However, in 1985 and continuing
through 1986, a number of articles appeared in the Soviet central
press asserting that the AIDS virus was a by-product of US
activities related to biological warfare carried out near Frederick,
Maryland. The United States refused to cooperate in the field of
AIDS in response to this disinformation campaign; indeed, Cooperation would have been politically hypocritical.
Beginning in 1986 several eminent Soviet scientists spoke
out in opposition to these false allegations about the United
States, and eventually an impressive number of retractions were
published in the Soviet press. Still, from time to time, Soviet
articles concerning an alleged link between AIDS and biological
warfare continued to appear in the provincial press. The Soviet
authorities contended that they could not control yellow journalism in the age of glasnost, and the US Government steadfastly rejected overtures for cooperation in AIDS research. In
1987 and again in 1988, the new president of the Soviet Academy of Medical Seiences began to take a firm hand in helping set
the record straight through signed newspaper articles. Finally,
by mid-1988 the Soviet disinformation activities had ceased, and
the first steps were taken by the two governments to cooperate


Chapter 5

in the field of AIDS research. The link between unacceptable

political behavior and cooperative activities was very clear.
The travel plans of senior health offleials of the United
States to visit the USSR have been particularly vulnerable targets
as the US Government displays its displeasure with Soviet behavior. During the past decade a number of planned trips to the
USSR to discuss cooperation in the medical field have been postponed in response to Soviet activities: the use of psychiatry by
internal security agencies to quell dissidents, the denial of adequate medical treatment for political prisoners, and most recently the disinformation on AIDS. Soviet policies have changed
in all of these areas, and the American attitude toward cooperation probably contributed to these changes.

Since applications of science and technology provide much

of the basis for the East-West military confrontation, cooperation in science and technology assumes a special symbolic importance in the relationship between the two superpowers.
Kissinger was particularly successful in using scientific and technological exchanges to symbolize the favorable state of relations
during and immediately following his tenure in office.
Many mementos-photos, pennants, statuettes-now
adorn museums and research facilities in the USSR and the
United States as tangible reminders of the spirit of detente of
the 1970s. Soviet and American scientists who participated in
these cooperative programs long for the good old days
which are gradually returning. Also, a few of these scientists
have discovered other routes through international organizations and private arrangements for carrying forward the cooperation that began through the formal intergovernmental exchange agreements.

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


At an early stage of space cooperation, a highly publicized

direct data link was established between the US Weather Bureau
and the Soviet Hydrometeorological Service for transmission of
data acquired by weather satellites. While the Soviets could
make good use of the data we were sending, we were receiving
little of value from them. Their data were either too late or of too
poor quality to be useful. However, as I traveled around the
remote provinces of the USSR, I encountered numerous Soviet
scientists who knew about the link and who used the American
data regularly. Their gratitude was overwhelming and significantly affected their attitude toward the United States in general. Thus, I reasoned that the symbolism and the one-way exchange were clearly in our interest. I won my arguments at that
time, although I had very few sympathetic supporters within
the US Government other than the American ambassador in
Moscow who strongly believed that the political benefits outweighed the lack of technical benefits from the program.
The political symbolism of scientific cooperation which
reached its peak with the Kissinger agreements has been of
limited importance within the United States. Cooperation in
manned space flight, bringing together American and Soviet
astronauts and cosmonauts, has been widely reported by the
press and television and is generally considered to be a good
way to save money while improving mutual understanding.
However, few Americans are informed about or really interested in other aspects of US-USSR scientific cooperation. Of
course visits by Soviet scientists to small American towns usually warrant front-page news coverage in the local press, and the
New York Times dutifully reports the signing of each exchange
agreement. As a result of this limited publicity, a few American
scientists have become more interested in visiting the USSR and
in engaging Soviet colleagues in more serious cooperation. This
local enthusiasm has contributed to the general increase in


Chapter 5

people-to-people contacts between the two countries. But the

overall political impact has not been great.
In contrast, the Soviets have always been eager to be seen
as equal partners with the United States, and American scientists and scientific achievements were suddenly on center stage
in the USSR as cooperation expanded during the 1970s. The
Moscow press reported the signing of each agreement, with the
reports systematically repeated in newspapers reaching villages
across the country. These agreements were a clear signal that
having contact with American scientists was acceptable, and the
Soviet scientific community began to relax about interactions
with Americans. The reports also imparted pride to the Soviet
population, which for more than 50 years had been implored to
catch up with the United States in science and technology. Now,
Soviet scientists were working at the same Ievel with their
American counterparts.
In the USSR, as in the United States, cooperation in manned
space flight was the most visible aspect of scientific cooperation
during the 1970s. The constant Soviet propaganda on Soviet
space accomplishments which permeated the press, television,
and the movie theaters had a new angle: American achievements and cooperation were the order of the day. Exhibits recognizing this new element of cooperation opened at the main
exhibit grounds and in the planetariums in Moscow and in the
provincial capitals. Astronauts and cosmonauts rendezvousing
in space became a theme that would last for more than a decade
despite the swings in political relations. Lapel pins depicting the
Apollo-Soyuz linkup in space were sold throughout the USSR.
One of the Kissinger-inspired agreements called for cooperation in new approaches to energy development and conservation. Specifically, the two countries decided to cooperate in the
field of magnetohydrodynamics, a technique for improving efficiency in the generation of electricity. The US Department of

Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums


Energy, with great fanfare, sentalarge magnet valued at about

eight million dollars to Moscow, and the Soviets began to construct an experimental facility to house the magnet. This joint
laboratory to test new technical approaches would indeed be a
symbol of cooperation on the frontiers of science. When political
relations began to deteriorate in the early 1980s, the United
States withheld important components for the experiments; and
the Soviets stopped construction of the special facility. A decade
later the magnet sits in a corner of a research institute in Moscow, a symbol of the impact of politics on science.
For 25 years the presence of the Soviet fishing fleets off US
coasts has been a major political issue. The United States has
emphasized cooperation in biological research directed to preventing overfishing and to encouraging equitable divisions of
fishing, as well as limitations on fish catches. Such cooperation
often involves calls at US ports by Soviet fishing ships and exchange visits aboard ships by American and Soviet scientists
conducting experiments to determine the sustainability of the
fish populations. The political importance of this cooperation,
particularly along the Alaskan coast, will continue to be very
In a related field, civilian oceanographic ships from the
United States and the USSR occasionally make port calls in the
other country. Given the swings in the political relationship
between the two countries, these port calls rapidly become political events which command considerable local attention, particularly in the United States. The city fathers in Yalta and San
Francisco, for example, usually take special pains to associate
themselves with such visits of good will.
Foreign policy specialists in both countries usually take note
of the state of exchanges in science and technology but generally
consider such exchanges to be a minor part of the bilateral relationship. They have become accustomed to gauging the state of


Chapter 5

the relationship by the intensity of conflicts in the Third World,

by progress on arrns control, and by developrnent of highly
visible cultural contacts. Science and technology cooperation
has been largely a rninor affair, but an affair that received great
political impetus during the 1970s and is currently being revitalized. Spacecraft, accelerators, research ships, and other
types of scientific hardware sirnply are too photogenic to be
cornpletely ignored.
Despite the close intertwining of scientific cooperation and
foreign policy,exchanges have at tirnes been a rnisleading indicator of the state of relations between the two countries. For exarnple, in 1964 and 1965 scientific exchanges were rapidly expanding, and I was regularly entertaining large delegations of Arnerican and Soviet scientists at rny apartrnent within the US Ernbassy
cornplex in Moscow. At the height of this euphoria about cooperation in science, dernonstrators on the street below-who had
been incited by the Soviet Governrnent-stoned our apartrnent
on three occasions in protest over US palides in Africa, Lebanon,
and China. My wife and I had difficulty explaining to our young
daughters why we were serving charnpagne to Soviet officials
one day and sitting on the floor of our back bedroorn the next as
dernonstrators pelted our living roorn windows with stones, with
Soviet rnilitia rnen standing idly by.
A final exarnple in the field of environrnental protection also
shows that occasionally individual exchange activities are not
necessarily dependent on the state of bilateral relations. During
the early 1980s, when political relations were considered tobe at
a low ebb and bilateral science agreernents were to be put on
hold, rnore than 35 projects were progressing in a very quiet
rnanner under the US-USSR environrnental agreernent. Ecological and health problerns were sirnply too irnportant to ignore,
regardless of political difficulties. This activity was little known
even within the Legislative Branch of the US Governrnent.


Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums

Some US Government offleials worry about the naivete of

American scientists who are dealing with Soviet colleagues.
They consider many American scientists as liberals, sometimes
at odds with the US Government over international policies.
They fear these scientists will be easily taken in by Soviet propaganda and will be easy targets for Soviet intelligence agents
masquerading as Soviet scientists. On the other hand, Soviet
exchange scientists are perceived within US Government circles
as having been carefully selected on the basis of their commitment to Soviet objectives at home and abroad and extensively
briefed in Moscow as to Soviet intelligence interests.
Over the years a few American scientists have been seduced by Soviet prostitutes, entrapped by the Soviet intelligence
network, and used to feed the Soviet propaganda machine. Fortunately, these cases are rare. Much more frequently, American
scientists complain that Soviet scientific colleagues do not live
up to their commitments concerning two-way exchange activities. Very often Americans provide Soviet specialists with
reprints of their scientific articles, unpublished data, and other
scientific materials expecting in exchange comparable information and materials which never appear. Soviet scientists encounter many practical problems in obtaining, reproducing, and
mailing scientific materials abroad. Also, promises that never
materialize are accepted as a way of life in the USSR, and this
characteristic spills over to the international scene. Nevertheless, perceptions of the potential for political seduction of American scientists and the reality of one-way exchanges support
American opponents of scientific exchanges who argue that our
scientists will be too generous in sharing their innermost insights about high technology during interactions with Soviet


Chapter 5

Ever since the end of World War II, the antiwar drums have
thundered loudly in the USSR. Many visitors to the USSR see
one or more of the hundreds of memorials to the victims of
World War II. I, and many other Americans, have been greatly
moved when visiting the site of a former concentration camp in
Latvia, walking among the graves of the defenders of Leningrad, or retracing the Soviet military breakout in Stalingrad
(now Volgograd). The depth of concern among the Soviet citizens over the possibility that such a tragedy could be repeated is
obvious even to the casual visitor to the USSR. During the Gorbachev era, prevention of nuclear war has become a more popular theme than ever before, and the Soviet scientific community
has been handed the lead to spread this concern throughout the
Every year hundreds of discussions between Soviet specialists and American visitors to the USSR are devoted to the issues
of war and peace. Leading Soviet scientists spend large portians
of their time participating in these meetings. Concerns over war
and peace also emerge during visits of foreigners to Soviet villages, factories, and farms. lt seems that the most important
message that every Soviet wants to convey to American visitors
is that war must be avoided.
In Moscow, large convocations of scientists from araund
the world to address important international issues have become regular events during the last several years. These meetings usually include one or more antiwar themes. The themes
have included the medical consequences of nuclear war, disarmament, and activities in outer space. Attendance by large
numbers of prominent American scientists is considered by
the Soviet organizers to be critical to the success of the
The Soviets usually cover all expenses for hundreds of foreign invitees, including international air travel via Aeroflot.


Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums

Many American scientists flock to these events. Years ago, some

Americans had been hesitant to accept free tickets and free hotel
rooms, lest they be perceived as Soviet collaborators. This hesitancy has now faded as the scientists have convinced themselves that they are contributing to important peace-oriented
activities. US Government officials are often among the attendees, which sends a clear signal that participation is fully
The heavy media coverage by the Soviet and foreign press
tends to turn these events into glamor gatherings. Nevertheless,
during the past several years the foreign visitors have been very
pleased with the substantive aspects of their participation. The
programs have been masterfully orchestrated by the Soviet
hosts to maximize opportunities for meaningful discussions, for
meetings with the highest leaders of the USSR, and for visits to a
wide range of institutions which have adopted an open-door
policy. Gorbachev personally participates, and he isamasterat
mingling with visitors.

For many years the American ambassadors in Moscow have

argued that a very important benefit from exchanges is visitors'
impressions of the culture of their host' s country. There is no
doubt that Khrushchev's visit to an Iowa farm had a tremendous
impact on his views on agricultural policies and that Reagan's
walk through Red Square with Gorbachev will long influence
his views on the USSR. At a lower level, trip reports of Soviet
and American exchange scientists are replete with commentaries on the impacts of the visits on their perceptions of life in
the other country; in the United States these reports are usually
sent to interested officials and scholars.


Chapter 5

Many of the current political and scientific leaders of the

two countries have visited the other country earlier in their careers. Though they made subsequent visits when they reached
positions of higher authority, many say that the early visits provided the most lasting impressions in their minds and that the
later visits reinforced these impressions. What is the nature of
the impressions? Do they help or hinder the process of imp-wing political understanding between the two countries?
As we will see in the next chapter, in a few cases exchange
visits disappoint the participants. Administrative problems with
the travel, lodging, or programmatic arrangements sometimes
sour the visits. Occasionally, visitors are victims of lost items or
theft. Some exchangees believe they were denied access to facilities or people for political reasons, and the associated bitterness
detracts from the other aspects of the visits. American visitors to
the USSR during the summer simply don't believe that Soviet
colleagues whom they thought they would see leave home for
six weeks' vacation every year; but in reality Soviets seldom
forgo their lengthy vacations. Soviet visitors to the United States
cannot understand why they can go to some universities while
the American visa authorities deny them access to other institutions which have also extended invitations to them.
Most scientific exchangees from both countries, however,
consider the experience a highlight of their lives. They have
combined a political adventure with scientific inquiry within a
fascinating cultural milieu. Among the most enthusiastic visitors
are those who have experienced small town hospitality during
their visits-a more common occurrence in the United States
than in the USSR, where good science is more highly concentrated in a few major cities.
Overall, exchanges clearly enhance the tolerance of the participants for the differences in the political systems of the two
countries. If there are tensions between the two countries, the


Scientists March to the Diplomats' Drums

exchange scientists blame the governments, not the common


Foreign policy shapes and constrains scientific cooperation.

Formulation of foreign policy also greatly benefits from information developed during exchanges, and particularly exchanges in
science and technology.
Traditionally, the US Government has relied on reporting
from our embassies abroad and on information generated by the
intelligence agencies as the basis for confirming or modifying
our foreign policies. In the case of a country as large, as complex, and as secretive as the USSR, there have always been
severe limitations on the adequacy and reliability of information
obtained through these channels. Now in the age of glasnost
floods of information are coming forth, and a serious problern of
filtering out the reliable information exists.
Scientific exchanges will continue to play a very important
role in providing authoritative insights of direct relevance to US
foreign policy decisions. In the 1960s and 1970s exchanges in the
space and nuclear sciences, in particular, were critical in ensuring a good appreciation of Soviet capabilities for the foreseeable
future as we developed our palides in related fields. Much of
our information about Soviet computer capability and Soviet
advances in biotechnology can also be traced to exchange
Exchanges should not be co-opted for more effective intelligence collection. Exchanges can provide, as a by-product, interesting intelligence information-often information of a totally
unanticipated nature. Still, exchanges have a far broader purpose and a much Ionger time frame in promoting improved
mutual understanding of important scientific issues and of the
cultures of the two countries.


Chapter 5

Both the United States and the USSR expect scientific cooperation to serve many political purposes in addition to the advancement of science. The many motivations of the past for promoting
or limiting bilateral exchanges will undoubtedly continue to characterize Soviet and American attitudes for the foreseeable future.
But the basic justification for exchanges should remain the scientific benefits that are derived, benefits that are directly dependent
on the stability of long-term cooperative relationships.
The scientific importance of long-term cooperation on
global problems is clear. The future payoffs from friendships
that are established by young scientists early in their careers are
gradually receiving greater recognition in both countries. However, the short-term gains and Iosses from exchanges remain a
dominant factor in the political decisions to move forward with
specific exchange activities.
As a practical matter, scientific exchanges will continue to
be turned off as one country develops policies that conflict with
important interests of the other country. They will be turned on
as summits approach and as new Ieaders seek to gain recognition as peacemakers.
Scientists will simply have to live with these realities. They
need to design their cooperative programs to the extent possible
in modules, with each module achievable in a relatively short
time. This is not easy since research is a continuum of trial and
error and depends on small but steady incremental advances. If
long-term experiments are critical to advances in a specific field,
perhaps research in that field should not be pursued on a cooperative basis. After the inevitable pauses in cooperation, succeeding modules may be able to build on earlier efforts without
too much loss of momentum due to the exigencies of foreign


Scientific Cooperation on the

What is national is no Ionger science.
Anton Chekov

The growing stream of American and Soviet scientists being

processed through the Pan Am and Aeroflot counters attests to
the recent upsurge in the scope of scientific cooperation between the United States and the USSR. While scientists inevitably spend an enormaus amount of energy coping with the
administrat ive problems and cultural adjustment s before and
during their exchange visits, they nevertheles s find considerable
reserve energy within themselves to carry through. Sleep simply assumes a lower priority than usual, and the increased flow
of adrenalin helps most exchange scientists take advantage of
professional opportuniti es during their visits.
Scientific cooperation between the United States and the
Soviet Union encompasse s a very wide range of activities. This
cooperation draws on American scientists from many types of


Chapter 6

institutions-from the government, from industry, and from

the academic community. Similarly, Soviet scientists from many
institutions participate as exchange scientists, as hosts for visiting Americans, and as correspondents with American colleagues working on related scientific problems. Their interests
range from studying the galaxies to investigating the polar ice
caps, to comparing geological rift systems of different continents, to tracing the origins of acid rain, to enhancing energy
conservation efforts, to combating the spread of viruses, to
cataloging butterflies along the Alaska-Siberia frontier.
During the past several years, bilateral scientific exchanges
between the United States and the USSR have again been on the
rise. Over the years the expansions and contractions of scientific
exchanges have mirrored the trend in exchanges in general,
including exchanges of students, artists, historians, and language specialists. As previously discussed, this trend has been
very sensitive to the state of US-USSR political relations-a
steady increase during the detente of the 1970s, a sharp decline
following the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan in 1979, and rapid
growth after the first of the Reagan-Gorbachev summits in 1985
and continuing to the present.

A relatively new aspect of cooperation is the many arrangements between American and Soviet commercial organizations
that encompass some aspect of science or technology. Cooperation in science is usually designed to lead eventually to sales of
products or licenses. However, as noted below, a variety of
administrative and financial barriers inhibit moving from modest cooperation in research and feasibility studies to joint ventures and other ambitious commercial schemes.
A common belief within the American business community
is that many Soviet citizens with large ruble savings would

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


spend these savings instantly if they could use them to buy

high-quality consumer goods produced in the West. Many firms
from around the world would like to provide these goods. However, they want hard currency in exchange: rubles aren't worth
very much in New York or Tokyo. The official exchangerate is
$1.60 for one ruble; but the real value of the ruble 1s better
reflected in the black market rate of five rubles for one dollar on
the street outside any Leningrad hotel. The Soviets are reluctant
to use their foreign exchange earnings from exports of oil, sable,
and gold to pay for imports of goods that they feel they can
produce locally. Nevertheless, many foreign firms believe that
they can work out barter or other types of arrangements that
will enable them to eventually recover their costs of doing business in the USSR and to earn an adequate profit in currency
which can be used in the West. Also, these firms would like to
be entrenched in the USSR should the ruble someday become
internationally convertible. According to Soviet colleagues, in
November 1988 the Politburo of the party set 1992 as the target
date for a convertible ruble; given the historical isolation of Soviet financial institutions from international markets and the currently depressed state of the Soviet economy, this target seems
The US-USSR Trade and Economic Council was established
a decade ago to help coordinate the activities of more than 400
member firms from the United States which have been actively
exploring commercial opportunities in the USSR. The Council
maintains offices in Moscow and New York that are staffed by
both American and Soviet specialists. It provides information
for the firms and for others interested in economic developments in the USSR. It sponsors dialogues between Soviet political and trade leaders and American officials and business
executives and generally supports intergovernmental programs
related to trade.


Chapter 6

About 100 commercial arrangements now exist between Soviet and American organizations. In some cases, they include
joint research projects being carried out in the United States and
the USSR. They also include exhibits, joint seminars on technical topics, advisory services, visits by specialists to explore specific technical areas, and sharing of technical data. They involve,
for example, sensitizing the Soviet taste to the ever-secret formulas for Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola, and Fanta; introducing automation systems into Soviet fertilizer plants; improving the quality of nutritional supplements for animal feeds in the United
States and the USSR; applying unique Soviet medical instrumentation in American institutions; marketing Soviet agricultural equipment in Wisconsin; and jointly publishing magazines on recent developments related to personal computers.
Within the USSR, many research institutions and leading
specialists participate in the joint endeavors. Unfortunately,
new bureaucracies at many Ievels have been created in Moscow
simply to serve as intermedianes with the Western firms despite
the Soviet policy to cleanse the system of unnecessary bureaucrats. Also, as the Soviet Government tries to decentralize the
authority for entering into international commercial arrangements from the ministries to the industrial enterprises, the enterprises which do not have international experience hesitate to
make decisions. Doing business in the USSR is not easy.
Many American scientists and engineers visit the USSR to
support existing arrangements and to explore opportunities for
making new deals. Some companies have offices in Moscow,
usually staffed by one or two Soviet employees. A large number
of sales representatives of US firms have also logged many tens
of thousands of miles in never-ending efforts to keep agreements on track.
While traveling in Central Asia last year, I meta West European sales representative of an American firm who has spent


Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound

about six months each year for the last 15 years in the USSR
selling scientific instrumentation to laboratories all over the
country and establishing the supporting maintenance network.
He has learned not to rely on intermedianes but to make all
arrangements himself, from obtaining the commitments by the
ministers for his products to gaining the support of the individual researchers who use the instruments. His persistent efforts
have paid off. His firm has placed more than 400 instruments
throughout the country, with a sales value exceeding
$10,000,000. In every case he has received prompt and full payment in hard currency, largely because the researchers know
that the instruments will work and will be repaired promptly if
necessary; with such assurances, the ministries have been willing to divert scarce foreign currency for this effort. 1

For more than 25 years a number of US Government agencies have had formal agreements with counterpart agencies in
the USSR involving exchanges in science and technology. The
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
wants to share in the fruits of the Soviet' s massive collection of
oceanographic data. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development is interested in Soviet experience in construction
in Arctic regions. The National Park Service hopes to learn from
Soviet research in its extensive network of preserved nature
parks. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission do not want to see another Chernobyl-type accident anywhere in the world and are prepared to help the USSR
improve its nuclear safety programs. The Geological Survey
studies volcano systems throughout the world. The National
Institutes of Health plan to learn from Soviet experiences in
coping with alcoholism.


Chapter 6

The agreement between the two govemments in the environmental field has been a pacesetter for bilateral cooperation
in recent years, involving several dozen projects directed to environmental planning, natural resource management, environmental pollution, and related areas. Soviet officials and scientists are belatedly awakening to the very severe unattended
environmental problems in the USSR-the pollution of Lake
Baykal, the drying up of the Aral Sea, the brown douds over the
Siberian cities, the discharge of toxic wastes into waterways.
They are interested in leaming from experiences in addressing
similar problems in the United States. While the United States is
ahead in most aspects of controlling pollution, cooperation has
benefited American specialists in the development of new environmental assessment techniques, in relating pollution Ievels
to ecological damage, and in broadening gene pools to help
preserve rare plant species. Also, global environmental problems have become a focus of a great upsurge in scientific interest
in both countries. The USSR occupies one-sixth of the earth's
land surface and must be a major participant in any serious
international effort to address global environmental issues. Sulfur deposition in the Ukraine attributable to the power plants of
Central Europe, the warming of the biosphere which could result in Arctic snowmelt, the pollution of the world' s oceans
which wash the coastlines of the USSR, and the worldwide acidification of soil which impacts the huge Soviet landmass exemplify some of the current Soviet concems.
In addition to the inherent importance of these topics, cooperation in addressing very broad issues such as the effect of
pollution on the global dimate Iets Soviet scientists display their
very sophisticated talents in the field of mathematics, and particularly in the development of theoretical models to simulate
conditions over large polluted areas. At the same time, Soviet
scientists are not required to dwell on the microproblems of

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


environmental degradation, such as air pollution in the Siberian

city of Bratsk, for example; seldom can they influence abatement
policies which are in the hands of the production ministries, and
often they are not well informed about the problems.
The most memorable bilateral agreements have been in the
field of space exploration. Cooperation, as noted 'earlier, began
during the 1960s as both countries dramatically expanded their
manned and unmanned space programs. Cooperation in space
medicine resulted in genuine sharing of information on survivability in space. Early exchanges of close-up photographs of
the moon were also important in unraveling the history of the
solar system.
Several personal experiences are related to space cooperation. At four o'clock on a Sunday morning in 1964 while I was
serving as the Science Officer in the American Embassy in Moscow, I was summoned by the duty officer to the communications center in the Embassy to handle a "flash" cable from
W ashington. The cable reported that Soviet radio signals were
interfering with the flight of our manned spacecraft Gemini 4 as
it passed over the Western Pacific and over the territory of the
USSR. "Get the Soviets off the radio frequency we are using.
They're endangering the lives of our astronauts," read the cable.
NASA had not announced to the Soviets or to anyone else the
communications frequencies being used by the spacecraft, since
they were worried that if the frequencies were not kept secret,
amateurradio operators might learn about them and try to interfere with the flight.
Arousing Soviet officials at their weekend houses on the
edge of Moscow at that hour and persuading them to instruct
Soviet military commanders to turn off their electronic devices on
Soviet ships and at surveillance stations on the Chinese border
seemed like an impossible task. Fortunately, many months earlier I had sequestered in my night stand several emergency


Chapter 6

telephone numbers at the Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Communications. By allowing the phone to ring for more than five minutes I was able to
rouse a groggy night watchman at the Academy. At the time,
there were no greater heroes in the USSR than the cosmonauts.
Thus, when I shouted, "You are threatening the life of an astronaut," hisresponsewas immediate. He would call the president
of the Academy, the vice president, the scientific secretary, the
president's chauffeur, and anyone eise he could find. And he
For the next two hours the telephone in our apartment rang
off the hook, while my sleepy family groaned in the background. With the Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Ministry of Communications, the State Department,
NASA, and the ambassador all calling, I feit like the most popular person on the globe. By six o'clock the Soviet transmitters
had changed frequencies, and I went back to bed. This was
scientific cooperation in action, at least from my vantage point.
The following year I became involved in another type of
space cooperation. I saw a stirring Soviet television broadcast of
the first walk in space by Soviet cosmonaut Leonov. Our astronaut Ed White, whom I had known when we were cadets at
West Point, was scheduled to make a similar walk a few weeks
later. The next day while I played tennis with Frank Bourgholtzer, a well-known American NBC correspondent in Moscow,
we talked about the film and his possible interest in showing it on
American television. We agreed that it would have wide public
appeal and might also help Ed White prepare for his walk. Frank
subsequently purchased a copy of the film from a Soviet news
agency, and it was promptly shown to the American public and
to Ed. Three months later, Ed bought me lunch in Houston and
described how the film had helped him in learning to tumble in
space without losing control.

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


By 1988 the two nations had come a long way in space

cooperation. Astronautsand cosmonauts had met in space, exchange visits to launch sites had become routine, American instruments had flown on Soviet spacecraft, and many books had
been jointly written by Soviet and American space scientists.
Still, I was impressed by the changes that American colleagues
encountered at the Space Research Institute in Moscow during
several meetings in 1987 and 1988. The discussions were open
and freewheeling and the exchange of information uninhibited.
Twenty-five years earlier, I could not have even found the institute where space researchwas carried out in Moscow. 2
The success of most intergovernmental agreements hinges
on active participation by US Government laboratories and
working scientists from the laboratories. However, a high percentage of the US participants in the programs are political
appointees-though scientists-who are removed from research laboratories but who are eager to see the USSR firsthand
and to use their negotiating skills. They travel to the Soviet
Union, receive Soviet visitors in the United States, and then
pass on to other pursuits. Consequently, considerable effort is
expended by the civil service scientists in educating successive
generations of politicalleaders in order to preserve the relationships that have been developed with Soviet counterparts. In this
era of glasnost and perestroika the Soviet participants are changing just as rapidly. The fact that any progress is made is often
There are seldom special funds available to US agencies to
support their cooperative programs with the USSR. The participating agencies must divert funds appropriated by the Congress to support domestic programs, arguing that the United
States will indeed benefit from cooperation. The agencies make
this argument with considerable vigor, and to some extent the
argument is sound. While serving as the director of the EPA


Chapter 6

laboratory in Las Vegas in the early 1980s, however, I was occasionally annoyed when money was taken from our research
budget to pay hotel bills for visiting Chinese and Soviet scientists who were guests of EP A, even though I was obviously
sympathetic to these types of exchanges. Same of my colleagues
at other laboratories which were also losing their budgets were
more than annoyed; they were furious.
Still, the opportunity to participate in cooperative endeavors with the Soviets holds a special fascination for most US
scientists who contro~ funds for research. A trip to the USSR or
the chance to hast a cocktail party for Soviet scientists in the
suburbs of Washington or a Westernbarbecue in Nevada offers
an opportunity to participate in diplomacy.
However, international science programs should not be
placed in direct competition for funding with national programs
which are judged on the basis of near-term technical benefits to
the United States. The payoffs from international science are
Ionger term, are more difficult to predict, and extend far beyond
simple transfers of technical information.

All scientific institutions in the USSR belong to the government. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the Soviets, all international scientific cooperation has an official character. In the United States, however, a wide variety of private organizations
collaborate with Soviet scientific institutions. Many of these
American organizations have difficulty understanding that all
Soviet scientists work for the state and that the concept of a
research scientist who sets his own agenda is foreign to the
Soviet lexicon.
In deference to American thinking, the Soviets have now
begun referring to exchanges involving American universities
and other private institutions in the United States as private

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


exchanges, even though both sides are aware that the governments play a role, particularly on the Soviet side. These exchanges have varying degrees of formal endorsement from the
political bodies of the two governments. Such endorsement
ranges from explieit recognition of such exchanges in intergovernmental agreements to simple issuance of the visas necessary for the cooperation to move forward.
As one example of the nature of a private exchange, more
than 600 scientists from the United States and 600 from the
USSR have partieipated in individual exchange visits ranging
from one to twelve months, sponsored by the National Academy of Seiences and the Academy of Seiences of the USSR. The
partieipants have conducted research in many laboratories
throughout the United States and the USSR. They have traveled
from Alaska, to Hawa, to Maine, and from Riga on the Baltic
coast to Yerevan on the Turkish border, to Magadan and
VIadivastak on the eastern coast of Siberia.
Also, about 25 bilateral scientific workshops have been held
under the interacademy program-in physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, earth seiences, and other diseiplines. These
workshops usually bring tagether 10 to 20 Soviet seientists and a
comparable nurober of Americans for several days of intensive
discussions of recent developments in the specific fields of interest. The program also includes visits to interesting research laboratories in the hast country.
During the past several years, this interacademy program
has expanded significantly. Many cooperative activities in addition to the exchange of individual seientists and scientific workshops are under way. Seismologists are investigating indicators
of future earthquakes in California and Armenia. Geologists are
comparing the origins of formations in the Caucasus and the
Sierras. Energy specialists are seeking new ways to reduce the
demand for limited energy resources. Environmental seientists


Chapter 6

are investigating the warming of the globe. Soeial seientists an~

constructing computer models of the causes of international
conflicts. And leading seientists from both countries meet regularly to consider the technical aspects of arms control and international security.
The program of the two academies is the largest of the
cooperative seientific programs conducted outside formal intergovernmental channels. It has been of speeial importance during the times of political difficulties between the two countries.
As a nongovernmental activity, it has been somewhat insulated
from political pressures and has continued at times when other
programs have been stopped for political reasons.
Many American universities and professional soeieties have
long been interested in Russian language training and in research in the soeial seiences and humanities in the USSR.
Centralized exchange programs to faeilitate cooperation in these
fields have been in place for many years, and a large number of
former partieipants in these programs now hold key positions in
the public and private sectors in the United States and within
the Soviet Government. The Soviet authorities often use these
exchange programs to place Soviet seientists and engineers at
US institutions, primarily as advanced graduate students, as the
quid pro quo for arranging placement for American students
and researchers in the soeial seiences and humanities in the
USSR. This apparent asymmetry of interests has led American
opponents of exchanges to contend that the United States sends
poets to rustic Russian villages and the Soviets send engineers
to Silicon Valley.
The Fulbright program has for several decades supported
exchanges of seientists and scholars between the United States
and many countries. It continues tobe an effective mechanism
for enabling American and Soviet seientists to spend academic
years abroad in the USSR and in the United States. As is the

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


tradition with this program throughout the world, the quality of

the participants is generally high.
At present, more than one dozen American universities
have direct links with Soviet universities calling for exchanges in
many fields, including science and engineering. Often such
linkages enrich sister city programs. Indeed, university-touniversity arrangements are a very popular way to give tangible
meaning to the sister city concept. Every politician-American
or Soviet-likes to identify with the university in his or her
More scientific exchanges are now taking place on an informal basis than ever before. A recent upsurge in the numbers of
invitations for visits being extended by scientists and institutions on both sides is quite apparent. Invitations to Americans
are frequently linked to large meetings in Moscow or Leningrad
when the Soviets consider the American presence important,
such as meetings on Arctic research or the health effects of the
Chernobyl accident. The opportunities for American scientists
to have interesting scientific tours and discussions in conjunction with such large affairs are usually extensive.
Also, the positive responses of Soviet scientists to invitations from individual American scientists and institutions to visit the United States have been increasing. Past problems in arranging for specific Soviet scientists to attend scientific meetings
in the United States are legendary; for many years Iast-minute
cancellations by invited Soviet speakers, panelists, and commentators have been commonplace. Now the outlook seems
much brighter.
Overall, however, the quantity of bilateral scientific interactions remains very low in comparison with the numerous interactions of American scientists with colleagues in other countries
with significantly less scientific capability than the USSR. While
there have been many discussions between Soviet and Ameri-


Chapter 6

can exchange organizations about decentralizing the management of scientific exchanges as a step to increasing these interchanges, exchanges are still very much influenced by the central
political bodies of the two governments.

Numerous testimonials document the scientific benefits of

bilateral cooperation-to the East, to the West, and to the international scientific community. Hundreds of American and Soviet participants in exchanges have reported their experiences in a
wide variety of scientific and technical journals and books, frequently as joint publications of Soviet and American authors.
Also, they have written articles for the lay audience in their
countries, given public lectures, and made presentations at scientific conferences based on their experiences as exchange scientists. Films of some exchanges have been adapted for television and movie audiences.
In the commercial arena, the best testimonials are advances
in industrial and agricultural processes and products which can
be traced in part to cooperative programs. While there have
been some examples of direct commercial benefits from cooperation in science and technology, to date the return for most
American companies has not been commensurate with the investment of time by corporate Ieaders and scientists. For example, of the 400 senior executives who visited Moscow in the
spring of 1988 in search of commercial opportunities, only a few
can show concrete results from the visit, and the financial payoff
from most of these undertakings is uncertain. Nevertheless, the
American business community gives considerable importance to
keeping abreast of developments in a country as large as the
USSR. Cooperation in science and technology provides a good
window for assessing the future commercial potential of dealings with the USSR.

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


The US Congress has conducted periodic hearings that have

helped clarify the benefits and difficulties in cooperation with the
USSR in science and technology. However, those who participate
in thesehearingsfind only one or two congressmen in attendance
and a light sprinkling of specialists from the government agencies. While many members of Congress are interested in SovietAmerican relations and many are deeply involved in the development of the scientific base of the United States, few have given a
combination of these two concerns high priority.
More than 25 reviews of different cooperative programs in
science and technology have been carried out by US Government agencies during the past decade, but the distribution of
these reviews has been very limited. Unfortunately, many key
policy officials have their minds made up concerning the costs
and benefits of exchanges, and they don't want to take the time
to seriously examine the record. In most reviews, the conclusion
has been that there can be important scientific benefits to the
United States as well as the the USSR from carefully designed
and properly managed exchange programs.3
The US Government agencies that arrange cooperative programs prepare extensive budget justifications for their activities.
They cite US reliance on the Soviet-designed Tokamak device in
the development of fusion research in the United States. They
point out the many lessons learned from Soviet space probes of
the planets. They note the contributions of Soviet glaciologists
to improved understanding of the environments at both the
North and South Poles. They also caution about the pitfalls in
cooperation and identify areas in which cooperation has not
paid off, such as in the development of photovoltaic cells for
solar power. Overall, the international affairs officers in the
agencies generally believe that cooperation with the USSR is
quite useful. Every trip to the USSR provides unexpected insights, and maintaining close contact with a large country of


Chapter 6

surprises is very important to them. While American scientists

may not always gain new technical knowledge that can be applied today, they should be ready to take advantage of new
Soviet approaches of the future.
Examples of cooperative activities that have been very beneficial to American working scientists can be seen in almost every
important American scientific journal. A Soviet visitor to Harvard contributed to the scientific research that led to a Nobel
Prize for an American specialist in DNA sequencing. Soviet
mathematicians in Leningrad helped a visiting American from
Purdue solve an important mathematical theorem that had eluded mathematicians for 30 years. An American visitor to Soviet
freshwater fishery laboratories gained knowledge that was helpful in restocking Wisconsin lakes. 4
It is often difficult to attribute specific scientific advances to
a particular time period in a scientist' s career. Advances usually
result from an accumulation of knowledge and experience. International exchanges simply add a new dimension to this educational process. They may suggest new research methodologies or discredit old ones. They may provide new data that
support or contradict existing data. They may uncover new scientific uncertainties that require attention. In an event, in a significant number of cases the exchange activities of American and
Soviet scientists certainly accelerated the timetables for opening
new scientific horizons.
Exchange programs have provided American scientists
with important access to previously inaccessible geographical
areas, research facilities, and data sources in the USSR. In a
country as large as the USSR, such access is very important in
many fields of science-geology, geophysics, zoology, botany,
oceanography, coastal morphology, and atmospheric sciences.

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


Traveling outside the major cities of the USSR is not easy for
Soviet citizens and often impossible for foreigners. Special permits are frequently required, usually for intemal security reasons. Accommodations that are considered suitable for visitors
may not exist. Transportation may be difficult. Finally, there
may not be precedents for travel to interesting areas, and the
sluggish administrative systems in the USSR can easily thwart
attempts to do something new.
Scientific exchange programs have on a number of occasions provided the vehicle for breaking through these types of
administrative barriers and for encouraging special arrangements by the Soviet authorities to receive foreigners in scientifically important but seldom visited areas. American ecologists have climbed the rugged mountains of the Caucasus and
Central Asia. Wildlife biologists have traveled into isolated areas
of central Siberia. Arctic specialists have conducted research
along the northem coast of the USSR. American scientists
have traveled by horse, by small boat, and by helicopter, sometimes introducing their Soviet colleagues to new geographic
Access to Soviet laboratories is also important for American
scientists. Such visits are often the only way to have contact
with many young Soviet scientists. These scientists are increasingly uninhibited when receiving American colleagues in their
institutes, and discussions are candid and detailed. Only by
seeing experimental facilities can American scientists make reasonable judgments as to the quality of research and the significance of findings that are reported by Soviet investigators. Also,
the system for publishing scientific data and results in the USSR
is not well developed. Thus, discussions with Soviet bench scientists provide opportunities to gain access to data and results
that might be delayed for several years before reaching the West
orthat might never reach the Westat all.

Chapter 6


Bilateral exchange activities are not uniformly productive,

however. Administrative arrangements, particularly in the
USSR, can be so poor as to negate the potential scientific value
from an exchange visit. Cooling heels while waiting in a hotel
room for the telephone to ring with news about appointments
which have been requested is indeed frustrating. Arriving for
serious research at an institute that is unaware of your visit until
the last minute discourages even the most flexible scientist.
Learning that key colleagues are traveling elsewhere during the
time of a scheduled visit reduces enthusiasm for effective interactions. Of course these types of problems are also encountered
in the United States; but our formalandinformal communication systems are much better developed, and the administrative
problems for Soviet visitors are much less frequent.
Not all topics lend themselves to exchanges. In the past,
poor selection of topics has sometimes resulted in mismatches of
interests and capabilities. For example, in 1988 I accompanied to
the USSR an American delegation of scientists interested in new
approaches to the development of vaccines. The Americans
were disappointed to leam that many Soviet research programs
were still in their early stages, and a visit in several years probably will be more profitable. I also traveled with Soviet energy
specialists to the wind farms east of San Francisco in 1987, but
the Soviets saw little of relevance to their interests in American
attempts to use wind power for generating electricity; for them,
wind power is not an economically attractive energy alternative
in the USSR.
Tourism sometimes becomes a principal motivation for
American scientists to participate in exchanges. Sightseeing
takes precedence over scientific discussions on occasion. The
ballet and the monastery visits can set the timetables. Not that

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


these cultural experiences have no value; it is simply a matter of

priorities in programs that are always too short in duration.
Meanwhile, some US Government officials press for exchange activities to take place only in the USSR, since they consider exchanges in the United States to be of less interest. In
some cases, this bias reflects the influence of US intelligence
agencies whose primary task is to gain information on scientific
activities within Soviet facilities while limiting Soviet access to
US facilities. The bias also reflects a concern that US scientists
will emphasize "show and tell" for Soviet visitors rather than
mutually beneficial dialogues.
However, some exchange activities should be carried out in
the United States. Many visits to the United States by Soviet
scientists have been highly rewarding for both countries in the
past. Indeed, the quality of Soviet scientists visiting the United
States is often very impressive, particularly in recent years, and
their scientific productivity very high. Serious collaborative efforts in the USSR are frequently very difficult. Given the underdeveloped state of the Soviet scientific infrastructure (space,
equipment, spare parts, services, supplies), effectively including an American scientist in the research system there is much
more difficult than providing scientific research opportunities
for visitors to American laboratories.

For many years the USSR has promoted scientific exchanges with countries throughout the world. The Academy of
Seiences of the USSR, for example, now has formal agreements
with counterpart institutions in more than 65 countries.
The population of foreign scientists working in Soviet research institutes is quite large, often exceeding several dozen in
a single institute, with most of the visitors from Bastern Europe,
Cuba, and Vietnam. These visitors from the Sodalist countries


Chapter 6

usually remain in the USSR for one to three years working on

advanced degrees in science. The Soviet scientists draw on these
visitors as research assistants but generally do not expect them
to make major contributions to research activities. By contrast,
relatively few visitors from the West are encountered in the
institutes, and particularly in institutes outside Moscow and
Leningrad. Most of the Western visitors aresenior scientists on
short-term visits of one to two weeks.
Similarly, we frequently meet Soviet scientists in the research institutes of Eastern Europe, and many reports indicate
that Soviet scientists are carrying out research in Cuba and in
Southeast Asia. The Soviet visitors are generally good, mid-level
scientists with sound research projects. The host institutes for
Soviets in Eastern Europe are usually the best research institutes
of the region with research profiles dose to the profiles of Soviet
institutes. For example, there are dose ties between the catalysis
institute in Novosibirsk and the catalysis institute in Krakow,
between the physics institute in Sofia and the physics institute
in Dubna outside Moscow, and between the geography institute
in Bucharest and the geography institute in Moscow.
As a matter of policy, Soviet scientific leaders assert that
since science is universal in its premises and in many of its
applications, international cooperation with many nations must
be a key aspect of the Soviet scientific effort. The Soviet scientific
approach to international cooperation is highly centralized and
highly sensitive to political interests. lndeed, agreements for
cooperation in science and technology frequently call for more
projects than are possible simply to serve a political objective.
Leading Soviet scientists often complain about how they have
been overcommitted to help fulfill ambitious agreements signed
by political leaders. While many countries are flattered by the
high level of the Soviet scientists who initially participate in
cooperative programs, this level of participation rapidly dedines

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


as these scientists must direct their international activities taward other countries. The intensity of cooperation may also
decline in the absence of the senior Soviet participants.
Scientific cooperation with the United States has always
enjoyed a special status within the Soviet scientific community.
Soviet scientific Ieaders assign high priority to interactions with
American colleagues at harne and abroad. Now as Gorbachev
reaches out to the West on many fronts, expanded scientific
cooperation with the United States is viewed within the USSR as
of greatimportance as a short- and long-term investment of both
financial and manpower resources. During the past several
years, the increase in Soviet awareness of the international dimensions of energy, health, and environmental issues has paralleled the heightening of similar concerns in the United States
and elsewhere. Thus, the Soviet scientific community displays a
continued readiness to cooperate with American colleagues on
many fronts to address these types of critical issues.
Soviet scientists take great pride in their publications in
Western journals, publications which are often facilitated
through collaborative efforts with Western colleagues. In some
cases, the only raute for Soviets to publish is participation in
exchange programs. Publication in Soviet journals can be a
tedious process due to the review procedures, the unilateral
control of many Soviet editors as to which articles should be
published, and the priority given to senior scientists within a
publication system that is always overloaded with proposed
A scientific trip to the United States is highly prized. The
opportunity to travel is often used as a "perk" for scientists who
have made contributions to their institutions in the political
arena as weil as in science. While trips to other countries are
always welcomed by Soviet scientists, visits to the United States
have a special attraction in most fields of science.

Chapter 6


Election to membership in international scientific organizations andin Academies of Seiences of Westerncountries is also a
great honor for Soviet scientists. The recognition attendant to
such election has on occasion been decisive for Soviet scientists
in gaining scientific promotions within the USSR. At many levels the Soviets seek wide recognition for their accomplishments
in science and technology. Simply sitting at the table with American specialists is an important form of such recognition.
Soviet officials and scientists also attach considerable importance to the cultural experience associated with visits to the
United States, and particularly the opportunities to see the
American countryside and to practice the English language. Soviet officials do not seem concerned when a heavy element of
cultural activity limits the time available for scientific pursuits.

Participation in exchange programs can be both exhilarating

and frustrating for the American and Soviet scientists. The experiences are unique; they simply are unparalleled by other types
of international interactions among scientists. Thus, in assessing
the scientific and political payoff from exchanges, the two governments must take into account the practical dimensions of
carrying out the exchanges.
Arriving in Moscow is always a traumatic experience for
American exchange scientists. American scientists invariably
ask themselves: Have my Soviet hosts really been informed I
will be on this flight? Will they find me at the airport? If they
aren't here, I don't have the name of the hotel. I don't have any
rubles. I don't speak Russian. Did my baggage make the connection in London? What will I do if it didn't? Will the customs
officials really go through all of my baggage? What will they do
with those American magazines I have brought along?

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


Most of the time, after a delay of one hour or more, the

Soviet hosts find the visitors in the airport. The baggage arrives,
and custom formalities are completed without incident. But difficulties do sometimes arise. Almost every day American scientists who are not met on arrival due to administrative confusion
plead with Intourist representatives to take care of them for one
night until they can find their hosts the next day. Travelers
besiege Pan Am, trying to trace lost baggage. For unexplainable
reasons, flights to Moscow are plagued with an unusually high
rate of misplaced baggage. Since rubles cannot be brought into
the country legally, the lines at the bank at the airport are long
as foreigners from many countries seek rubles to pay taxi drivers
for transportation to downtown locations.
Even the best accommodations for exchange scientists in
Moscow are stark by American standards. The usual accommodations can only be described as primitive. Seasoned American
travelers immediately become dismayed with the uncertainty of
hot water, the Iack of sink stoppers, the absence of bedsprings,
and the interminable delays in the restaurants. Nevertheless,
most take the cultural adjustment in stride as they begin to feel
that they really are on an adventure. The following reflections of
a few American exchange scientists indicate what life is like for
American families in the USSR.
Our reception and treatment were exemplary. All individuals
we met did everything to make our stay pleasant and successful. ... The people are great fun, are sensitive, and have no
desire to blow up the Western world .... Everyone (except
hustling cab drivers) was remarkably friendly, protective, and
nice. Two young Soviet toughs were chewed out by a 55-yearold man for getting in front of us at a taxi stand and giving the
wrong impression of Muscovites.
It was either feast or famine, usually the latter. We ate American for breakfast with coffee, Tang, and Cheerios. The kids
and I subsisted on sausage, bread, milk, and an occasional


Chapter 6

small apple or green Cuban orange for lunch.... We knew

we had sunk to our lowest ebb when the kids drank orange
Fanta as the juice for breakfast.... The big treat at the university cafeteria was when they substituted tough steak for the
mystery meat in the soup. It is fun to watch people picking up
a steak and ripping into it with their teeth since it is impossible
to cut the meat with two spoons.
Although the hotel was only 10 years old, the interior and the
furniture seemed circa US 1930-1950. However, this gave a
homey, well-worn feel to the place .... We were prepared to
co-exist with an army of cockroaches, but we never saw
one .... We saw no double beds. We used strong string to tie
two single beds together, and we rolled up table cloths to fill
the gap between the mattresses .... Russians think a dryer is
the spin cycle of the washer .... The water was so dirty I
sometimes wondered why I bothered to wash my clothes. I
used only mineral water to brush my teeth.
Most chamber ladies sitting on each floor in the hotel were
wonderful. After I gave them nail polish, stockings, and candy
bars, their kindness became overwhelming. One of the ladies
kept bringing us raspberry jam and honey.
Grocery shoppingwas surprisingly easy. Food was very limited, but there were self service push carts and two register
lines .... I shopped before work, after work, and sometimes
during lunch. I never knew when a prized item would appear
on the shelves. I carried plastic bags and string bags so that I
could stop at a moment's notice.
The transit system is outstanding. . . . The buses are so
crowded that after everyone has squeezed aboard the doors
can't close .... It is difficult to get off the bus at the right stop.
I found remarkable incentive to learn such phrases as "!,.%#!
Let me off the bus."
Our children were definitely not young Pioneer material as
they committed such lawless acts as dashing wildly down the
hotel stairs, talking loudly, laughing, having temper tantrums
at loud decibels, or wearing frail winter garments .... At restaurants and stores we frequently had to yield our daughter to

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


eager strangers who would whisk her away to be shown off

and cuddled .... The parks and playgrounds in Leningrad
are ubiquitous and wonderful.
Our 13-month-old daughter jumped out of my backpack and
landed squarely on her head. The taxi ride to the hospital
almost killed us all. At the hospital the people were fantastic .... On another occasion, we saw five pediatricians. Each
had a different set of diagnoses and medicinE:s .... The hospital was somewhat self-service with mothers doing most things
orderlies do in the United States. There were no charges for
any medical services.
Either accept or decline an invitation; don't try to change the
date since this is not the custom. Don't admire anything (like a
picture or a book) too much, or it very likely will be given to
you. If there are children in the home, bring small gifts for
The bath house is not to be missed. The steam bath itself, the
ritual massage with birch branches, the beer and salted fish,
and the feeling of participating in an ageless tradition all make
it an experience to savor.
One of the most common daily events is to discover that a
store, museum, or restaurant is closed for repair, inventory, or
When I would answer a stranger that I was an American, the
reaction was usually one of disbelief, followed by an excited
bandshake or animated conversation (80 percent) or extreme
reservation and aloofness (20 percent) .... Friends I made
were real friends. 5

When time for departure for home arrives, the visiting

American scientists should be prepared for the hassles at the
Moscow airport. Often upon arrival at the airport the scientists
suddenly realize they have unspent rubles that cannot be taken
out of the country. In principle, at the airport foreigners can
change back to dollars those rubles that were obtained through
exchange of foreign currency. However, this procedure to ob-


Chapter 6

tain dollars may take up to one hour since Soviet bank tellers
seem to take their breaks at the busiest times of the day. Given
the usual length of the lines to clear customs following any
currency exchanges, few American travelers who have arrived
at the airport only two hours before departure are willing to risk
missing their planes by exchanging rubles. These unspent
rubles usually are given to embarrassed Soviet hosts who promise to hold them until the visitors return.
The final step is the frantic search for the customs declaration prepared upon arrival several weeks or months earlier and
the preparation of the departure declaration. The dollars declared upon arrival minus the dollars exchanged for rubles or
spent in foreign currency shops during the stay in the USSR as
evidenced by receipts should equal the dollars declared upon
departure. Fortunately, these declarations are seldom scrutinized by officials at the airport. Few Americans are sufficiently
meticulous in their personal financial accounting to pass a
rigorous test of compliance with the formal procedures.

Soviet scientists arriving in the United States are usually

more relaxed, since they know from their lifelong experiences
with state stewardship in the USSR that someone will take care
of them upon arrival. They are accustomed to long lines, to
bureaucratic formalities, to baggage being lost, and to plans that
never materialize. Finally, they know that the Soviet Embassy in
Washington will take them in if necessary.
Soviet scientists usually arrive on Aeroflot flights that are
hooked solid with Soviet visitors to the United States. By the
time the scientists have spent 15 hours en route to Washington
or New York they have met other Soviets who are equally uncertain as to how they will be received in the United States. Any
individual anxieties have become shared anxieties. Even those

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


who have visited the United States before are given to excitement about the arrival and the days to follow, but they suppress
outward manifestations of this excitement.
A bevy of Soviet offleials and many American hosts regularly meet each Aeroflot flight. The pairing off of arriving Soviets with individual reception parties is always an interesting
spectacle characterized by hugs, handshakes, and blank stares.
The Soviets are usually unfazed by the customs formalities,
which often involve long waits while American officials pay
special attention to visitors from Communist countries.
Some American hosts for Soviet visitors are eager to present
them with very detailed itineraries that have been cleared
through many bureaucratic channels. Descriptions of the facilities they are to visit are frequently presented, misplaced, and
even lost in the airport confusion.
Shopping in American stores is of the highest priority for
many visiting Soviet scientists. K-Mart is among the favorite
targets for Soviets eager to return home with presents for children, grandchildren, and occasionally spouses. RadioShack has
also become a favorite as electronic gadgets-which it is hoped
include the appropriate adapters for the Soviet electrical
system-become increasingly sought-after commodities.
Two years ago we arranged for a leading Soviet science
official to visit Garfinkel's department store in the Washington
suburbs, where he spotted a cashmere coat for $450. When he
produced the money for the purchase, the sales clerk advised
him to buy the coat at a nearby discount store. He thereupon
paid $250 for the coat at the recommended store. We shared his
bewilderment as to how American capitalism survives with such
benevolent employees.
Naturally, shopping requires dollars. Therefore, it is not
surprising that Soviet visitors eat many meals in their rooms,
often relying on food brought from the USSR. Many Soviets


Chapter 6

save every possible dollar of their daily living allowances for

gifts and souvenirs.
Soviet scientists coming to the United States dress in suits
and ties. Seldom do they carry less formal attire. Their suits are
remarkably resilient to all types of abuse, and they are not reluctant to wear the same suits on successive days to formal dinners
and to picnics. The only awkwardness associated with their consistent apparel is the self-imposed embarrassment of the American hosts who are concerned that both Soviets and Americans
arenot dressed in the same style.
Recently I attended a formal dinner at the Department of
State, where 200 Americans were dressed in tuxedos and evening gowns and the 25 Soviet guests were dressed in dark suits.
Two days later I was hiking through the Pennsylvania countryside dressed in sports clothes together with the 25 Soviets
wearing the same suits. They were totally relaxed on both occasions. Often the Soviets sense that their hosts are uncomfortable
over the mismatches in apparel, and they take off their ties and
jackets to appease their hosts.
Soviet scientists are well briefed on street crime in the United
States, a type of crime that is uncommon in the USSR. They
frequently are advised by colleagues in their institutes before
departing from Moscow not to leave their hotel rooms after dark
but to lock the doors and watch television. Elderly Soviet academic:ians often travel with younger colleagues, and frequently
Soviet scientists travel in groups of two or more. This practice is
due at least in part to concerns over physical abuse. There have
been a few cases of muggings of Soviet scientists in major cities in
the United States and Europe which have been used to support
the continuous reporting in the Soviet press over the decadence
of capitalism reflected in increasing crime rates. Also, from time
to time visiting Soviet scientists leave valuables in unlocked hotel
rooms or on park benches from where they quickly disappear.

Scientific Cooperation on the Rebound


For the first-time Soviet visitor to the United States, American reliance on the automobile makes a tremendous impact.
When under the wing of a sympathetic American colleague, the
Soviet scientist is mightily impressed with the advantages of
private transportation. When on his own in the United States,
the Soviet scientist is chagrined by the lack of well-developed
public transportation systems and the high cost of taxis.
As we noted in an earlier chapter, Soviet scientists usually
become instant celebrities when visiting small American towns.
The hospitality is almost always overpowering, and the photographers are at every stop. Even hard-line local politicians
begin to mellow in the euphoria surrounding the calls for peace
and friendship. The Soviet visitors handle these situations very
weil, saying little and acting dignified. Sensing that they are
being carefully scrutinized, they usually respond to questions in
a Straightforward and unassuming manner.
Perhaps the most candid reactions of Soviet scientists to
their American experiences are obtained a few years after they
return to the USSR. These delayed reactions are usually positive, with the most vivid recollections inevitably being linked to
personal encounters with American scientific colleagues or with
themanon the street. Also, I hear more comments about Disneyland in Moscow than in the United States.
During the visits to the United States, Soviets are simply
overloaded with new adventures and quite uncertain as to the
appropriate types of comments to make to newfound acquaintances. Why didn't the hotel clerk check my passport? Were
those statements on annual salaries inflated? Do those children
really know how to use the personal computers? They have
previously read many accounts of the American way of life.
Some of these accounts have undoubtedly been reinforced while
others belied. They simply need time to sort out what they have


Chapter 6

Time in the United States passes quickly. Now, chaos reigns

at the Aeroflot counters during departures of Aeroflot for Moscow from the New York or Washington airports. This confusion
must be a depressing experience, even for Soviet scientists who
are returning home.
Soviet passengers have some of the world's largest and
heaviest boxes and suitcases. I recently ordered two cars to
transport several Soviets to Dulles Airport near Washington,
only to find on arrival at their hotel that I had to pay $40 for an
additional station wagon to take their five oversized boxes full of
computers to the airport in addition to their luggage. In their
hands they had leather bags taped together and stuffed with
books, journals, and gifts which gave new meaning to the concept of carry-on luggage. At the airport, Soviet baggage clogs
any attempt to establish orderly lines at the Aeroflot counters.
Still, the Soviets assume that Aeroflot will not leave without
them. They have never been wrong regardless of the delays in
processing passengers.

In summary, both countries have very large pools of highly

trained specialists working in almost every field of science.
Many of their activities overlap; their approaches may be similar
or different; and their conclusions may be complementary or
contradictory. The scope of science is too vast and the resources
of science too limited not to encourage the broadest sharing of
ideas and experiences. While the practical problems of carrying
out cooperative programs are formidable, the rewards can be
substantial. 6


Trade, Cooperation, and the

No nationwas ever ruined by trade.
Benjamin Franklin

Why do Soviet weapon designers copy Western concepts? The

following Pentagon commentary wrestles with this question
and sets the tone for Western efforts to protect high technologies which could feed the next generation of Soviet weapons
In general, Soviet weapons have historically reflected a commitment to functional designs that can be easily manufactured
in labor-intensive factories and readily maintained in the field
with a minimum of technical skill. There has always been a
struggle between Soviet design simplicity and technical complexity. Soviet weapon designers have not had to face the
competitive pressures that drive Western designers to press
the state of the art.
Building on a mature research sector and on lessons learned
from past performances of weapons in battle, the Soviets


Chapter 7

are placing more of a premium on technically complex systems. Western system and equipment characteristics increasingly are used as yardsticks against which Soviet technical
capabilities are judged. Every major civilian or military project
is compared with the best Western technology before it is
approved for development. Once in development, Soviet standards mandate the comparison of the quality and technical
level of hardware, at different design stages, with foreign
With their access to many details of Western weapons and
dual-use equipment designs and concepts, Soviet designers
are, in effect, competing with Western designers. That competition, supported and encouraged by the Soviet leadership,
is probably pressuring the military research establishment to
pay increasing attention to technically complex systems.
Countervailing pressures for design simplicity are being applied by the manufacturing sector, which is less responsive in
adapting to technological change. All of these forces indicate
continuing Soviet programs to acquire Western military and
dual-use hardware and technical data. 1

Given the military technology competition between the two

countries, many American skeptics doubt that scientific cooperation with the USSR makes sense. Some historians contend that
Lenin prophesied that the Capitalist countries, in their zeal to
exploit commercial markets, would sell the USSR rope with
which the Soviets would in turn hang the Western Capitalists.
Updating this prediction, American opponents of cooperation
now ask, "Aren't we simply giving the Soviet Ministry of Defense a free ride by paying for research and development and
then letting them have the benefits?"
One of the many critics of scientific exchanges is Richard
Perle, a longtime congressional aide who subsequently became
an Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administra-

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


tion. In his public comments since he left the government in

1987, Perle has prided hirnself on having prevented the liberals
who had penetrated the Reagan administration from placing the
nation in jeopardy because of their naive efforts to promote
favorable relations with the USSR. His primary criticism of the
government has been concentrated in the area of arms control.
However, he also condemns those unenlightened former colleagues who "had no idea the Soviets were ripping off our technology so skillfully, so comprehensively, so effectively, right
under our noses." He has urged the US Congress to listen to
"the tooth fairy" rather than believe witnesses from the Reagan
administration who argued that the US Government does indeed consider the risks as well as the benefits of cooperation
with the USSR in science and technology. Perle has been very
successful in sowing doubt about the value of scientific exchanges. He emphasizes the potential risks in exchanges and
often ascribes technology losses to exchanges that in fact occurred through illegal diversions of trade in sensitive items.
Perle's message has been very simple: We must remain
technologically superior to the USSR in militarily critical areas to
deter their expansionist ambitions. Others who share his views
then argue that many fields of science and technology will eventually have military applications; therefore, militarily critical
technologies should be very broadly defined to include even
those areas of basic science which within 10 to 20 years could
possibly spawn military applications. The argument concludes
that the Soviets should be denied access to such research now to
ensure protection of our technology later.
The Soviets will spare no effort to obtain our technology
since they have little capability to develop their own; thus,
science and technology exchanges are an important avenue
for Soviet efforts to obtain important information, according
to Perle. Administrators of American exchange programs are

Chapter 7


repeatedly duped, he contends; and he notes that they

simply don't understand that Soviet participants in exchanges
are really intelligence agents in disguise, that within the USSR
there are shadow laboratories that American exchange participants never see, and that the Soviets have little to offer
This position attracts considerable support in the US Congress and throughout the country. Even "liberals" do not want
to appear soft on communism, and technology transfer is an
easy target for Soviet bashing. Indeed, Perle' s position reflects
stereotypes of the past; it contains sufficient truth and is reinforced from time to time by incidents of Soviet efforts to steal
Western technology that few politicians have the inclination to
explore the issues beyond his sweeping conclusions. 2




A plethora of US Government documents and many public

pronouncements are designed to support the government's denial of Soviet access to many aspects of American science and
technology. The Department of Defense has issued unclassified
documents and then translated them into several languages to
warn about the nefarious activities of the Soviet intelligence services in acquiring Western technologies for their military forces.
The Pentagon has focused on American universities as weil as
industrial facilities as points of leakage of important information, and particularly those universities which have been
awarded contracts and grants to work on SDI projects.
The FBI has enthusiastically supported the calls by the Pentagon for greater strictures on visiting Soviet scientists. For example, in 1988 the FBI released abrief report warning how the
Soviets were exploiting American libraries. Librarians were
asked to keep lists of visitors with foreign names and foreign

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


accents which could be used to identify Soviet agents. While the

FBI elicited the cooperation of some librarians, many strongly
objected to this tactic and voiced their complaints during television interviews. The FBI accusations were very generaland cited
only one specific case of a Soviet diplomat systematically microfilming undassified library documents and stealing some of the
More convincing evidence of Soviet intentions does exist. In
the early 1980s, French intelligence sources obtained a dassified
Soviet document which describes the efforts of Soviet intelligence agencies to exploit Western technologies in the field of
aeronautics. This authentic documentation leaves little doubt
that the Soviet "collection" program, at least in the field of aeronautics, was extensive at that time. The effort relied on legal and
illegal means, open and dandestine approaches, and Soviet and
foreign agents to obtain information. The program targeted industries and universities, institutions and individuals, and
dassified and undassified projects in the United States and
Western Europe.4
According to Pentagon analyses, exploitation of Western technology, and particularly American technology obtained through
illegal trade diversions, has saved the countries of the Warsaw
Pact billions of dollars, reduced the time required for developing
their weapons systems, enhanced their defense industrial productivity, and allowed them to respond more promptly to Western weapons systems and military tactics. Such tactics have
forced the United States to make additional financial expenditures in a.-i"esponse to enhanced Soviet capabilities. These same
analyses underscore that the Iosses would have been far larger
had not the American defense community been sensitive to the
Soviet activities and taken appropriate countermeasures. 5
An American intelligence condusion which has been widely quoted by the Pentagon is:


Chapter 7

The acquisition of Western technology and finished products

is a very calculated procedure done with a great deal of selectivityo Even so, Soviet economists are amazed that the West
does not recognize thiso They consider this acquisition program one of the USSR's greatest achievements since it allows
the solving of complicated problems with minimal costso 6
These types of conclusions are buttressed by CIA commentaries such as the following:
In the development of microelectronics, the Soviets would
have been incapable of achieving their present technicallevel
without the acquisition of Western technologyo 0 0 0 Their
advance comes as a result of over 10 years of successful
acquisition-through illegal, including clandestine, meansof hundreds of pieces of Western microelectronic equipment
worth hundreds of millions of dollars to equip their militaryrelated manufacturing facilitieso These acquisitions have permitted the Soviets to systematically build a modern microelectronics industry which will be the critical basis for enhancing the sophistication of future military systems for decadeso 7
As to further evidence, Soviet SS-13 missiles look strikingly
familiar to the designers of our Minuteman systemso Their Advanced Early Warning aircraft resemble our AWACS designso
Their SA-7 heat-seeking, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile contains features of the American Redeye missileo On the civilian
side, their shuttle has a NASA look, and the 11-76 aircraft incorporates many features found in the Boeing 7470 The Pentagon's.
favorite example of Soviet technology obtained through covert
collection is the Soviet's look-down shoot-down radar system,
which is patterned after the fire control radar of American F-18
jet fighterso Also of particular concern has been the improved
accuracy of Soviet land-based missiles, believed to have benefited from acquisition of Western gyroscopes, accelerometers,
and other guidance componentso 8

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


In recent years the American press has widely reported

Soviet attempts to obtain specific technical information and
hardware of military relevance from the United States. Many
popular media stories in California describe the Soviet technobandits riding unconstrained along the highways and byways of
Silicon Valley in search of the vulnerable Americans who have
expert knowledge of megachips of the future. These stories are
usually far less. worrisome, at least to Californians, than the
stories of Japanese efforts to obtain foreknowledge of the next
generation of American products which could be readily manufactured under Japanese Iabels. Economic competition affects
the people; military confrontation affects the politicians, conclude the residents of Silicon Valley.9
Espionage and other undercover approaches for acquiring
technology have become quite sophisticated. The traditional
revelation by the press of a simple plot for a Soviet diplomat to
receive an unmarked envelope at a Ietter drop from a collaborating American engineer has given way to intriguing literary essays on far more complicated technology transfer networks.
They involve multinational companies, transhipment of sensitive hardware in and out of distant free ports, and eventual
reproduction of engineering designs in the USSR.
The discovery in early 1988 by the US Government of the
sale to the USSR by Toshiba and other Japanese manufacturers
of advanced technologies for production of quieter Soviet submarines set off a firestorm in Washington. American politicians
immediately threatened trade sanctions and other retaliatory
measures against Japan. The incident compounded the growing
bitterness toward overall Japanese trade practices, which were
considered to be discriminatory toward the United States. However, the military significance of this transaction became confused as conflicting statements were issued by the Pentagon. On
the one hand, senior Pentagon officials stated publicly that the


Chapter 7

technology had previously been available to the Soviets. Yet, on

the other hand, other Pentagon officials were bemoaning the
billions of dollars that would be required to counter the advantage gained by the Soviets through the Toshiba purchase. 10
In short, there can be no denying that the Soviet Union has
targeted Western technologies as valuable ingredients for its
industrial and military modernization. Indeed, a central thrust
of Gorbachev's perestroika is outreach to the West for science
and technology, and the Soviet intelligence authorities simply
applaud and say, "We've anticipated yourbrilliant strategy. Just
turn us loose."
How serious is the technology loss? When the Japanese
steal our technology, the consequences soon become apparent.
Jobsare lost, and our balance of trade suffers. The international
economic competition is measured in dollars and cents and directly affects the well-being of our entire country.
When the Soviets steal our technology, the consequences
are far less obvious. Americans face no economic threat from the
USSR, at least not for the next several decades. Enhanced Soviet
military power through the improved performance characteristics of their armed forces is very difficult to place on a scale of
significance, particularly as arms control and unilateral restraint
become more important in the strategic relationship between
the two countries. However, American military planners will
continue to be greatly concerned over Soviet submarines that
run a little quieter, missiles that have greater accuracy, tanks
which have greater firepower, and radar sets that do not give
false identifications.
Despite the euphoria surrounding the four ReaganGorbachev summits, the United States and the USSR will be
political adversaries for some years into the future, with military

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


power used to support political positions. Within this framework of political reality, Soviet efforts to ensure that their military forces have the latest technologies take on considerable
meaning for the American public. A large fraction of our taxpayer dollars supports a defense budget based on the need to
keep ahead of the Soviets technologically. Quieter Soviet submarines mean greater expenditures to improve our antisubmarine warfare capability; improved Soviet radar capabilities
trigger new programs to enhance the stealth bomber; and better
accuracy of Soviet missiles translates into new techniques for
hardening our communication centers.
The significance of such military measures and countermeasures-given the large size and extensive capabilities of current
arsenals in the two countries-is largely a matter of judgment of
the political implications of improved military capabilities. In the
past this significance has been argued primarily in military terms
through complicated military seenarios that often divert attention from the importance of political will as the basis for military
aggression or restraint.
As we have seen, US determination to stay ahead of the
Soviets technologically, regardless of the cost, is clearly reflected
in SOl. Given the political commitment of 1983 to development
of an effective defensive shield, the US Government became
very sensitive about the transfer of any type of American technology or of any information about the details of SOl that might
contribute to Soviet capabilities to overwhelm such a system.
This position was an ironic about-face from Ronald Reagan' s
initial offer in 1983 to share SOl technology with the USSR.
Meanwhile, the Soviets will clearly develop the most effective and most sophisticated weapons systems that they can,
with or without assistance from Western technology. Is it better
for the Soviets tobe technologically dependent on the West than
for them to develop stronger indigenous capabilities? If they are


Chapter 7

dependent on the West for designs and hardware, won't they

always lag behind, and won't the Western powers have a good
basis for judging the directions of their weapons efforts? If,
however, they are developing their own capabilities, couldn't
they surprise the West with unexpected approaches?
Strong American critics of technology sharing call this. type
of thinking absurd, since they do not believe that the Soviets
would independently achieve breakthroughs unknown to the
West. They dismiss Soviet technological successes in space research andin fusion research as isolated events during an earlier
period of history. Now our high-technology industry will keep
us well ahead of the Soviets; and our strengthened intelligence
sources will prevent surprises, they argue.
How important are the cost savings that accrue to the USSR
through the use of Western technologies? These technologies
include highly specialized military technologies, dual-use technologies that could be used in either the military or civilian
sectors, and technologies that are used only in the civilian sector. By not having to reinvent products in areas in which the
United States has a decided lead, the Soviets should be able to
cut costs in both the military and civilian sectors by exploiting
American research and development.
Historically, the Soviets have never skimped on essential
military expenditures. During times of economic stringency,
they have achieved cost savings through limitations in civilian
areas, particularly in the consumer goods sector. While a relationship obviously exists between the overall health of the Soviet economy and the level of military expenditures, cost savings
from acquisition of technologies from abroad will not be the
decisive factor in determining the size of military budgets in the
The question should not simply be whether Western technologies contribute to cost savings for the Soviet military estab-

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


lishment. The Soviets have always retained a force level considered essential regardless of the financial pain. Thus, more
broadly, should blocking Gorbachev' s achievement of a more
prosperaus Soviet economy be a significant factor in determining whether American technology should be denied to the Soviets, recognizing that the !arger the economic pie, the more resources there will be for all sectors including the military sector?
This issue antedates Gorbachev by many years with the previous phraseology being, "Do we prefer a fat Russian bear to a
hungry Russian bear?" The question takes on particular relevance now since Gorbachev's survival, tagether with the survival of many political reforms in the USSR and recent Soviet
arms control initiatives, depends heavily on whether he succeeds in the economic arena.
During the next decade and probably well into the future,
international thievery of technology, and particularly technology which originated in the United States, will be of growing
concern among many segments of the American public. The
Soviets have many sophisticated approaches to obtaining technologies developed by their adversaries. Nonetheless, from
time to time they will undoubtedly continue tobe caught "redhanded" in their covert efforts. Soviet attempts to obtain embargoed items in violation of American laws will be a major impediment to developing mutual trust between the two countries,
with serious ramifications for improving relations on many
In short, the military and economic dimensions of the Soviet exploitation of our technology advances are important, but
the political dimension is much more significant.

The Soviets are not alone in seeking technologies developed

abroad. Organizations in every country, including the United


Chapter 7

States, are constantly looking for technologies developed

around the world which can be used to save time and money.
Nevertheless, contrasts abound in the American and Soviet approaches to the acquisition of foreign technology.
The American approach relies primarily on private firms.
Thousands of American companies have tentacles into many
countries to assess technological as weil as marketing developments in their fields of interest. These international linkages
expand each year and provide invaluable information into
promising trends worldwide. Mostmajor American firms have a
good grasp on the principal foreign activities of potential commercial interest.
For decades, the US Government has been trying to help
American companies capitalize on foreign technological developments. For example, the US Government, through the Department of Commerce, provides American companies just entering the international arena with Ieads on potential foreign
commercial partners, Ieads often identified with the help of
American embassies abroad.
Few American firms are motivated by the likelihood of finding useful technologies in the USSR or Eastern Europe. Rather,
the American companies interested in the region seek to use
American technologies as a bargaining tool to break into a large
undeveloped market or to gain access to raw materials. However, in the course of their international dealings, American
companies become keenly aware of many technological developments in these countries-even in countries as tightly controlled as East Germany and the USSR. Some of the information
they acquire may be of considerable interest to military authorities even though such findings are quite incidental to their
search for commercial opportunities.
While private companies possess most of our nation' s technological wherewithal, the US Government plays a central role

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


in determining requirements for military hardware. These performance requirements are developed within the context of intelligence estimates of the Soviet "military threat," and the US
intelligence agencies expend a great effort in acquiring information concerning that threat, including assessments of current
and future Soviet technological capabilities. Technical specifications for military hardware are then determined by the Pentagon. Finally, private companies play a critical role in designing
the approaches to meet the requirements, using their technological capabilities that could have originated anywhere in the
American intelligence agencies describe the centralized Soviet program to acquire foreign technology as massive. It involves large numbers of people and large sums of money dedicated exclusively to the task of "technology collection." The
combined efforts of American companies to draw on foreign
technological developments cannot be measured but is also
massive. Since American companies are an integral part of the
international technological community, they do not need to exert an extra effort to pursue the types of technological information for which the Soviets expend an enormous effort.
As a result of the contrasting approaches, the Soviet technology collection effort has high visibility in the West and particularly in the United States. The Soviet program is centralized, is
orchestrated by the government, and relies to a great extent on
the Soviet intelligence agencies. These agencies are also charged
with obtaining information on the military threat to the USSR.
The US approach generally separates these two functions, as
outlined above: our intelligence agencies assess the threat and
American private companies stay abreast of worldwide technologies tobe in a position to respond to the threat. Also, one of
the prime targets of the Soviet technology collection effort is the
United States, whereas, as we have noted, American companies


Chapter 7

have little interest in Soviet technology and concentrate their

overseas searches for technology in Western Europe and Japan.
The Soviets rely to a great extent on covert acquisition techniques, while the American companies engage in what we define as acceptable commercial practices. For example, Western
trade fairs are considered usual business undertakings, while
Soviet trade fairs have a very checkered record in mixing commercial and covert intelligence activities. In December 1988, I
attended a trade fair for advanced scientific laboratory equipment housed in three large pavilions in Moscow. The extensive
European and Japanese exhibits were quite sophisticated, particularly their computer software. The American exhibitions
were very modest. The Soviet research institutes presented an
impressive variety of their technical achievements. This fair
could be viewed as a Soviet effort to entice unwitting Western
business executives to bring to Moscow high-tech items which
might otherwise be subject to licensing or simply as a Soviet
effort, Western style, to sell and buy products. It may have been
a little bit of both.
The Soviet technology acquisition program can also be
viewed as an effort to compensate for the isolation of Soviet
specialists from Western colleagues and from the normal international flow of unclassified information. In particular, many
Soviet travelers abroad want to go to the copy machine with
almost every scientific document they see, lest they never see it
again. Of course this practice makes a very bad impression on
Western hosts regarding Soviet motives.

How does the Soviet technology collection process work? A

special commission within the Soviet Government plans the exploitation of international technologies, including American
technologies, with various ministries feeding requirements to

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


this commission. These requirements are collated and sorted

and then assigned to appropriate Soviet organizations for collection. This reliance on intermediary organizations to service the
researchers and engineers who are not directly tied into the
international flows of technical information is bound tobe highly inefficient. The sheer magnitude of the effort prevents collection of information carefully screened to satisfy the needs of
many individual scientists whether they be working in the military or civilian sector; an exception may be a requirement simply
to acquire hardware or blueprints. 11
Recent publications of our Department of Defense highlight
the role of the Academy of Seiences of the USSR itself as one of
the technology collection organizations of the Soviet Government.12 Indeed, these reports describe the Soviet Academy as
an intelligence agency, and Mr. Perle strongly criticizes the enthusiasm of American scientists interested in cooperative programs with the Academy. The Academy does play a prime role
in Gorbachev's outreach to the West. Though Soviet intelligence
agencies such as the KGB undoubtedly influence some of the
international activities of the Academy, this is a far cry from
describing the Academy as an intelligence agency. Relatively
few of the tens of thousands of scientists of the academy system
who meet with Western scientists come into the kind of contact
necessary to allow them an opportunity to participate in gathering intelligence information. While some scientists who participate in international activities may have assignments from the
intelligence agencies to collect material that is accessible, they
also usually have important scientific reasons for their involvement in international scientific contacts. When it comes down to
the realities, the activities of the Soviet Academy are overwhelmingly scientific and not as sinister as they have been portrayed.
Many departments and technical agencies of the US Government also have international programs which provide useful

Chapter 7


information to the American intelligence community, and indeed our government takes pride that the activities of various
government agencies are weil coordinated. Sometimes scientists
from our technical agencies may be alerted to specific types of
information of interest to the intelligence community, including
information concerning the cost of electricity, results of planetary missions, pollution problems, and many other activities far
removed from classified military programs. Surely the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of the Interior are
not intelligence agencies. While Soviet intelligence efforts may
not be equally benign, we should not be too quick to condemn
every Soviet scientific outreach as inspired by intelligence
The type of rhetoric used by Mr. Perle and others to paint a
foreboding picture of Soviet technology collection efforts is surely effective in deterring more cooperative efforts. Unfortunately,
it too often ignores the legitimate international interests of Soviet scientists and inhibits progress toward mutually beneficial

Despite the foregoing concerns, above-board scientific exchange programs between the two countries have been effectively carried out for more than 30 years. Initially, the USSR had
used these programs to help identify and enlist Western firms
that could provide the USSR with needed technologies. During
Soviet-American exchange negotiations throughout the 1960s,
Soviet officials were quite candid in expressing to me and to
other American officials their interests in acquiring Western
computer technologies, for example, through formally structured exchange programs. Specific exchanges in this and other
high-technology fields were negotiated as part of the overall

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


exchange packages. Some of the exchanges eventually led to

Soviet purchases of equipment and licenses.
In agreeing to these early exchanges in high-technology
fields, the US Government considered that brief exposures by
Soviet specialists to American achievements which were widely
reported in American technical journals would not jeopardize
our national security. For our part, we wanted to visit their
facilities since we had almost no authoritative information about
the state of Soviet developments. I remernher accompanying an
American delegation to a computer factory in Minsk in 1964,
where we saw hundreds of Soviet women squinting through
magnifying glasses as they assembled integrated circuits, a practice abandoned in the United States a few years earlier. Our
specialists from IBM and Bell Laboratories who participated in
the visit simply could not believe they were in the same country
that had launched Sputnik seven years earlier. This visit was
important in helping to put into perspective the "missile gap"
theory being propounded by the Soviets and the Washington
agencies. To catch up with the Soviets, US officials asserted,
they needed larger budgets.
During the 1960s, the Soviets probably had some success in
identifying important technologies during exchange visits, acquiring them commercially, and then incorporating them into
military systems. The Soviets frequently produce military systems on a tightly controlled customized basis in contrast to mass
production of civilian items, thereby easing adaptations from
abroad. However, the military systems of 20 years ago were
far less complex than today, and consequently integration of
Western and Soviet technologies was less complicated in
the past.
Exchange programs gradually lost most of their significance
as a channel for transfer of technologies needed in the Soviet
military or industrial efforts: easier and more direct routes to


Chapter 7

American technology developed. East-West commercial contacts now involve hundreds of organizations and firms in both
countries despite the small amount of trade. Joint SovietAmerican staffs are in place in Moscow and Washington with
the sole purpose of helping American firms and Soviet organizations expand their commercial relationships. These commercial
relationships involve substantial cooperation in science as well
as technology, and particularly in science that has applications
within the next decade. Similarly, the Soviet network for monitaring military research and development activities in the West
is well established-operating through diplomatic and clandestine channels. The periodic arrests of Soviet and American
participants in these activities provide ample evidence of the
aggressive nature of the network. Indeed, when it is revealed
that American military personnel with access to highly classified
activities in very sensitive fields have been passing hightechnology secrets to Moscow for a period of years, some of the
attention given to the possible loss of information through scientific cooperation becomes more difficult to understand.
Given US concerns over the outflow of technology to the
USSR, the United States currently emphasizes science rather
than technology in exchange programs and, for example, tries to
avoid any relations involving large computers. The Soviet appetite for exposure to American technology remains boundless,
and Soviet officials continue to state openly their interest in
using exchanges to gain access to US technology. Though they
are not happy with the US emphasis on science, they have reconciled themselves to the unwillingness of the United States to
cooperate in high-technology fields; and they have simply increased their reliance on other channels for collecting technological information.
An incisive review of US-USSR exchange programs carried
out by an independent panel of the National Academy of Sei-

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


ences in 1982 showed that even when technology was an essential component of exchanges, only a very small portion of the
flow of militarily relevant technology to the USSR could be
traced to exchange programs. 13 These conclusions remain valid
today as less and less of the contact between Soviet and American specialists is channeled through exchange programs. As
noted previously, there simply are many other more efficient
methods for the Soviets to obtain technical information.
If exchange programs are not primary channels for the flow
of militarily relevant technologies, why do the Soviet intelligence agencies, including the military agency, the GRU, continue to assign Soviet exchangees the task of searching out information for them? Inertia from collection efforts of the past? Any
speck of information is helpful? Looking for potential American
intelligence collaborators? To identify the existence of technologies which should be future targets for intelligence collection through other means? Probably all of these reasons.
The intelligence mind-set conveyed to agents abroad is, "If it
is free, grab whatever you can; and we'll sort it out when we receive it."
While the US Government is becoming increasingly preoccupied with the outflow of sensitive information through scientific exchange programs, despite the questionable importance of
these channels, the governments of Western Europe and Japan
apparently are less concerned. Frequently, the US Government
does not approve exchange visits to the United States for Soviet
scientists, unaware that very similar exchanges are going forward between research institutes in the USSR and laboratories
in other Westerncountries which have the same level of sophistication as the American laboratories. lndeed, Soviet access to
comparable scientific methodologies and information in other
countries is seldom considered in reviews in Washington of proposals for Soviet-American scientific exchanges.

Chapter 7


Let us now turn to how the United States has responded to

Soviet techno-banditry by restricting Soviet access to American
scientific and technological accomplishments. For more than
three decades the US Government and the governments of our
European allies have joined together to limit the flow of engineering products and designs of military significance from West
to East. Maintaining our technological edge will let us "fight
smart," notes the NATO leadership.
After World War II the United States controlled most modern military technology. Americans invented submarine detection systems, over-the-horizon radar, solid rocket propellants,
and many other technologies. Our diplomats usually dominated
discussions among Western govemments concerning the specific technological designs, components, and test equipment
which should be embargoed. The US position in safeguarding
our technological inventions has consistently been more protective than the positions of our allies. The United States, and not
they, shouldered the technological responsibility for the defense
of the Western alliance. Americans paid the costs of research,
and our government naturally has been possessive of the results
of these investments. It resists giving to Soviet military competitors new ideas which could require additional investments on
our side to counter their adaptations of our technologies.
However, in recent years scientific and technological advances in other countries have eroded US dominance as the
unique reservoir of many advanced Western military technologies. France, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and other
NATOcountries have made substantial technological contributions of military interest. In some areas they have simply caught
up to where we were some years ago, but even in these areas
their achievements have current military value. British sailors

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


certainly learned about the effectiveness of French missiles of

the 1970s mounted on Argentine aircraft during the recent Falklands war. In some areas such as the design and testing of
nuclear weapons, our allies are working near the cutting edge of
modern military science. Thus, the US Government now takes
their views on the specific details toward protecting Western
military technologies from exploitation by the USSR more
Western attitudes toward the flow of technology to the
USSR in nonmilitary areas have always been quite divergent,
with the West Europeans consistently being more interested in
East-West trade involving advanced technologies than the United States. The attitudes have changedas the Cold War heated
and cooled and as diplomatic, economic, and espionage incidents marred the bilateral relations of individual countries with
the USSR.
These differing views erupted when the West Europeans
decided to assist the Soviets construct a gas pipeline across the
western part of the USSR. The pipeline will eventually reach
Western Europe. US concerns over pipelines across the USSR
which could feed Bastern and Western Europe date to the early
1960s. Indeed, in 1965 I prepared a diplomatic report on the
state of pipeline construction across the western USSR using
information I had stumbled upon during casual conversation
with drunken Soviet army officers on a train from Moscow to
Lvov on the Polish border. The Soviet soldiers had become intrigued by an American who seemed to speak Russian with a
Latvian accent and who was conversant about the achievements
of the Soviet national basketball team.
The latest clash of Western policies marred the 1985 economic summit of Western heads of state in France. Despite former President Reagan's impassioned pleas, the Europeans ignored the American objections that technologies relevant to the


Chapter 7

construction and operation of the pipeline should be embargoed

by the West, and they concluded a variety of commercial arrangements with the USSR. Within about one year, the US Government changed its opposition; but it was too late for American
commercial interests to share in many of the economic benefits
of trade arrangements.
In recent years the issues surrounding the control of Western technologies have become increasingly complicated and
volatile as the lines between military and nonmilitary hightechnology products rapidly disappear. Diversion of civilian
technologies to military purposes is often frightfully easy. Also
complicating control has been the diffusion to all continents of
many technologies of interest. Ships from Soviet bloc countries
taking on large cargoes of electronic equipment in the harbors of
Singapore and Macao, and Hungarian trucks with Ioads of computers traveling from Vienna to Budapest have become common
Controls on technology originating in the United States
have sparked lively debates on Capitol Hili, where they have
been incorporated into several export controllaws administered
by the Departments of State, Commerce, Energy, and Defense
and by NASA. Each year as military systems become more complex, the laws become more complicated in their interpretation,
their administration, and their enforcement.14
The divisive issue, as we previously noted, is not the philo~
sophical question of whether we should deny Soviet access to
our military technology. We should. Rather the issue centers
on the criteria used in identifying those developments which
should be protected and the details of how they are to be protected. While the Department of Defense argues for embargoes
on the maximum number of items, the Department of Commerce urges reducing the embargo Iist lest American trade opportunities in the civilian sector be jeopardized. The White

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


House and the Department of State are swayed more easily by

twists and turns in our political relations with the Soviets: we
should punish them by embargoes in bad times and reward
them by easing embargoes in good times. Also, the State Department searches for compromises among Western allies whieh
balance risks and benefits while also taking into account political
realities and Ionger-term US interests.
During recent years the US list of embargoed items steadily
grew. The need to protect technologies related to nudear weapons, military armaments, and electronic detection deviees has
always been dear. But now the controllist covers items in many
commodity groups induding metal-working machinery, chemical and petroleum equipment, electrical and power generating
equipment, general industrial equipment, transportation equipment, electronies and precision instruments, metals and minerals, chemieals and petroleum products, and rubber and rubber
The enlarged staffs of the Pentagon, assigned the task of
identifying potentially worrisome technologies, began to take
control of the technology transfer discussions in Washington
and of discussions with European allies during the 1980s. Ameriean commercial interests reacted aggressively and began documenting Iosses of trade opportunities to competitors in Western
Europe and Japan in the billions of dollars each year as other
countries relied on much shorter lists of embargoed items.
Meanwhile, our diplomats tried their best to build a consensus
on individual items through the Coordinating Committee on
Export Control (COCOM) in Brussels, where the Western allies
and Japan develop common positions on embargoes.
Restrietions on the export of embargoed American products
to our allies became a particularly contentious issue in the 1980s
since these restrictions cut sharply into the sale of American
goods in Western Europe. Much of the problern was attributed


Chapter 7

to delays in processing export applications. Also, when an

American ships certain embargoed items to a customer in Western Europe, the customer may be required to provide documentation that the item will not be reexported to a Communist
country or to another country where further reexport could
lead to Moscow, Prague, or other East European cities. This
American requirement for reexport certification is not matched
by any other country, and it has jeopardized the quick response
capabilities of American firms in competing for trade opportunities.
An approach to export control advocated by several American study groups and increasingly supported by the US Congress calls for a greatly reduced list of embargoed items but
more aggressive efforts to seek international consistency in
ensuring the effectiveness of the embargoes. The embargoes
should be directed primarily to items which could significantly
enhance Soviet capabilities to manufacture military hardware,
with much less concern devoted to controlling individual end
products which have been manufactured in the West. New Soviet production capabilities in highly specialized areas pose a
much greater military threat than Soviet access to complicated
end products which require elaborate reverse engineering efforts to figure out how they were manufactured and then to
develop the manufacturing capability. 1s
A second approach which has received less attention would
call for protecting the "lead times" necessary to develop new
military systems. No system can be protected forever from acquisition by an adversary, and unclassified technologies cannot
be protected for very long. Rather than indefinitely protecting
specific technologies, which is often the current approach, the
United States might be better served by ensuring that lead times
of perhaps 10 years are maintained over the USSR in selected
high-technology fields. The strategy would be to concentrate on


Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits

controlling technologies developed during the past decade coupled with continuing research efforts on industrial improvements which will enable us to maintain our Iead. Of course, a
few older items might be of continuing concern, but the bulk of
the controlled items would be of recent vintage. Though older
systems can frequently pack a mean punch, once they have
been deployed for some time, effective control becomes increasingly difficult.

Restrietions on exports to the Soviet bloc of industrial design information, manufacturing equipment, manufactured
goods, and related technical know-how have historically been
the focus of efforts to control Western technology. Now, as reflected in the comments of Richard Perle, limitations on Soviet
access to scientific information as weil as to technology developed in the Westare of more intense interest within American
military circles than ever before.
The dilemma is vexing. As long as the Soviets are our military adversaries, shouldn't they be denied access to scientific
information which could eventually benefit their military effort?
But the freedom to publish and exchange information is a tradition as old as science itself and is one of the greatest strengths of
our scientific enterprise.
This dilemma is not easily resolved. In the age of high technology, many scientific developments precede applications by
only a few months or a few years. Most scientific information
could conceivably-over the long term-be of interest to military planners. Our military forces employ or enter into contracts
with specialists from every branch of science, and the Soviet
armed forces undoubtedly also draw on all branches of science.
On the other hand, the practicality of freely circulating scientific
information developed in the United States to scientists in some


Chapter 7

countries but withholding it from scientists in other countries is

questionable at best.
The financial argument again lurks in the background.
Some govemment officials have strong convictions that the
United States simply should not help the Soviets economically
as long as they pose amilitary threat. The United States should
not help reduce the cost of their scientific research by letting
them capitalize on American research results or by allowing
them to identify blind alleys that have already been explored by
American scientists, they contend. They add that applications of
scientific research usually have economic payoffs in addition to
any military payoff. While the technology transfer discussions
should be directed to military concems, the economic dimension must not be ignored.
Almost all American scientists accept the concept of classified information. Those scientists in the United States and in
other Westerncountries working on secret projects recognize a
need to Iimit distribution of information which they develop.
Restrietions on unclassified scientific information trigger intense
debates, since scientists depend on information developed by
colleagues araund the world and resist govemmental intrusion
that Iimits international contacts.
In the area of export control, the regulations are gradually
widening to include unclassified scientific information in certain
areas such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology as weil
as industrial information which has always been controlled.
Limitations on exports of computer software are expanding, and they increasingly impact on cooperation as computer programs become standard tools in many scientific disciplines. But software packages are so numerous and so versatile
that distinguishing those which could provide the Soviet military establishment with significant new capabilities is often

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


The Department of Defense has been placing more stringent limitations on unclassified information resulting from their
contracts and grants. This trend troubles some American researchers since the Department of Defense now controls a large
portion of federal support of basic research. For many unclassified programs sponsored by the Department of Defense,
such as the large unclassified SOl basic research program carried
out at about 60 American universities, the American researchers
must seek approval prior to releasing information developed
through their projects. As would be expected, such approval
has been withheld in some cases. While researchers usually prefer funding with strings to no funding, many strongly believe
that limiting the flow of unclassified information is unnecessary
and reduces opportunities for advancing science.
Restrietions on the activities of American scientists with
security clearances or on scientists working on governmentfunded projects have also created anxieties. The US Gqvernment sometimes prohibits their travel to Eastern Europe or restricts their participation in unclassified meetings in the United
States which involve contact with scientists from Soviet bloc
countries. The frequency of such limitations is of course important. But perhaps of even greater impact is the chiHing effect of
the approval procedures. Most scientists are not looking for hassles, particularly with the organizations which provide their
funds. Therefore, some prefer not to try to participate in programs that might require special approvals or could involve
questions concerning their judgment or their loyalty to the United States.
Since every Soviet scientist visiting the United States must
have an American entry visa, the US Government has a powerful tool for controlling scientific contacts in this country. The
archives of the Department of State bulge with hotly debated
decisions as to whether Soviet visitors to the United States will


Chapter 7

be exposed to American scientific achievements which can significantly improve Soviet military capabilities.
In general, the process of the US Government for reviewing
visa applications for scientific visitors from the USSR is reasonable. Upon receipt of a visa application from a Soviet scientist,
the Department of State seeks an advisory opinion from the
American intelligence community as to whether the visit will
result in unacceptable Iosses of scientific information which
could help the Soviet military effort. With this opinion in hand,
the department then decides whether a visa should be issued
and whether limitations on activities in the United States are
appropriate, also taking into account any political aspects of the
proposed visit.
However, in the development of the advisory opinion, the
technical resources of the Department of Defense often overwhelm the other intelligence agencies, and that department understandably takes very conservative positions. Even if Soviet
visitors will not have access to sensitive information, they will
be able to identify sensitive programs for subsequent Soviet
penetration by clandestine means, the department may argue.
On occasion other agencies might add: visitors will assess the
personal vulnerabilities of their American hosts, which can be
exploited when the American hosts travel abroad; they will record the serial numbers of scientific equipment which can then
be obtained illegally, or they will charm their hosts into talking
too much and revealing technical data in violation of export
Will visa decisions to deny Soviet participants in scientific
exchange programs access to unclassified activities really make a
difference in protecting the national security of the United
States? As previously discussed, the Soviets have many other
channels for obtaining sensitive information. However, given
the political volatility in Washington of the issue of protecting

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


American technology, the US Government vigorously pursues

visa control as a device for limiting Soviet access to American
science. In 1983 the US Government abandoned visa control
over visiting Chinese scientists and engineers as a means of
protecting American technology after the Department of State
reversed 65 negative intelligence advisories on political
grounds. But, the vision of the Soviet military threat is not as
easily dismissed.
Thus, stringent visa control for Soviet scientists visiting the
United States will remain. American critics of the value of scientific exchanges will continue to emphasize that many Soviet visits
to American universities and other research centers are fraught
with danger for our national security. At the same time, the
United States must strive to preserve the benefits of genuine
cooperation, and a balance must be reached between the promise
of international science and the perceptions of national security.
Therefore, criteria for determining the appropriateness of
restrictions on scientific exchanges seem essential. Such criteria
were developed in 1982 by the panel established by the National
Academy of Seiences at the request of several US Government
agencies to review the national security aspects of scientific communication, which was previously noted. The panel recommended that restrictions are warranted only if the scientific field
in question meets all four of the following criteria:
The technology is developing rapidly, and the time from
basic science to application is short.
The technologyhas identifiable, direct military applications.
Transfer of t~ technology would give the USSR a significant
near-term military benefit.
The United States is the only source of information about the
technology, or other nations that could also be the source
have control systems as secure as ours.t6


Chapter 7

Some Soviet proposals for scientific cooperation are probably designed to test the Iimits of US technology transfer policy,
and they fall within the area of concern to the panel. On the
other hand, the US Government has not followed the very
sound advice of the panel and has rejected many proposals of
Soviet and American institutions for cooperation in fields clearly
outside the area of concern to the panel. While there are difficulties in relating specific fields of interest to scientists in both
countries to the very generat criteria, greater efforts are needed
to use the criteria noted above in reviewing the technology
transfer aspects of proposed cooperative programs.
Obtaining research results, blueprints, or equipment incorporating foreign technologies is but the first step in a long and
complicated engineering task of effectively using the foreign
achievements. The Japanese are usually looked upon as the
masters of this task. But in many fields the ingenuity of American entrepreneurs in mating foreign technology with indigenous achievements is unsurpassed, and many products on the
American market reflect sophisticated integrations of American
and foreign technologies. Just examine the products on sale at
Radio Shack.
For the Soviets, however, the task of blending Western and
indigenous technologies is often insurmountable. In some cases
the Soviets have simply purchased turnkey plants and relied
totally on the Western approaches rather than attempting to
incorporate the foreign technology into their manufacturing.
Given the size of the task of upgrading their industrial base,
the Soviets must now draw primarily on their own capabilities.
Foreign achievements are not a substitute but can contribute to improving and refining the achievements of their own

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


For the Soviets, the problems of technology transfer are

manyfold. First, as mentioned before, Soviet engineers are usually divorced from international developments and frequently
can only guess where to look abroad for many details of interest.
They then must rely on Soviet intermediary organizations (e.g.,
Soviet inteiligence agencies or foreign trade organizations) with
limited technical perspectives to go out and interpret their needs
in the search for Western technologies. Second, having been
isolated from international developments, the Soviets have not
standardized many of their industrial approaches in accordance
with worldwide trends. Soviet organizations have difficulty in
maintaining an adequate store of supplies and spare parts to
carry out development and production using their own technologies, let alone foreign technologies.
Many American scientists are tinkerers. Once they have a
new idea, they adjust their experimental equipment and develop their data systems to try out the idea and to set the stage for
further use of the idea. Many American engineers are pragmatists; the test of a new design is not whether a new system can
be installed but whether the system operates as advertised over
a period of time. We call this type of concern follow-through
engineering. These traits of our scientists and our engineers
ease the transition from research to practice and create products
with integrity. These traits are in scarce supply in the USSR.
Technology transfer difficulties are often overcome in the
Soviet military sector through the brute force approach. Not
being excessively concerned with costs and usually having requirements for only limited production runs, Soviet military organizations have been able to assign many specialists and large
financial resources to big projects. In time, they figure out how
to use or reproduce the foreign technologies even if it means
handcrafting each product and spare part. Often they use only
certain aspects of the newly acquired technologies to upgrade

Chapter 7


their own approaches. In other cases when they rely totally on

copying the foreign achievements, they probably could have
developed comparable technology of their own with the investment of fewer resources. However, many Soviets, including Soviet design engineers, are skeptical about the quality of advanced technologies developed in the USSR in comparison with
similar technologies developed in the West.

With regard to science, the benefits to the Soviet military

effort of exposure of Soviet scientists to Western approaches will
not be short-term. As we have seen, the advancement of science
is largely an educational process: scientists learn from their own
activities and from the approaches and results of their colleagues.
The higher the quality of their colleagues and the more developed the research environment, the richer the learning experience. Individually and collectively, scientists apply this knowledge. New discoveries and ideas evolve and are then gradually
translated into useful products and services. These applications
are sometimes the result of highly orchestrated R & D activities
and sometimes the result of serendipity.
Scientific cooperation between the US and USSR contributes to the educational process for participants from both countries. Occasionally, the participating scientists see specific
achievements that have near-term relevance for the defense authorities in both countries. Such exposure could influence research priorities and methodologies which eventually benefit
military efforts. But the likelihood of near-term military payoff
in science is quite remote given the distance from the laboratory
to the factory.
During my tenure as the director of a US Government laboratory in the early 1980s, I led many attempts to transfer scientific techniques from our institution to others. For example, we


Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits

had developed standardized approaches for analyzing chemical

pollutants brought from the field into the laboratory, and we
were asked to transfer our techniques to other federal and state
laboratories so that there would be a uniform approach throughout the country. We had very advanced techniques, the other
laboratories needed them to comply with environmental regulations, and we were eager to facilitate the technology transfer.
However, the other laboratories were reluctant to give up the
techniques that they had used for many years. The personnel in
the other laboratories also required hands-on training to use the
new techniques, and some of the laboratories had different analytical equipment than our laboratory, which needed tobe modified for their use. The process of technology transfer to these
laboratories, which was one of our highest priorities, took many
months of intensive interactions. We worked intimately with
the specialists in the laboratories, prepared extensive documentation, and, not surprisingly, completed the project with high
Drawing from this one not unusual example, how can we
assume that casual Soviet visitors to American laboratories will
walk away able to transfer techniques they observe back to the
USSR? It may happen in rare cases, but we should not underestimate the difficulty of such a task. Scientific exchanges are an
educational experience and should be viewed as such rather
than as highly targeted technology transfer efforts with predictable results.

Looking ahead, our country has many methods for protecting American science and technology from exploitation by the
USSR. Security classification remains the principal means for
Safeguarding our most sensitive secrets. Export controllaws and
visa restrictions can be invoked when necessary. Limitations on


Chapter 7

US Government scientists and on recipients of government

grants and contracts and govemmental pressures on our companies and universities will undoubtedly be employed when
national security questions arise over proposed contacts
with Soviet specialists. Our intelligence agencies will continue
their vigilance to deter Soviet efforts to obtain our technology
But how effectively can we protect our scientific and technological achievements which are considered sensitive, but not
so sensitive as to warrant security classification? For how lang?
What will be the direct and indirect impacts on our own scientists of efforts to deny Soviet access to American discoveries?
How severe will be the side effects of our protection efforts in
inhibiting access to important information by our scientists and
by our friends abroad?
More fundamentally, how important is denial of Soviet access to our achievements in areas where they have relatively
uninhibited access to similar achievements in other countries?
How important is denial of Soviet access to advancements of the
1990s, when they are having enormaus problems-including
many problems unrelated to access to technology-in bringing
large sectors of their technological base up to our levels of the
These questions have been asked in the past. The US Govemment always tilts toward high levels of protectionism of our
science and technology on the grounds that we simply cannot
help feed the Soviet military machine. "If we have it and
the Soviets want it, it must be better than what they can find
elsewhere; and they must be able to use it," say the protectionists.
The US Govemment can protect some achievements for a
limited period of time, including some critical unclassified advances which offer considerable payoff for military systems as

Trade, Cooperation, and the Techno-Bandits


well as for commercial production. Control efforts should be

directed to a relatively small nurober of these achievements. The
United States should concentrate on preserving technological
lead times-lead times for producing new military systems and
components which could make a significant difference in the
military balance.17


Refuseniks, Dissidents, and

Scientific Exchanges
No abstract ideas or principles imposed on people
are worth the tears of a single child.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky

During the fall of 1988, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze stated at a meeting of UNESCO, "The first commandment of our perestroika is the fundamental value of a human
being, his life and dignity, and his social development." 1 No
Ionger can Americans simply dismiss such words as meaningless rhetoric. The changes within the USSR in the field of human
rights are profound. They have exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of many human rights activists. By every measure, Soviet citizens enjoyed more freedom during 1988 than at
any time since the ascendancy of Stalin more than 60 years ago.
These changes are particularly important to the scientific communities throughout the world.
During the past decade a number of prominent American
scientists have led the international calls for changes in the Sovi231


Chapter 8

et political system which has denied Soviet citizens many basic

human rights taken for granted in the West. Some of these
American advocates of change are quite influential within
American scientific organizations that carry out programs of Cooperation with Soviet institutions. They have urged their colleagues to link American willingness to cooperate with Soviet
scientific institutions with Soviet performance in the area of human rights.
Most of the concern within the American scientific community can be traced to the plight of a number of Soviet scientists who have been imprisoned for political reasons
(often called dissidents) or who have been refused the opportunity to emigrate (the refuseniks). The US Congress
and the Executive Branch also share this concern. During each
of the four Reagan-Gorbachev summits, discussions of refusenik and dissident scientists were high on the agenda; and a
principal theme of Reagan's visit to Moscow in 1988 was human
In the last several years, dramatic changes in official Soviet
palides have finally prompted the release of well-known Soviet
dissidents and refuseniks. Also, in the spirit of glasnost, public
denunciation of acts of terror and oppression of earlier years has
been published in the Soviet press and depicted in popular films
recently released throughout the country. While the KGB still
retains a strong hand in setting the Iimits to protest and demonstrations, the changes in the candor of the political pronouncements and in the handling of many individual human rights
cases cannot be denied.
In May 1988 the Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, composed of US senators and congressman, which
includes in its mandate the monitaring of human rights performance in the USSR, catalogued Gorbachev' s record in this field
during 1985-1987 as follows:

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


The release (based on written pledges not to engage in further "illegal" activities) of 383 known political prisoners-329
of them freed in 1987-including such renowned activists,
allowed or forced to emigrate, as Anatoly Sharansky, Yuri
Orlov, Anatoly Koryagin, and Josif Begun.
The return to Moscow of Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov
after nearly six years of exile in Gorkiy.
The release of 83 individuals-64 of them in 1987-who had
been held in psychiatric hospitals because of their political
views and activities.
Tolerance of sizable public demonstrations by aggrieved
minorities-Jews and Crimean Tartars-and aroused nationalities in the Baltic States and Armenia.
New latitude-to build churches, enroll seminarians, and
import or print Bibles-for religious faiths willing to accept
official oversight of their activities; and
A sharp increase-from very low levels-in the numbers of
Jews, Armenians, and Germans permitted to emigrate andin
the permissions granted Soviet citizens to visit family members in the United States.
The report also noted:
The 400-1000 citizens still held in prisons and camps for acts
of political conscience.
The 95-150 people being subjected to psychiatric treatment
because of their dissenting views.
The forced emigration of Baltic activists and the resurgence of
anti-Semitism in the guise of Russian nationalism.
The restrictions being imposed not to control, but to preclude, public protests, including a show of military force in
The continuing refusal to allow religious believers and clergy
to proselytize-even through Sunday schools.

Chapter 8


The monopoly of mass media by the govemment and the

lack of access by the general public to the foreign press.
The continuing attacks in the Soviet press on independent
political movements such as the independent peace groups.
The remaining, major obstacles to emigration and travelincluding the hardships those barriers work on tens of thousands of still divided families.
The absence of either legal guarantees or an independent
judiciary able to insure justice for Soviet citizens who not
only "know" their rights but seek to "act upon" them. 2
By the fall of 1988, emigration levels had increased dramatically, averaging over 3000 Germans, 1200 Jews, and 1000 Armenians per month-increases of five- to tenfold over the previous
several years. The number of political prisoners in psychiatric
confinement was believed to have dropped to fewer than 100,
continuing a steady downward trend. Of the 11,000 refuseniks
whom Reagan had identified for Gorbachev at Reykjavik in
1986, between 8000 to 10,000 had left the country. 3

Viewing Soviet activities in the area of human rights

through Western eyes can be very misleading. Individual rights
in communist societies differ markedly from rights in democratic societies. Changes in the obligations and responsibilities of
the individual in the USSR will not come easily and may affect
only a handful of people at the beginning. Yet the breezes of
change have tumed into strong winds. Glasnost has let the genie of freedom out of its opaque bottle of the past: the flag of the
former independent state of Lithuania was hoisted over the
capital of the Soviet republic; Gorbachev admitted to the leaders
of the Orthodox Church mistakes of the past and promised a

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


new church-state relationship; and the criminal code will drop

the death penalty for economic crimes.
Pronouncements are being made about the rights of the
individual at alllevels of Soviet society. Same entreaties to work
harder and enjoy the rewards of individual efforts are familiar
refrains and fall on numbed ears of Soviet workers. New calls
for broader participation in the political and economic decisions
of the country have somewhat greater attraction. Still other appeals for the bureaucracy and the KGB to move off the front row
as the watchdogs of the welfare of the people are applauded but
swallowed with a grain of salt.
The response of American scientific institutions to changes
in the USSR in the field of human rights is important. From the
perspective of the refuseniks, these institutions are a source of
strength and hope. At the same time, a few Soviet scientific
Ieaders are now in the forefront in pressing for change, for they
realize better than anyone eise the importance of acceptance of
the USSR at the international tables of science. These Ieaders of
Soviet science who seek a Soviet state more sensitive to the
individual need reinforcement for their efforts from the West.
The continuing criticism of them by Americans who want more
immediate and more drastic changes needs to be balanced with
recognition for the progress in resolving cases of Soviet scientists who have been denied basic human rights.

Many books analyze the Soviet constitution and its references to human rights, including the rights to an education, to a
job, to housing, to a pension, and to health care. Until recently,
American authors had ridiculed the references to freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Now
Soviet journalists have taken the Iead in underscoring that guaranteed civilliberties include the right to enjoy freedom of seien-


Chapter 8

tific, technical, and artistic work; the right to take part in the
management of state and public affairs; and the right to associate in public organizations.
These rights are circumscribed in the constitution with such
phrases as "in accordance with the interest of the people," "in
accordance with the aims of building communism," and "not be
to the detriment of the interests of society." Such provisos have
frequently been invoked to provide a legal basis for denials of
rights. Most importantly, the Communist party is the sole arbiter of significant disagreements over conflicts between the interests of individuals and the interests of the state. 4
Nevertheless, the presence of concepts of human rights in
the constitution and in other legal documents help Soviet reformers find historical roots to justify positions considered to be
extreme. In the past a number of the more highly publicized
human rights cases were handled without the due process
called for in the constitution and in Soviet laws and regulations.
In recent years, and particularly now, Soviet authorities have
tried to avoid routine perversion of judicial procedures.
The USSR is a signatory of the 1974 Helsinki Accords,
which is usually referred to as the human rights treaty. They also
participate in the continuing international effort to monitor compliance with this international treaty. The Accords have special
provisions on fundamental freedoms and on human contacts,
including reunification of families separated by political
The Accords have provisions on many other aspects of international relations as weiL Indeed, the Soviet motivation for
signing the agreement probably had little to do with human
rights. Rather, the USSR is very sensitive about challenges to the
legitimacy of its restructuring of international borders following
World War II, and particularly the redrawing of the borders
between Poland and East Germany and between Poland and the

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


USSR. Thus, the Soviets value highly the provisions of the Accords calling for the sanctity of national boundaries which they
view as supporting the de facto situation in Central Europe. Their
signing of the Accords has been interpreted in the West as a
willingness on their part to make concessions on human rights
in exchange for concessions on the sanctity of boundaries. In
addressing its obligations under the Helsinki Accords, the Soviet approach to the provisions on human rights had traditionally
been quite defensive. Now they have shifted to the offensive.
They _expound the humanitarian nature of glasnost and perestroika at every opportunity and confess many sins of the past.
The numerous provisions of the Accords are dustered in
"baskets" during international debates on compliance with the
agreement. While the United States champions the agreement's
human rights provisions, it is given pause by other provisions.
For example, a section of the Accords is directed to facilitating
scientific exchanges in a variety of fields, including the militarily
sensitive field of computer technology. Another section includes
discussion of cooperation in industrial technologies which are
often subject to American export controls. The USSR obviously
finds these sections more attractive than the human rights provisions which challenge traditional practices of communism.
Westernanger over human rights abuses in the USSR has
attracted the attention of the highest levels of the Soviet leadership for the past several years. Gorbachev and others have convinced themselves that the situation in the USSR is not nearly as
bad as portrayed in the West, that it is improving, and that
greater Western scrutiny can do no harm and indeed may be
useful in modifying Western stereotypes of Soviet behavior. After several years of Soviet urging, the United States joined other
countries in supporting a major intergovernmental conference
on human rights in the USSR scheduled for 1991, although some
US officials remain wary that participants will only see carefully


Chapter 8

staged glimpses of the reallife in the country. However, in the

age of glasnost, suppressing expressions of feelings by Soviet
citizens will be difficult.
During the 1988 Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Moscow,
Reagan used almost every public and private occasion to raise
the issue of abuse of human rights in the USSR. He was neither
subtle nor indirect as he criticized both general policies and
handling of individual cases. His speeches and the associated
functions in Moscow were welcomed by dissidents, refuseniks,
and a small segment of the Soviet intellectual community. This
probably angered Soviet officials, but dearly it conveyed his
personal concem on these issues and the priority he attached to
human rights in Soviet-American relations. He made headlines
around the world.
Yet, the general impact on the Soviet public of Reagan' s
statements was very limited. The public remernbered what the
Soviet Government wanted it to remernher about the summit,
namely, the condusion of the arms control agreement to eliminate intermediate range missiles. With regard to human rights,
many Soviets readily accepted the views on the visit put forth in
the Soviet press: Reagan's political statements had little to do
with reality; he was both misguided and rude; the United States
should clean up its own act toward blacks and American Indians
before preaching to the USSR on the rights of Soviet citizens .
Let me retum to my personal experiences to help document
an important chapter of Soviet history. Prior to 1988 I had always heard that scientific seminars organized by refuseniks in
Moscow were small, discreet affairs devoted to discussions of
relatively narrow scientific topics. Their primary purpose was to
provide an opportunity for scientific interactions among Soviet
scientists who had lost their research positions when they de-

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


clared their intentions to emigrate and applied for exit visas.

Through these seminars held in private apartments, they could
discuss their research interests with professional colleagues who
were similarly isolated from the mainstream of seience in the
USSR. Western seientists were especially welcomed as partieipants in the seminars since they brought news and results from
the international world of seience. The seminars characteristically ended with many requests for the Western guests to carry
messages of greetings and desperation back to acquaintances in
the United States and Western Europe.
The seminar I attended in January 1988 was a different type
of affair. By that time the active refusenik community in Moscow had dwindled to a few hundred; the Soviets had relaxed
emigration restrictions. These remaining refuseniks were putting more of their energies into trying to leave the country rather
than into maintaining a high Ievel of seientific discussion, as had
been the case in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the likelihood
of leaving was very low. American visitors had become a common sight at seminars, and discretion had become far less important as the KGB adopted a more tolerant attitude toward the
seminars. Direct telephone conversations between refuseniks
and friends in the United States had become commonplace: the
status of many refusenik cases was weil known in the United
States on a day-to-day basis, and the need for visiting Americans to report on the condition of the refuseniks to their relatives
and friends in the United States had diminished.
On one Sunday I telephoned from our Moscow hotel to the
coordinator of the seminars for the Moscow refusenik community and requested that he organize a "seminar" for three representatives of the US National Academy of Seiences for the following Saturday evening, noting that a similar meeting had
been held three years earlier. I explained that we were having
discussions with the Ieaders of the Academy of Seiences of the


Chapter 8

USSR and that we were concerned over the situation faced by

refuseniks. This request hit a very responsive chord. The coordinator immediately agreed to "work us in" between a visiting
delegation of US senators and some British visitors.
On Saturday evening we rendezvoused with our host and
proceeded to a small apartment jammed with about 50 refusenik
scientists. Almost all of them were Jewish. Three places were
reserved for us at a small table, but we had to step over two
camera crews and several reporters from the Western press
corps to make our way to the table. The presence of the Western
media underscored the importance to the refuseniks of Western
support of their emigration efforts.
The refuseniks had two messages for us. We should use our
leverage in discussing cooperation with Soviet science officials
to help the refusenik scientists and their families receive permission to emigrate. Indeed, in the absence of formal commitments
by the Soviet authorities to take concrete steps in this regard, we
should not agree to cooperative scientific ventures. Second, we
should insist that the Soviet scientific authorities redefine "state
secrets." The official reason for denying most emigration requests by scientists was Soviet concern that state security would
be undermined should those scientists who had had access to
state secrets be allowed to travel to the West. Astate secret was
being defined so broadly that it appeared that almost any scientist could be precluded from emigration.
At that time, Western emigre groups estimated that hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens were trying to emigrate;
the refuseniks agreed with official Soviet statements that these
estimates were greatly exaggerated. The refuseniks estimated
that approximately 10,000 would leave immediately if given the
opportunity; however, their estimate turned outtobe low, since
within the next year the number of Jewish departees alone exceeded 20,000. Of course this number was far less than the more

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


than 200,000 Soviets who were allowed to em.igrate in the 1970s.

The refuseniks also confirmed official Soviet statements that
only several hundred refuseniks had up-to-date and active applications for emigration currently in various stages of the Soviet
administrative review mechanism. They underscored that many
more were eager to leave; some had been turned down in the
past, and these unsuccessful applicants considered another updating of their applications a waste of time. Others did not want
to risk losing their jobs by declaring their emigration intentions.
In the days that followed, our delegation had many private
discussions with the leaders of the Academy of Seiences of the
USSR concerning the refuseniks, and particularly those refuseniks who had previously served on the scientific staffs of the
institutes of the academy. We did not directly link specific cooperative projects with Soviet decisions on refusenik cases. However, our Soviet colleagues clearly understood that our attitude
toward scientific cooperation was significantly influenced by Soviet progress in the field of human rights, including fair resolution of refusenik cases.
With remarkable candor, the president of the Soviet Academy told the Soviet and Western press following our formal
meetings that he was determined to resolve those human rights
cases involving former Academy employees as quickly as possible. For the first time, a senior Soviet official publicly acknowledged that the USSR had made many mistakes in handling such
cases in the past. He noted that greater recognition of the rights
of individuals was consistent with the new policies of Gorbachev. We were witnessing the first crack in the Soviet historical stonewalling on this issue. Within a few months such statements had become commonplace among Soviet officials. Later
during our visit, the Academy president's close associates confided to us that they would like to see all the refuseniks given
permission to leave. In their view, the refuseniks were not con-


Chapter 8

tributing to science; and the debating of their cases was simply

diverting the time of many important Soviet scientific leaders
away from science.
The Academy of Seiences is but one of the Soviet institutions involved in reviewing refusenik cases. The Ministry of the
Interior (which is the home of the KGB), the Ministry of Justice,
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs usually have far stronger
voices in the deliberations. Also, the Academy's official involvement is limited to those cases of former employees. During a
visit to the United States in late 1988 a senior official of the Soviet
Academy reported that only eight cases of denials of emigration
for former employees remained. He stated that all of these cases
were based on access to state secrets many years ago, and he
was confident that some of the cases would be resolved in favor
of the refuseniks. When presented with a list of more than 150
refusenik denials by a group of American scientists in New
York, he argued that the Soviet Academy simply had no sway in
most of these cases since the refuseniks were not former
lt is difficult to believe that so many refuseniks had access to
such sensitive information at some time during their careers that
they were still considered security risks. However, in the USSR,
state secrets have always extended far beyond the military security definitions used in the West. Information concerning diplomacy, economic affairs, and industry has traditionally been
tightly controlled in the USSR, and these controls continue to
restriet information which may be two or three decades old. The
Soviet authorities have often been as much concerned about not
exposing Soviet weaknesses and shortcomings as they have been
about revealing information concerning advanced capabilities.
Now, the rewriting of the events of the Stalin, Khrushchev,
and Brezhnev eras by Soviet historians is adding further confusion to the past concepts of state secrets. For example, the Soviet

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


Ieaders probably ask whether the Soviet role in espionage in the

United States following World War II should be unveiled, including those communist activities which were the target of the
McCarthy hearings of the early 1950s. Should the early agreements between the USSR and China which led to the development of Chinese nuclear weapons be critiqued? Fragments of
these and other intriguing stories of the past are in the heads of
many Soviet citizens who have a mind-set dominated by state
secrecy. If, as suggested by Soviet officials, the Soviet Government defines state secrets to exclude information older
than 10 to 15 years, we may have the opportunity to gain fascinating historical insights that have eluded the West for many
years. 6

The misuse of psychiatry for political purposes has been a

particularly repugnant aspect of many authoritarian regimes,
and psychiatric abuse has a lang history in the USSR. During the
Stalin era, !arge numbers of Soviets who were arrested on many
charges feigned mental illness, preferring confinement in mental institutions to likely death in the gulags. Khrushchev then
released millians who had been sent to the concentration camps
for criminal and for political activities, and he repeatedly
claimed that no Ionger were there political prisoners in the
USSR. As is weil known, psychiatric institutions were thereupon widely used for confinement of political dissidents.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of these institutions
increased significantly as confinement could be ordered by individual Soviet doctors without the opportunity for judicial review
of such orders.
My insights in this area have come primarily through the
reports of former inmates of Soviet mental institutions as published in the Western press over the years. However, my one


Chapter 8

exposure to a Moscow psychiatric ward in 1965 left me with

great apprehension concerning the ease of manipulating psychiatric care for political purposes. While serving at the US Embassy in Moscow, I visited an American scientist who was temporarily confined to a psychiatric hospital which was often
described as more of a jail than a hospital. As I sat in the main
hall of the facility waiting for him, dozens of inmates dressed in
gray pajamas and carrying soup bowls walked aimlessly past
me, just as in the popularized films which have been shown
over the years. They all seemed tobe in a daze, and I could not
help but wonder just why they were there.
The stories of political prisoners being subjected to psychiatric abuse in the USSR fill many novels and history books and
reflect the most brutal aspects of the communist system. Convoluted Soviet psychiatric theories such as "sluggish schizophrenia" to justify unorthodox and reprehensible practices have
been the subject of international ridicule. 7 International psychiatric associations have repeatedly condemned Soviet practices
and have not recognized Soviet specialists as legitimate members of the international scientific establishment. Specifically, in
1977 the World Psychiatrie Association adopted a resolution
aimed at unacceptable Soviet practices; andin 1983 when faced
with certain expulsion from the Association, the Soviet AllUnion Scientific Society of Neuropathologists and Psychiatrists
withdrew from membership.s
Glasnost has focused a spatlight on abuses of psychiatry
within the USSR. In recent months many articles in the Soviet
press have criticized the mismanagement, brutality, and Iack of
professionalism of the mental institutions. Psychiatrists have
been accused of placing troublesome relatives in institutions.
Indeed the whole subject of corruption within the psychiatric
establishment has been a lively topic for the media. 9 Still, the
Soviet Government is reluctant to acknowledge that in the past

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


psychiatry was used for political purposes, an acknowledgment

being demanded by some Western sdentists prior to acceptance
of Soviet organizations as legitimate members of the international sdentific community.
Meanwhile, there has been a steady stream of political dissidents being released from Soviet institutions to emigrate to the
Westor to resume life with their families. Some of thesebring
with them firsthand experiences with psychological and chemical measures used to quell their spirits and to modify their attitudes. Others bring secondhand stories of what has happened
in mental institutions over the years.
During 1988, a new law was passed to protect dtizens from
arbitrary commitment to Soviet hospitals, indicating a recognition on the part of the Soviet leadership that no Soviet institution is beyond external scrutiny. While the implementing
regulations are still being drafted, two important steps are to
be taken. First, relatives of committed patients will have the
right to appeal the decisions of doctors. Second, the institutions for the criminally insane will be transferred from the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Health.
Is this really a handoff from the police to legitimate doctors? Let
us hope so.

For many years the United States Government has attempted to apply pressure on the Soviets to change their ways
in the field of human rights. Our government has tied trade
palides to Soviet restrictions on emigration and has initiated
and cancelled cooperative sdentific programs in response to political repression of Soviet activists. American scholars disagree,
however, as to whether these palides have had a significant


Chapter 8

impact in forcing the Soviet Union to liberalize its policies toward repression and emigration.
With regard to trade, the Jackson-Vanik legislation of the
mid-1970s links our trade policies very directly to emigration
policies of the USSR and Eastern Europe. As to the effect on the
USSR, a persuasive article in the 1986 winter issue of Foreign
Affairs argues that the pressure has not worked, since Jewish
emigration rates from the USSR dropped significantly immediately after the legislation was passed. The Soviets clearly tightened emigration policies, most likely in response to this American policy which they considered flagrant interference in their
internal affairs. In the late 1970s, emigration rates increased
as prospects for arms control improved. Soviet officials then
sought a waiver of Jackson-Vanik, only tobe rebuffed as different views developed between the president and Congress. Emigration rates thereupon again fell. While our law was intended
to help potential emigrants, it probably hurt them, at least in the
short run. 10
As previously noted, the Soviets are interested in expanding trade with the United States; but they have many options in
seeking other trade partners. Trade between our two countries
is currently only several percent of overall Soviet trade. Thus, in
the case of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, the trade incentive for
liberalization of emigration policies is not sufficient to offset the
international and domestic embarrassment to the USSR of appearing to knuckle under to American attempts to dictate its
internal policy.
Supporters ofJackson-Vanik will not concede that the legislation may have been counterproductive by delaying emigration while opening trade doors for others. Regardless of the
impact of the law, these supporters are very pleased to have
it on the books, since they can identify with a very visible effort designed to help oppressed populations in the USSR. They

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


believe strongly that the law is a political staternent which is

irnportant for the world to hear. The rnoral tone of their argurnents often drowns out logic within the Washington political
rnilieu, and it is likely that the legislation will rernain in place for
the foreseeable future.
Jirnrny Carter considered hirnself the first human rights
president, and he took his carnpaign into the international arena
with vigor. Specialofficesand prograrns were set up within the
Departrnent of State and throughout the world. Human rights
officers were positioned in the US Ernbassy in Moscow to keep
in touch with politically disenfranchised Soviet citizens and to
report on Soviet violations of international norrns. Soviet scientists have been arnong the rnost irnportant contacts for these
human rights officers.
Ronald Reagan did not hesitate to continue the efforts of his
predecessor, with particular attention riveted on exposing the
indignities of the "evil ernpire." Reagan was known for his concern over the plight of individuals, and he was ernotionally
rnoved rnany tirnes by the reports brought to his attention of
highly personalized exarnples of Soviet oppression. He strongly
supported the efforts of the Departrnent of State to ensure that
all irnportant discussions with the USSR included a heavy ernphasis on human rights. Thus, there was an irnplicit if not explicit linkage of all Arnerican policies, including policies on scientific exchanges, with Soviet perforrnance in the field of human
On several occasions I rnet with senior White House advisors
to forrner President Reagan to present the case for greater attention to the opportunities for the United States to benefit frorn
scientific cooperation with the USSR. Each time I received the
sarne rnessage. After the Soviets released sorne of the key dissident scientists, the White House aides would support rny views
during the adrninistration's discussions of scientific cooperation.


Chapter 8

Private American institutions conducting exchange programs have widely varying views on whether to link human
rights and scientific exchanges. Most exchange organizations
are not interested in becoming involved in the human rights
debates which inevitably complicate the administration of exchanges. At the other extreme, during the 1980s, some American scientists called for a total suspension of bilateral scientific
interactions pending resolution of a number of human rights
cases of Soviet scientists.
In 1980 the National Academy of Sciences, in response to
the exile to Gorkiy of Foreign Associate Member Andrei
Sakharov and to growing concerns over Soviet actions in
Afghanistan, suspended its program of bilateral workshops
with the Soviet Academy of Seiences and did not negotiate a
new interacademy exchange agreement when the existing one
lapsed later in the year. The two Academies continued the exchanges of individual scientists on a less formal basis, with
American scientists making their own decisions whether to participate. The National Academy's subsequent efforts to encourage Soviet scientific leaders to intervene in human rights cases
were greatly hampered, since communications with these leaders rapidly atrophied with the suspension of the formal relationship. At the same time, the Academy continued supporting the
interests of its members in direct appeals to the Soviet political
leaders to intervene.
After intensive debates among the members of the National
Academy as to whether the institution should again have a formal exchange program and the attendant communication channels or if it should continue to refrain from such a relationship in
view of Soviet actions related to human rights, the Academy
took the initiative in early 1985 to have the interacademy scientific exchange program formally reestablished, which was finally
accomplished in 1986. At that time, a new provision was in-

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


cluded within the agreement calling for regular interacademy

discussions of the environment affecting cooperation, a provision which has been clearly understood by both sides to include
consideration of human rights issues.

At the top of the Iist of recent advances in promoting the

basic human rights of individuals throughout the world are the
many contributions of Andrei Sakharov, one of the fathers of
nuclear fusion in the USSR. Sakharov has clearly become a major figure in support of perestroika.
Sakharov was elected a Foreign Assoeiate Member of the
National Academy of Seiences in 1972, but he was not permitted
to travel to Washington to accept this honor for many years.
Finally, Sakharov signed the membership book in the Great Hall
of the National Academy of Seiences in November 1988. As I
watched this event, I was convinced that he was the most ironwilled individual I had ever encountered. Through many years
of persecution, he never wavered from his steadfast dedication
to championing the causes of human rights.
Ten months earlier I had met Sakharov in Moscow. His
convictions were the same, but his appearance and his outlook
were remarkably different. At a Soviet reception in Moscow in
January 1988, he had stood in a corner by himself, largely ignored by his Soviet colleagues in attendance. He looked frail
and was uncertain of his future. In Washington he appeared
robust and confident. In the interim he had spoken out at press
conferences in Moscow, had become a source of advice for Gorbachev, and had been selected to serve on offieial committees
within the USSR and internationally. He had been elected by his
peers to membership on the prestigious Presidium of the Soviet
Academy of Seiences. Sakharov is truly a remarkable champion
of freedom and an extraordinary man.


Chapter 8

In order to protect the interest of the State, Soviet policies

which Iimit human rights have always been firmly embedded in
the fabric of communist principles. Many of these policies are
now being directly challenged within the USSR, not only by
political dissidents but also by important intellectual Ieaders.
They are being challenged indirectly through rumblings within
the ethnic communities, particularly in the Baltic states andin
the Caucasus, and through the religious communities which
have survived many decades of hardship.
Still, the majority of the Soviet population has experienced only the communist approaches of the past: alternatives are unknown. Protests by small groups of dissidents
in Moscow, demonstrations in Armenia, and complaints
by religious activists used to be considered irritants and received
little attention or support among the general population.
But the situation has changed, at least in the eyes of the government. Now when the local government of Estonia calls for
economic independence, as it did in late 1988, Moscow pays
attention. 11
Nonetheless, while the general Soviet population cares passionately about working conditions, consumer goods, and recreational opportunities, they don't think about the Jewish minority, and they don't want to know about the conditions of mental
institutions. Freedom of speech is not a major issue because
even in the era of glasnost, they are not interested in making
trouble. They have become accustomed to the suppressive tactics of the KGB, and they have little incentive to directly challenge this type of authority.
The population, however, is genuinely concerned about the
prevention of war. They fully support the Soviet calls for a total
elimination of nuclear weapons. They respond enthusiastically

Refuseniks, Dissidents, and Scientific Exchanges


to the Soviet contention that the most basic human right is the
right to survive and that this right must receive the top priority
of the world community.
Meanwhile, deepening economic deprivation is leading to
greed throughout the country as the population increasingly
tries to share in the benefits from the underground economy
and from all types of schemes to profit at the expense of the
state. Soviets are consumed with their economic rights, rights
that are increasingly linked to internal battles for larger pieces of
a pie that is baked by an inefficient economic system.
The American role model for human rights doesn't sell to
the general public in the USSR. Soviet perceptions of crime,
poverty, and unemployment throughout the United States raise
many doubts about the virtues of American democracy. At the
same time, among those Soviet citizens who are enjoying a comfortable lifestyle, thoughts increasingly turn to some of the advantages of the West. Thus, it is not surprising that the wellestablished academicians are the leading advocates of social and
political reform, rather than the struggling young scientists and
in tellecruals.
As the Soviet leadership attempts to emulate Western technological successes, it has quickly realized that the ingredients
of Western approaches include more than management techniques and technical skills. Western approaches work in Western societies which have entirely different standards of value
and behavior. If they are to work in the USSR, adjustments in
the role of individual initiative as well as in the role of organizations are critical.
Finally, with regard to Soviet-American cooperation in science and technology, many unusual opportunities to establish
new patterns of cooperation with a wide spectrum of Soviet
institutions and scientists are unfolding. In the long run, such
interactions will surely help open the windows which allow the


Chapter 8

currents of genuine freedom to circulate within the USSR. In the

short run, linking cooperation with immediate Soviet progress
in moving to a morehumane state requires great care. The leaders of the Soviet scientific community are trying to become fullfledged members of the team in the USSR that determines policies affecting many aspects of Soviet life, including human
rights. They need to be reminded regularly about painful situations in the USSR which they prefer not to see, but the limits of
their influence must also be recognized.


Economic and Scientific

Decline in Eastern Europe
An unenlightened nation is the enemy of itself.
Bulgarian writer Todor Vlaikov

Will Eastem Europe become Gorbachev's Achilles' heel? Will political turmoil within this strategic and ideological buffer zone with
the Westforce further Soviet military interventions in the region?
Will economic problems plaguing obsolete industries throughout
the area require Soviet bailouts? Can the Soviets control the
region's thirst for modern technologies which will only be satisfied by a drastic reorientation of domestic and foreign policies by
both the Soviet Union and the East European countries? 1
As Gorbachev presses for rapid reforms in the USSR, many
disenfranchised factions in the countries just to the west of the
Soviet frontier have become increasingly vocal in calling for
much more radical changes in Sodalist systems, particularly in
Eastem Europe. Glasnost encourages the sharpest critics of
communism and of central economic planning to speak out.


Chapter 9

For the first time, Hungarians are publicly discussing the

uprising of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956 and the role
of Soviet tanks in quelling the rebellion. When I was in Budapest
during the thirty-second anniversary of the uprising, my Hungarian colleagues were able to attend public meetings to reflect
on these events. However, those from the older generation were
dismayed that many young Hungarians at the meetings had
never before heard of these events and that the youth were
reluctant to believe that the bloody battles had indeed taken
place. They, like the youth in the USSR, are in the process of
learning the grim truth about the suppression that accompanies
the Communist transformation of societies.
At about the same time in Prague, the police were dispersing street demonstrators commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the 1968 effort of the former Czechoslovak leaders to
introduce wide-ranging political and economic reforms, an effort that also had been thwarted by Soviet tanks. According to
Czechoslovak scientists who were eyewitnesses to the 1968
street rallies, the suppression of the demonstrations reflects the
very real worries of their aging party leaders-leaders who remember the peace and tranquility of the Brezhnev era. Just 18
months earlier I was in Bratislava on the day of Gorbachev' s visit
to that city in southeastern Czechoslovakia, where the spontaneaus public turnout to welcome him and to herald his turning away from the orthodox precepts of Marxism-Leninism was
unprecedented in recent history. However, this spark of popular hope of 1987 has not yet been rekindled.
In Poland, Solidarity remains a symbol of pent-up frustrations of an entire population over the political, economic, and
social deprivations that have resulted from adoption of the Communist model. Even the loyal party members whom I encounter
in Warsaw recognize that the calls for change symbolized by
Solidarity must be heeded. They sense the movement from eco-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


nomic frustrations to political anger among the general populace

as living conditions continue to decline and as internal confrontations become more commonplace and more dangerous.
Talking to colleagues in Budapest, Warsaw, and Sofia, I
regularly feel the winds of change blowing through the rapidly
expanding openings in the Communist facade. Discussions are
candid-in the press, on the street, and at the restaurants. In
East Berlin and in Prague, the comments about political change
are less frequent, more discreet, and less optimistic. Meanwhile,
in Bucharest, my acquaintances are so preoccupied with economic problems that they have little incentive to look beyond
the next few days and weeks.
If changes in Eastern Europe come too fast, conservative elements in Moscow will surely try to blunt Gorbachev' s entire campaign at home and abroad. If changes occur too slowly, the stirrings in Eastern Europe are likely togoout of control. As aptly
described by Newsweek, there are "cracks in the bloc."2 Referring
to Soviet political control over Eastern Europe as a "historical
parenthesis" that has yet tobe closed, the New Yorker describes
the problern as "what to do about the politically obsolescent,
intellectually discredited, economically unworkable structure
that has linked this part of Europe to the Soviet Union." 3 Former
President Carter' s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
says, "The people are restless, and the ruling bureauc~atic elites
are by and large demoralized and fearful." 4
US policy has consistently been sympathetic toward the
oppressed populations of Eastern Europe. Americans have deplored the existence of the Iron Curtain and the subjugation of
personalliberties, but the United States has not resorted to force
even when Soviet provocations into the region have exceeded
the Iimits of our tolerance. Rather than risk military confrontations, the US Government has attempted to exert diplomatic
and economic pressures in support of efforts within the coun-


Chapter 9

tries to gain greater independence from Moscow and greater

personal freedom. We Americans keep hoping that the Soviets
will eventually relax their political domination over the region,
leading to the evolution of Eastem Europe into a zone where the
USSR maintains considerable influence without the need for
troops-perhaps along the model of Finland.
The US Govemment concentrates on using formal diplomatic channels to encourage changes in the policies of the East
European Govemments. Our government also encourages
many American organizations to interact on a continuing basis
through exchange programs with individuals and institutions in
Eastem Europe.
Again, at the official Ievel, US representatives have been
able to influence developments in Eastem Europe through the
banking and economic organizations which are concerned with
the large foreign debts of several countries of the region. Also,
each of the countries wants better access to American markets
for its exports, access with minimal import duties. Thus, the
United States can exert some pressure in bilateral trade negotiations even though the Ievels of trade are small.
The growing technological gap between East and West also
offers us important opportunities to help effect change in Eastem Europe. Each of the countries of the region is seekinghigh
technologies from the West, including many technologies such
as high speed computers which are currently embargoed for
export because of their potential use in military systems. Each
country would like to have greater opportunities for its scientists
to work in American research laboratories, since possibilities for
world-class research are limited in Eastem Europe. Finally, most
of the countries are seeking financial and technical assistance
through the World Bank, UN agencies, and other international
organizations. US policies influence all of these activities, and
increasingly science and technology are central to such policies.

Economic and Scientific Dedine in Eastem Europe


Changes will not come easily in Eastem Europe. For more

than four decades Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria have been squarely under the military, political, and economic domination of the USSR. While Rumania repeatedly demonstrates its determination to develop its own
foreign policy and to choose its own trading partners, that country remains clearly within the Soviet sphere of influence geographically, ideologically, and economically. In 1948, Yugoslavia chose its own road to socialism; Yugoslav diplomats
repeatedly stop by my office to remind me that we should never
lump Yugoslavia with the Soviet satellites when referring to
Eastem Europe. Albania, the poorest of the countries of the
region, continues its steadfast policy of isolation from the influence of the United States or the USSR.
Soviet military forces have never been far from potential
trouble spots in Eastem Europe. As noted above, Soviet tanks
promptly responded to the uprising of the Hungarian Freedom
Fighters in 1956 and to the liberal manifestations of Czechoslovak reforms in 1968. Most recently, Soviet forces have stood
ready to quell demonstrations in Poland should they become
out of control. The Soviets maintain modest military garrisons of
tens of thousands of troops each in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, and Poland; but 300,000 troops hover near the BastWest border in East Germany. The USSR considers Eastem Europe absolutely critical to its national security interests. While
political, social, and economic experimentation is now considered legitimate, the USSR has never indicated any willingness to tolerate moves which could change the fundamental
orientation of the region away from the USSR.
Soviet troops try to maintain a low profile in Eastem Europe, although this is difficult in East Germany given the !arge


Chapter 9

nurober of forces and the small size of the country. Outing a

recent visit to East Berlin, I was impressed by the Soviet effort to
promote the image of Soviet troops as peacemakers. I obtained
tickets to the annual cultural performance of the Red Army units
stationed in East Germany for the East German public. While
the small German theater was less than one-half full, the singing
and dancing of the Soviet troops were equal to the highest quality in Moscow. Needless to say, it was difficult to believe that
regular army troops could leap as high as the world-renowned
Moyseyev dancers and could sing with a resonance that would
earn them the titles of People' s Artists of the USSR. I was convinced they were imports from Moscow, but the announcer kept
calling them sergeants and corporals. In the very last scene this
deception became apparent. The female soldiers all came to attention for the last curtain call. However, they didn't know how
to position their feet at a 45-degree angle, as is taught in armies
around the world. They placed their feet in a ballerina position-heel to instep-and then I knew they were imports from
the Bolshoi Theater.
In addition to its military presence in the region, the USSR
seeks East European interdependence with the USSR in many
areas of economic importance, including science and technology, as a major objective. Initially, the Soviets extracted reparations from the region for Soviet sacrifices in ousting the Germaus. A particularly contentious issue was the export of coal
from Poland to the USSR for very low prices. Then continued
heavy East European reliance on the USSR for materials and
resources, and particularly energy resources, became a key factor in the development of bilateral relations between the USSR
and its Western neighbors. Recently, the Soviets have insisted
on receiving higher quality manufactured goods from the region, which has traditionally exported its best products to the
West; reflecting this concern, the USSR is promoting an expand-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastern Europe


ing nurober of trade agreements and joint ventures with East

European partners. The emphasis on joint ventures is also probably intended to help counter East European interest in commercial arrangements with the West.
Against this background of Soviet domination, the East European countries have in large measure patterned their political,
social, and economic institutions after the Soviet approach. The
Communist parties of the countries provide the centrallink with
the USSR, and to a lesser extent, linkages among themselves.
Meetings in Moscow of party representatives provide forums for
promoting political hegemony within the region. The internal
security agencies also help through their own well-developed
back channels to ensure consistency of purpose and to prevent
approaches which could threaten the basic directions which
have been accepted by the USSR.
As noted earlier, the region can only be described as politically unstable. New uncertainties over successors to the geriatric
Ieaders of the region and over the economic reforms being actively pursued bothin Moscow andin some East European capitals now dominate discussions of the future. As the economic
Situation deteriorates, as environmental pollution becomes a serious threat to the health of the populations, and as the technologicallag with the West becomes ever more apparent, internal pressures for change are reaching an all-time high.
Publicly, the Ieaders of all the countries of the region exude
confidence in the general character of the existing political and
economic systems. However, the hollowness of this confidence
is apparent to even the most loyal party members throughout
the region, as rationing is extended to bread in Rumania and to
meat and other products in Poland, as the wait for apartments
and cars continues to be many years in some of the countries,
and as the ever-expanding black market operations in all of the
countries continue to denigrate the importance of local curren-


Chapter 9

cy. Bven in Hungary, the steady economic growth of the 1970s

has encountered the stagnation of the 1980s; prices are on the
rise, and a personal income tax has been instituted for the first
Questionsare increasingly heard at alllevels in Bastern Burope as to flaws in the socialist approach, flaws that are leaving
the countries behind their West Buropean neighbors. Memories
of the days before World War II are fading, but many still remember when the Bast Buropean capitals were favorite weekend retreats for the most sophisticated travelers of Western

In embracing Gorbachev' s spirit of reform, the Ieaders

of Bastern Burope tilt his concepts to support their own approaches to reviving their economies. Gorbachev tries hard to
bolster their confidence that the widening of the economic and
technological gap with the West can be abated. There is little
evidence, however, that the new Soviet economic approaches
are being used as a model in any other country.
The Hungarians have tinkered with their own private sector
experiments and with joint ventures with the West for decades;
they claim they invented the concept of economic reforms. The
Bulgarians boast of their moves in the last several years to promote entrepreneurship through many incentive schemes. The
Bast Germans concentrate much of their production capacity in
large industrial conglomerates; they point to their relatively
favorable international financial situation and urge others, including the Soviets, to adopt the Bast German model. The Poles
continue to search for divisions of economic authority and responsibility which will increase production without contributing
to additional internal political dissent. The liberal thinkers in
Czechoslovakia hope Gorbachev' s policies will encourage de-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


volution of microeconomic decisions away from Prague, but

they are hard-pressed to find grounds for optimism.
The realists in the region agree that reforms of some type
are desperately needed, for the economic situation is indeed
bleak. The debt to Western banks seems out of control in
Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia. Interest payments, let alone payments of principal, are leading to consurner
shortages of all kinds. Much of the conversation at social gatherings in the capitals revolves around future international meetings to reschedule debt repayments and the hopes for benevolence of international financial institutions. On the street,
discussions focus on shortages and inflation. To many, the most
highly prized possession is now a rich relative in the West who
sends gifts to Bastern Europe and supports family members
visiting the West.
Rumainia's apparent success in paying off its debt of billions of dollars to the West has turned the country of 22 million
persons into a huge island of despair. Survival becomes the top
priority for a large segment of the population. As a foreigner in
Rumania, I am regularly served meat; however, I feel uncomfortable knowing that this luxury is not available to the population. Let us hope that the future benefits of economic independence, free of the shackles of debt, together with social reforms
will warrant the current sacrifices of this heroic population.
Meanwhile, the people of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Hungary long for the good old days of decades past. They now
understand how they were able to enjoy a rising standard of
living during the 1970s without working too hard-namely,
their Iifestyles were buoyed by foreign loans, loans with repayment schedules which are much more difficult to meet than had
been anticipated.
In responding to pressure for Soviet access to the higherquality goods, the countdes must abandon some of their export


Chapter 9

markets in the West, markets that will not easily be regained.

Also, the developing countries of Asia and the agricultural
countries of Europe, such as Spain, have moved into some of
the traditional Western markets for East European goods, particularly in the fields of textiles and agriculture. As the East European countries attempt to penetrate markets for manufactured
products in the Middle East and Asia, they encounter increasing
competition from Japan and Korea, which achieve low costs of
production while providing higher-quality goods.
In serious straits to pay for their import requirements, the
countries are adopting many approaches to obtaining foreign
currency. They widely recruit foreign students who are willing
to pay modest fees in hard currency to study at their universities
and medical schools where special courses are offered in the
English language. Americans who cannot gain admission to
American schools, who cannot afford the costs in the United
States, or who have strong ethnic roots in the region are responding. The countries offer a wider array of very low cost
vacations for Western tourists than ever before. West German
tourists line the Bulgarian beaches, sail through the Danube
delta in Rumania, and visit the castles in Hungary throughout
the summer. In winter they tackle the ski slopes of Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. The banks of Eastern Europe are
even buying up foreign currency at black market exchange rates,
although the hustlers still offer better rates outside the hotels of
Increased industrial investments, financed by credits whenever possible, and an influx of technology are being called upon
to reverse the economic decline. As has been shown in countries
throughout the world, however, finance and modern technologies will do little to improve productivity without comparable
attention to the human factors. In all of the Sodalist countries of
Eastern Europe, the habits of the work forces have deteriorated.

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


Many workers, having received no rewards for good work, have

simply lost their motivation and have slowed down.

Related to the continued reliance on antiquated industrial

facilities are many environmental problems; retrofitting old facilities with pollution abatement equipment is simply too expensive. The use of low-grade coal throughout the region and the
inadequacy of sewage treatment facilities in expanding large
metropolitan areas also contribute to the degradation of air and
water resources. These long-standing concerns have become
more sharply focused in a new wave of public debates on environmental issues which follows in the wake of glasnost
sweeping the region.
I have spent many hours watehing Czechoslovak and Hungarian scientific Ieaders wringing their hands in despair as their
governments ignore their recommendations not to construct
two dams on the Danube River on their border not far from
Vienna. Wetlands will be destroyed, groundwater resources
threatened, and fertile Iands flooded so that small quantities of
electricity can be provided to Austria. I have toured the forests
of southern Poland, which are being decimated by pollutants
from steel mills, chemical plants, and power plants in Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. I have seen schoolchildren
from northern Bohemia spending their annual one-month
"airing-out" periods in southern Czechoslovakia, far from the
high-pollution Ievels where they live the rest of the year. We
have heard firsthand reports of the slow destruction of the ecology of the Danube delta in Rumania, where marshland is being
squeezed by agricultural development. The environmental
problems are very serious.
Grass roots concern over environmental problems is a
growing phenomenon in Bastern Europe. The Polish Ecology

Chapter 9


Club has spoken out for several years and claims credit for the
closing of an aluminum plant. Bcologically minded citizens meet
regularly in the churches of Bast Berlin. The concern generated
by the Chernobyl accident and the anger over the destruction of
the forests have stirred up young people who have eagerly
sought a rallying point for exerting political influence.

Prior to considering the science scene throughout Bastern

Burope, a few words about the historical context of science in
the regionwill help explain the paradox of economic deprivation
on the one hand and pockets of good science on the other.
For several centuries scientists have stood tall amidst the
chaos that has characterized much of the history of Bastern Burope. Most recently many of the great scientific centers within
the universities of the region have survived both the massive
destruction of World War II and the subsequent political and
economic upheavals. In remarkable displays of courage and
commitment to education, many faculty members have ensured
that high educational standards are maintained despite political
meddling in university activities and stringent budgetary constraints. The university legacy of excellence is one of the principal reasons that the countdes of Central Burope remain internationally competitive in a few areas of basic science.
In Poland, Nicolaus Copernicus remains the highly visible
symbolofthat country's contributions to science. The geodesy
and astronomy exhibit of the Copernicus museuro is a favorite
stop for important international visitors to the Jagellonian University in Krakow. Mendel Square in Brno in Czechoslovakia
represents the site where many basic tenets of modern genetics
were developed. Zeiss and his colleagues from Jena in Bast Germany are widely hailed as the early pioneers in the field of

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


Hungarians frequently talk about the contributions to early

development of the US nuclear program by three emigresEdward Teller, Leo Szilard, and Eugene Wigner. East Germany
claims credit for the early honing of Albert Einstein's talents,
and the Poles are proud of the ethnic roots of Marie Curie.
Sigmund Freud was born in Bohemia (Czechoslovakia). Today
thousands of practicing scientists are included among the millions of emigres from Eastern Europe who have established permanent residences in the United States. Many of these first and
second generation immigrants are the sons and daughters of
scientists who had achieved wide recognition in Central Europe.
The Balkan countries of Rumania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria
do not have as long a heritage of scientific accomplishments as
the countries to the north. However, a number of achievements
during the past century-ranging from breakthroughs in theoretical mathematics to design of Iaminated skis-have brought
pride and recognition to the area. Many important achievements came from the universities. While the leading scientists of
the Balkan region have not become household names in the
West, their contributions to the history and culturallife of their
countries have been profound.
To the general populations of Eastern Europe, the title of
"professor" has always commanded considerable respect. Even
in the times of economic despair within the universities, the title
has remained a symbol of the importance of education, both in
science and the humanities, throughout the intellectual community. Names of early professors adorn buildings, streets, institutions, and medallions throughout the region.
From their earliest days, many of the universities of the
region have had an international orientation; and in recent years
they have struggled to remain windows on the world. Some of
these universities have been both pillars of scientific stability
and centers for revolutionary ideas, even as armies moved back


Chapter 9

and forth and national boundaries shifted. All too often faculties
and students were subjected to incredible hardships for carrying
on academic traditions, but the institutions rebounded. In
Krakow, for example, I heard the story of the mass deportation
to concentration camps of 60 leading university intellectuals
during W orld War II after being lured to an "academic" meeting
by the Germans. Buildings and facilities of many universities have been ravaged and books have been in short supply,
but somehow intellectual zeal has not died. Outstanding students and teachers continue to be attracted to these centers of
The people of Eastern Europe take pride in their scientific
heritage, and references to achievements of the past are frequently put forward in efforts to compensate for the scientific
weaknesses of the present. For example, Czechoslovak scientists developed the soft contact lens more than 20 years ago, and
since that time this achievement has been used to exemplify the
potential of science in that country. Unfortunately, there has yet
to be an equally impressive achievement which could be considered a successor to the contact lens. Looking back further, the
stark contrast between the leadership position of the universities of the past and the current lag in science in comparison
with the West has deeply troubled and embarrassed many scientific Ieaders of Eastern Europe. However, they are now beyond the stage of embarrassment. In a sense, they unabashedly
seek to trade their past contributions to science for sympathy
and help from the West in overcoming the current financial
barriers to scientific research.
In science, the primary intellectual ties have always been
with the West, and even the !arge exchange programs for young
scientists between the East European countries and the USSR
have not broken these bonds. The East European desire to interact with the West is growing each year, as they sponsor interna-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


tional meetings as drawing cards for busy Western scientists.

Even in East German universities where isolation from the West
has been the greatest, Western scientists are greeted with genuine enthusiasm; and a trip to the West is the ultimate scientific

Let us turn more directly to the present approach to science

in the region. Following World War II, the countries of Eastern
Europe adopted much of the Soviet organizational model for
science. Large academies of sciences were established in the
capital cities, with many research institutions, both old and
new, placed subordinate to the academies. In some cases these
new academies absorbed the facilities and responsibilities of earlier academies with different orientations. The idea was to concentrate !arge numbers of scientists and sizable budgets for
work on related problems at single locations. This was the Soviet approach. In contrast, dispersal, rather than concentration of
research, has generally been the American approach in basic
science, except in fields such as manned space programs and
fusion research which require !arge experimental facilities.
The best researchers in each country soon populated academy institutes, drawn by good facilities and good salaries. Leading scientists from universities and industry as weil as scientists
from the institutes of the academies were elected members of
the academies. Through this broadly based membership, coordination of activities among various organizations was to be
After 40 years, the academies of sciences are firmly in place
in each country. In Rumania and Yugoslavia, however, the
academies do not have !arge research institutes. In these countries the !arge research centers are firmly under the control of
governmental ministries. In view of the pride in ethnic tradi-


Chapter 9

tions, provincial academies were established or retained in each

of the eight republics and autonomous areas of Yugoslavia and
in the Slovak capital of Bratislava, Czechoslovakia.
In general, the academies of sciences are now the leading
research organizations in Bastern Europe in most areas of basic
research. They command considerable influence within both
government and party circles, through their institutional activities and through the stature of individual members. They are
clearly the Centerpieces of the region' s approach to modern
Hundreds of "world-class" scientists work in academy institutes, and a smaller number of excellent scientists are affiliated with the universities of the region. These researchers of
international stature tend to concentrate their efforts in fields of
historical strengths of the countries such as mathematics, the
biomedical sciences, and organic chemistry andin other fields
not requiring large research facilities.
Meanwhile, the importance of a technical education has
increased in recent years, with large engineering and technical
schools populating the region. For example, the Polytechnic Institute in Bucharest now has 22,000 students; agricultural
schools have been expanded in almost every country; and tech-
nician training has become highly standardized at many levels.
A !arge array of specialized research institutions serve almost
every branch of industry-institutes for research on individual
agricultural crops, on computer systems, on diseases, and on
resource exploration.
But what does all this mean? Of what use are the many
scientific and engineering achievements of the hundreds of
large research institutions in the region if they arenot applied?
And current economic and technical assessments strongly suggest very limited success in applying modern science and technology to the real problems confronting the region. To be sure,

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


East Germany has been a pacesetter in optical technology,

Yugoslavia has been a world Ieader in prosthetic devices for
artificial arms and legs, and Hungary is the home of the accordion buses. But overall, the Ievels of technology compared to
technology in the West and the economic success of the region
on the international market have been on the decline.
A clinical diagnosis of the relationship between education,
scientific research, and the standard of Iiving is very diffiCult.
However, the large number of well-trained technical specialists
who have little opportunity to use their skills due to Iack of
facilities or Iack of incentives suggests that central planning of
science and technology is in trouble in the region. An extreme
case is in Rumania, where 20 nuclear reactor engineers are graduating every year, but where it will be many years until the
nation' s first nuclear plant is in operation. In several countries,
and particularly Yugoslavia, the brain drain has reached nearcrisis proportions as much more lucrative opportunities are
available abroad for the most talented technical people.

As one example of adapting a Sodalist system to a changing

technological world, Bulgaria, with a population of nine million,
provides interesting insights into the problems and challenges
of a country closely tied to Moscow. Also, the economic position
of Bulgaria has been sufficiently favorable in recent years to
permit experiments with new economic mechanisms, and lessons can be learned from these experiments.
Bulgaria was one of the least industrialized European countries at the end of World War II. When I first visited the country
in 1958, the living conditions were primitive. I remernher meeting a relatively prosperous farmer who had saved for many
years to buy a set of false teeth that had become his prized


Chapter 9

Today, Bulgaria has an established industrial base, a wellorganized agricultural sector, an ambitious nuclear energy program, and a range of export and import activities. The standard
of living, while significantly lagging behind Western Europe,
has been rising slowly. I have recently visited homes in the cities
and in the countryside. While modest, the living quarters are
adequate and more comfortable than I had imagined. The norm
of 10 people sharing three rooms has faded into history. Also,
during the last three years I have seen a steady improvement in
the food and consumer items on sale for the general public.
In comparison with most of the other countries of Eastern
Europe, Bulgaria is in a favorable position for continued economic growth. Its foreign debt is modest, the expectations of the
population are realistic, and the energy and drive of the Ieaders
and the work force are impressive. By Western standards the
Ievel of technological development is in its earliest stages. Yet in
comparing Bulgarian achievements with other Eastern bloc
countries in one important area, namely computers, achievements are quite advanced.
In late 1988 I visited two new Bulgarian factories producing
integrated circuit boards for personal computers and for control
systems; West European specialists had guided their design and
construction. My companion from IBM confirmed that the
equipment from Western Europe used on the production lines
was state of the art and that the products should be of comparable capability to similar products produced in the West. The
Bulgarians were quick to acknowledge quality control problems
in earlier factories, but they were convinced that within one year
they would have these problems solved in both the old and new
plants. Marketing the products in Bulgaria and the Soviet
Union, where competition does not exist, is easy, but Bulgarian
computers had not yet entered the Western markets. The Bulgarians were skeptical that they could match Asian prices in the

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


immediate future, since they were still dependent on imports of

some of the components for their computers.
What explains the modern transformation of this small agricultural country which is little known to most Westerners?
Bulgaria is closely tied to the USSR, both economically and
politically. Soviet raw materials available at favorable prices and
large Soviet credits have played a critical role in the development of the economy while establishing a level of economic
dependency that will not be easily reduced in the near term.
Many key Bulgarians were educated in the USSR, and, as in
other countries of the region, the Communist party linkages
with Moscow are strong. Bulgaria's foreign policy, in particular,
closely mirrors the policy of the USSR; but the Soviets have
watched rather than dictated the course for managing the economy. While in some countries close ties with the USSR have led
to economic decline, in the case of Bulgaria benefits have resulted. When a country is starting from a very primitive base
with a rich uncle (the USSR), a centrally planned and controlled
economy may be a socially repugnant, but nevertheless economically effective, antidote to poverty.
An important factor in Bulgarian development has been the
30-year tenure of Todor Zhivkov, the head of the party and the
head of the state. He has engendered a degree of political stability in this part of Eastern Europe, an area not given to political
calm. He encourages innovation and experimentation within
limits which are reasonably clear to all. During an extended
meeting with him in 1986 and abrief encounter in 1988 he did
not hesitate to expound to me and to several other Americans on
the importance of science and technology and on the need to
give greater attention to individual initiative and individual rewards. The commitment of President Zhivkov and other Bulgarian leaders to using science and technology to aceeierate national development is reflected in budgetary allocations, in the

Chapter 9


orientation of the educational system, and in placards displayed

throughout the country heralding the achievements of science.
The current movement toward establishing !arge high-tech state
enterprises while also supporting smaller highly innovative
firms reflects hisquest to enter the modern age.
During the past several years, the government has attempted to move ahead in implementing the concept of decentralized economic planning and management. Among the
early items of business has been the development of mechanisms for providing bonuses for successful managers and for
finding capital for investments in promising technologies. President Zhivkov believes that these problems can be solved through
a variety of economic incentive schemes.
The Bulgarians will continue to consider the Western countries, and particularly the United States, the masters of the innovation process. At least in the near term, they will copy Western
approaches to the extent feasible within their own economic
system. They will seek joint ventures with Westernpartners for
access to advanced technologies, particularly the fields of robotics, computers, and chemical engineering. However, one of the
great pitfalls in the years ahead may be excessive reliance on
imported technologies which discourages the development of
Bulgarian capabilities. 6



I have seen scientists wearing heavy coats, hats, and gloves

while attempting to carry out precise laboratory experiments in
Rumania during the winter. They simply had no heat. I have
been unable to visit a number of laboratories in Poland, since
they had closed down; electricity was not available, and chemical supplies had run out. In all of the countries, I have admired

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


the ingenuity of scientists who keep imported scientific instrumentation operating without access to needed spare parts and
proper maintenance services.
As might be expected, some laboratories are in much better
condition than others. The few prosperaus laboratories are frequently associated with highly successful manufacturing enterprises or with groups of enterprises or have been successful in
generating foreign currency through their research and service
activities in cooperation with Western firms. However, only a
handful of the laboratories of the region are equipped with experimental instrumentation of the level of sophistication now
commonly found in the West.
As in the USSR, moonlighting is commonplace throughout
the scientific establishments of Bastern Europe, as scientists
seek to augment their base salaries through additional teaching
or consulting services or through service on committees which
compensate members. Compared with other professions the
salaries of scientists are generally good, but like other members
of these societies the scientists desire higher incomes. Thus,
many laboratories are often unoccupied, with equipment standing idle simply because the responsible scientists are participating in outside projects or jobs.
Also as in the USSR, scientific journals from abroad remain
in short supply, and the situation is becoming worse. Locally
published journals are available, but in most fields the best East
European scientists much prefer to publish abroad, where they
can gain international recognition. Due to budget constraints,
many scientific libraries of the region must be highly selective in
limiting their choices of foreign journals. Much of the current
effort is to collect as many issues as possible of reputable foreign
journals which are available free of charge through friends
abroad and hope that articles of importance to the scientific
staffs will be included.


Chapter 9

Many Western seientific journals require that authors of

articles pay page charges for the privilege of publishing their
articles. Since these page charges are in Western curreneies,
excellent East European seientists who simply have no access to
foreign currency do not publish internationally.
Even though travel restrictions seem to be easing for seientists wishing to travel to the West from several of the countries
of the region, travel is at the same time increasingly constrained
by the lack of funding from the seientific institutes. Even seientists selected to partieipate in offieial exchange visits may be
required to pay a portion or all of their travel expenses with
personal funds. They therefore may not be able to partieipate.
Opportunities to partieipate in international meetings within the socialist countries are welcomed by many East European
seientists, particularly if Western seientists are in attendance.
However, meetings involving only East European and Soviet
seientists are sometimes considered more of a diversion than
serious seientific seminars. For example, cooperative research
projects among the East European seientists in the environmental seiences have been in place for more than 15 years, and
numerous meetings have been held on many seientific issues.
Yet the East European seientists recognize that these activities
are quite sterile without the active partieipation of Western speeialists who have been working in the forefront of some of the
areas of interest with far more sophisticated instrumentation
and data processing capabilities.
Despite these hardships, the seientists of Eastern Europe
carry on. They often concentrate on relatively simple experiments which are important but ignored in the West, where the
efforts are directed to more complicated experiments using better instrumentation.
I recently joined a number of leading American seientists,
including several members of the National Academy of Sei-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


ences, in Bast Germany and Hungary for meetings on advances

in the biological sciences. Many of the results reported by the
scientists from these two countries were clearly on the forefront
of modern science; such scientists are able to overcome the difficulties of Bastern Burope and to make contributions to the advancement of international science.

Bast Buropean scientists treasure their lifelines to the West.

For most Bast Buropean scientists these lifelines consist only of
occasionalletters. However, for the very best young postdoctoral scientists from the best institutions in Bastern Burope, private channels have opened for visits to the United States.
In Hungary, for example, I was surprised to visit one leading institute where the policy is to have one-fourth of the scientific staff working in the Westat any given time. Most of these
scientists are postdoctoral research assistants at American universities. They receive sufficient funds from these universities to
maintain a reasonably comfortable Iifestyle in the United States
for one to two years. The senior American professors who arrange the visits are generally delighted by the rigorous educational preparation of the scientists in Hungary and by the diligence of the scientists once in the United States, where they
cherish every day as a new professional opportunity. A similar
philosophy is followed by several laboratories in Poland, although the overseas placements are divided more evenly among
the United States and Western Burope. Directors of some Polish
research institutes make annual trips to the United States to find
places for their new postdoctoral scientists.
Most young Bast Buropean scientists who come to the United States on such programs retum home, provided that they
will have future opportunities to travel abroad again and to
remain up to date with modern research techniques. There are


Chapter 9

exceptions, and as previously mentioned, the East European

governments are increasingly concerned over brain-drain
With regard to technology linkages to the West, the steady
stream of personal computers crossing the East European frontier from the United States, Western Europe, Japan, Hong
Kong, and Taiwan vividly underscores the thirst of the East
European countries for technologies which will enable them to
enter the twenty-first century as developed and not developing
countries. The computers come through many channels. They
travel on the laps of visitors, in diplomatic baggage, on trucks
returning from Vienna, and on ships from the Far East. The East
European governments frequently turn their backs on black
market operations involving computers, and indeed even government agencies buy computers from the black market.
The East Europeans are under no illusions about their backwardness in high-tech areas, which is symbolized by the current
state of their computer technology. Westerntelevision programs
of all types being received in the region are constant reminders
of the technological advances of the West.7

The East Europeans are also sensitive to the low levels of

technological achievements of the USSR. Given the choice between a newly developed Soviet computer or a model with half
the power developed in the West, they will choose the reliable
Western model. The same can be said for Soviet watches that
lose time and for Soviet mass spectrometers for analyzing molecules that must be rebuilt.
The lack of reliability of the USSR as a source of advanced
technologies is exemplified in their servicing of commercial airliners. The Soviets have historically provided aircraft to Eastern
Europe. Thesecountries often have problems obtaining replace-

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


ment engirres and other parts from the USSR. Now for the first
time, Poland and East Germany have begun discussions with
the Boeing Company and with the West European Airbus manufacturers concerning purchases of commercial planes from the
It is not surprising that the East European countries have
not embraced with great enthusiasm the Soviet-inspired plans
for pooling East European resources in the fields of computers,
robots, advanced materials, nuclear power, and biotechnology.
Cynical East European scientists have told me and other visiting
Americans on more than one occasion that such an approach
will ensure that all the countries go down together, since they
are all so far behind the West. Nevertheless, several years ago
Gorbachev made this integration of the scientific and technological capabilities of the East European countries a Centerpiece of his policy toward Eastern Europe. However, many of
the ambitious research and development projects, which usually call for control by the USSR, have been largely ignored by
the East Europeans who see the real technological future in the

The East Europeans have great pride in their stamina to

survive the turmoils of history which have with considerable
regularity disturbed the region. As I stood with a Polish scientist
on the edge of Krakow directly in the pollution plume from the
Lenin steel mill in Nowa Huta, I lamented over the deterioration of the quality of life in this beautiful city. "We have survived
such troubles for many centuries, and we will continue to survive," was his unvanquished message.
East European scientists have no doubts about their intellectual capacity to address current problems nor their ability to
respond to the challenges of new technologies. "All we need is


Chapter 9

money" is a common phrase. MostEast Europeans are pragmatists. They fully recognize the limitations imposed by the current
painful economic situation, which they increasingly attribute to
the adoption of the Soviet model of central control following
World War II. Economic limitations are reflected in the budgets
of the scientific institutions and in access to foreign currency.
With each passing year the scientists see the international competitiveness of their activities slipping in almost every field.
Meanwhile, the politicalleaders of the countries tinker with
the governmental structures, issue appeals for greater productivity from the workforce, and make endless overtures to the
West and to international organizations for help. Less and less
are these appeals presented as commercial credits (since they
can't repay their loans) or as mutually beneficial joint ventures
(since they can't attract partners). The East European countries
increasingly seek help the way developing countries seek
help-through foreign assistance.
For many years foreign assistance agencies-particularly
the World Bank and the UN agencies-have been active in
Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Rumania. They have also had limited
involvement in Poland and Bulgaria. However, their early contributions were generally more of a supplement to national efforts than components of doctor-patient relationships that so
often characterize the activities of these agencies in the Third
World. Now, the economic problems have become so serious in
some of the East European countries that foreign assistance has
takenon more of a prescriptive character.
The US Congress has always taken a special humanitarian
interest in Yugoslavia and Poland, dating back to the early postwar days of food aid for these countries, which are the birthplaces of many million Americans. The humanitarian instincts
of the Congress are again being aroused. Special legislation to
provide food and other types of humanitarian assistance to these

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


two countries and perhaps to other East European countries on

a more sustained basis seems likely. Meanwhile, special Congressionallegislation also provides funds to support modest Ievels of bilateral scientific cooperation with these two countries.
An important outlet for the East European scientists during
these times of economic hardship is the network of international
scientific organizations which broker international meetings and
some international projects. Theseinstitutions include UNESCO,
the UN Environmental Program, the World Health Organization, other UN science agencies, and a large number of international scientific organizations which operate outside the governmental framework. These organizations have become increasingly sympathetic to the foreign currency difficulties in Eastern
Europe and provide support for activities in the region. The East
European scientists welcome these connections, which are rationalized as cooperative science and not as foreign assistance

Turning again to US interests in Eastern Europe, we note

that during times of heightened superpower tensions Eastern
Europe becomes a strategic factor in East-West relations. Eastern
Europe is viewed as the frontline for potential military confrontation. Yet, during times of detente, the United States considers
the region in its own right and turns to the attendant opportunities for developing economic, scientific, and cultural relations with the region. Conflict frequently arises between these
two perspectives in developing the basis for US policies.
Once again, the US Government has been indecisive as to
whether US interests are best served by contributing to economic prosperity within the region or by hoping for economic
decline, which could Iead to political instabilities and eventual
political change. The question of whether East European pros-


Chapter 9

perity conforms to US interests is critical in determining how

best to address issues related to the transfer of high technologies which in the long run could have economic impact in the
The more than 16 million Americans with ethnic roots in
Eastern Europe retain very strong feelings toward the region
and often influence US policies, particularly policies which impact on the welfare of the general population of a country.
Americans want the people of Eastern Europe to be prosperous
and free, but the debate over how to achieve this objective is
often sharply divided. Lurking in the background is the specter
of feeding the Soviet military machine if we allow technology to
flow into the region.
A related aspect of US policy is our long-standing commitment to link US trade concessions to modifications of East European policies in the area of human rights. lndeed, this principle
is ingrained in US legislation that permits Most-Favored-Nation
status and lower tariffs only for countries which have acceptable
track records in the field of human rights. These lower tariffs for
imports into the United States require progress in the movement
of East European policies away from political persecution and
from restrictions on the right to emigrate.
However, trade with Eastern Europe has been at a low ebb,
and thus the bargaining power of the United States is not very
great. Even in the case of Rumania, which is desperate for export opportunities of any magnitude and which values the political as weil as the economic benefits of Most-Favored-Nation
status, the stakes are not sufficiently high to extract additional
Rumanian human rights concessions. Also, as history has
shown, the emigration of Jews from Eastern Europe, which is a
cutting-edge issue in the human rights debate, is less influenced
by trade relations than by the overall state of relations between
the concerned countries and the United States.

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


The United States has for many years espoused a policy of

differentiation among the countries of Eastern Europe. This
means that the US Government views each country differentlyl
depending on the steps the country is taking to liberalize its
internal political and economic systems as well as on the extent
of its autonomy from Moscow as reflected in its foreign policies.
Who could argue with such a general principle? The problems
come in the implementation of this policy which constantly
runs into the persistent stereotype that the region is a "bloc" of
nations controlled by the USSR.
In many ways US technology transfer policies toward Eastern Europe (with the exception of Yugoslavia which is not considered a potential adversary)~ are identical to US policies with
regard to the USSR. The basic assumption is that once Eastern
Europe has access to a technology the technology is available to
the Soviet military establishment. If only technology acquisition
transfer and diffusion were so simple.
Hardware that is obtained in the West can of course be
shipped from place to place. However intelleemal capabilities
are the key to successful absorption and diffusion of technology
and they cannot be easily disseminated. Again effective technology transfer is a people problem not simply a hardware
problem. There is an enormous difference between having a
computer and being able to design and manufacture a computer. There is a great difference between witnessing a scientific
experiment and being able to understand and reproduce the
experiment. East European scientists and engineers have little
opportunity to incorporate modern scientific achievements directly into military systems since they do not design or manufacture modern military hardware. The problemsareformidable in
effectively transmitting useful information acquired from foreign contacts to Soviet military designers who will use the information effectively.


Chapter 9

The US Government restricts contacts between American

and East European scientists who are assumed tobe channels for
flows of high technology to the USSR. Restrietion on issuance of
US visas to East Europeans scientists and engineers is the principal means being employed. Of course if classified information is
involved, such restrictions are important and necessary. However, with regard to scientific exchanges to consider unclassified
ventures and joint research, many of these restrictions are accomplishing little more than increasing the barriers to communication. Such communication is important both for scientific and
political reasons: East European scientists represent a segment of
East European societies that is receptive to new ideas and is in a
position to help bring about important changes in attitudes.
From time to time there have been revelations about East
European exchange scientists who were in fact professional intelligence agents. Obviously steps are needed to minimize the
loss of sensitive information through their activities. However,
the frequency and significance of such cases are small, and overreaction to this possibility can be an undesirable barrier to legitimate scientific contacts.
Looking ahead, the United States has several tools for influencing developments in Bastern Europe. On the economic front
they include credits, import restrictions, and influence on the
policies of internationallending agencies and foreign assistance
organizations. They also include technology transfer policies
that Iimit sales of hardware or software and policies that impose
restrictions on contacts between American and East European
scientists and engineers.
In the field of scientific exchanges, funding limitations on
both sides are a major barrier to greater contacts. The current
two-way flow of scientists could be easily increased in areas of
East European strengths of interest to American scientists if
more funds were available. 8

Economic and Scientific Decline in Eastem Europe


In surnrnary, the pressures for political, econornic, and social changes within Eastern Europe are substantial. They corne
frorn a restless population, they are stirnulated by changes being
charnpioned in the USSR, and they aredriven by the dernands
of the world econorny.
Realistically, the existing leadership in each of the East European countries will not easily part with the ideas of the past,
nor will the newly ernerging leaderships be willing to becorne
sacrificiallarnbs through uncertain political and econornic experirnents. As Gorbachev is dernonstrating every day in the USSR,
even modest changes are painful for sorne, with the benefits not
irnrnediately apparent. Changes in Eastern Europe can be extraordinarily irnportant, however, in bringing new econornic opportunities to the general population of the countries, which
now nurnbers about 150 rnillion.
Eastern Europe rernains of critical irnportance to Western
strategic planners engaged in war garnes with tanks rolling
across the plains of Central Europe. While such seenarios seern
rernote in the nuclear age, these planners will undoubtedly continue to carry influence in the years ahead and will rnake a
strong case for the irnportance of the region. Although the East
European countries have had very little influence on arrns control agreernents of the past, their interest in the current discussions of reductions of conventional forces in Europe is intense.
The US Governrnent is already engaged in both official and
informal dialogues with the leaders of the region to aceeierate
their education in a field frorn which they have frequently been
excluded in the past-arrns control. However, rnore educational
efforts are needed if the East European countries are to becorne a
significant force in arrns control negotiations, a force that over
time rnay not always side with the USSR.


Chapter 9

In addition to becoming a significant force in the arms control arena, Eastem Europe will remain an important political
factor in the development of overall superpower relations.
While positive developments in US relations with Eastem Europe often do not seem to have much influence on US-USSR
relations, adverse developments in the region, ranging from the
smothering of Solidarity to the shooting of US military personnel in East Germany, can certainly retard progress in the development of positive US relations with Moscow.
Scientifically, the region has the potential to remain a locus
of research excellence in selected fields. This potential is reflected, for example, in the results of the worldwide competition
for highly prized scientific positions in West Germany under the
Von Humboldt Foundation. In 1987, Polish scientists held onethird of these coveted positions.
The area of transboundary environmental protection is of
great importance for many countries. Eastem Europe is engulfed in environmental problems with substantial international
as well as domestic consequences. As the United States pursues
its commitment to understand and abate regional and global
environmental problems, Eastem Europe deserves very high
priority as a partner. Scientifically, there is probably no better
region of the world to study the real-world effects of pollutantseffects which are now only predicted on the basis of studies of
laboratory animals and greenhouse plants.


Five Years to Change the

Course of History
We must succeed. Our country has nowhere to retreat.
Mikhail Gorbachev

According to Robert Kaiser, former Moscow correspondent for

the Washington Post, we are "witnessing the beginning of the
end of the Soviet empire. The fear of Soviet conquest and hegemony that dominated world politics for more than a generation should now dissipate. Wehave passed the high water mark
of Soviet power and influence in the world." He notes that "the
facts that made reform necessary describe failure . . .failure is a
fact, while the reforms-at least the practical ones affecting the
economic life of the country-remain just a hope."
Kaiser then concludes,
Most of the twentieth-century empires collapsed peacefully,
but some only fell under the pressure of violence. The French
held on too long, at too great a cost; the Russians may do the
same. It is hard now to imagine how Gorbachev or any future


Chapter 10

Soviet Ieader could gracefully yield to the Poles or the Hungarians-not to mention the Armenians or the Estonians-their
independence. But the entire Gorbachev phenomenon was
hard to imagine before it happened. These are amazing times.
The most dramatic political experiment of the century is collapsing before our eyes-slowly, but certainly. 1

While discussions of the future course of developments in

the USSR become increasingly speculative as political and economic changes take place with unprecedented speed, an alternative to Gorbachev's reforms has yet tobe born, and his continued tenure in the immediate future seems likely. However,
Gorbachev hirnself has vigorously advocated limiting the term
of Soviet officials, including the Secretary General of the Communist Party, to 10 years. Therefore, he will presumably step
down from his position no later than the beginning of 1995, after
one decade of remarkable changes in the USSR.
By that time Gorbachev will be the leader of a Soviet Union
that would not be recognized by his predecessors who left the
scene in the early 1980s. The Lithuanian mousewill have earned
the respect of the Russian bear which had to balance a divided
empire while searching for food. Brains hopefully will have replaced brawn as the calling card of personal stature. Grass roots
initiatives should have achieved wide-scale acceptance. And
perhaps consumer goods rather than guns will be the symbol of
national survival.
On the fast track of political reform, the emergence of genuine dissent and debate within the Communist Party has already begun; and even the evolution of a somewhat independent judiciary may begin. Gorbachev must pay greater attention
to public outcries and demonstrations for better goods and services and for less control from Moscow, especially in the outlying provinces where life is particularly difficult and where ethnic

Five Years to Change the Course of History


loyalties run high. If he is to remain in office, he will have to

avoid serious internal disorders in central Russia; but the possibility will remain that such disorders triggered by impatience
over the Iack of tangible benefits of perestroika could provide
rallying points for the conservative forces in the upper echelons
of the party.
On the slow economic track, Gorbachev will undoubtedly
encounter even more difficulties in the effort to double worker
productivity by the year 2000, a goal that will still leave Soviet
industry hopelessly behind advances of the West. The Westernstyle advertising which began in 1988 with full page ads in
Izvestiya, trumpeting the fragrance of French perfumes, will continue to signal the spread of joint ventures with Western firms to
help restock the shelves of Soviet stores. Gorbachev will probably resist the pressures of 1989 and not seek imports of refrigerators that chill, jeans that fit, and other immediate necessities to
calm a restless population; by 1995 the alternative of encouraging joint ventures may finally Iift the consumer sector while
strengthening indigenous manufacturing capabilities. In order
to subsidize these joint ventures and also to pay for imports to
equip industrial facilities in other sectors on a large scale, however, the USSR will have toreachout for new Western credits.
Such credits may exceed the Iimits recommended by Soviet
economists and require repayments through larger exports of
gold, which could threaten the international price of gold.
Meanwhile, Western-made television receivers the size of dinner plates can be expected to infiltrate the USSR and feed satellite broadcasts from the West into Soviet homes during the
1990s, constantly reminding the population of its unsatisfied
demand for personal automobiles and VCRs. 2
Soviet science is changing, as scientists take advantage of
new opportunities for pressing their individual ideas, and
as debate and disagreement become the rule of the laborato-


Chapter 10

ries rather than the exception. New facilities and equipment will
no doubt bedeck some research institutes; pay scales should
continue to be relatively high; and a new sense of dynamism is
already engulfing some institutes which in the past have best
been described as sleepy. While the advocates of greater emphasis on basic science now have a powerful voice, the pressure for
more immediate returns from investments of scarce resources
into research may again become more dominant. A few areas of
traditional science strengths such as physics, mathematics, and
earth sciences, perhaps buoyed by a new Nobel Prize for a Soviet scientist after a drought of many years, will clearly be protected; but many basic researchers could fall on hard times.
Meanwhile, larger research budgets than ever before will surely
be targeted on a few areas of applied science in a determined
national effort to see tangible progress in the use of biotechnology, automated systems, and more sophisticated electronics.
Still, international telephone calls and the use of electronic mail
will remain rare adventures for most Soviet scientists isolated
from the mainstream of international science.
In the military sphere, Gorbachev will not be watehing a
world on the way to total elimination of nuclear weapons in the
years ahead. Wein the United States will never agree; andin the
last analysis, neither will he. In 1995 nuclear weaponry will be
one of the few vestiges of the Soviet empire of the past and the
Soviets' most powerful force in ensuring the respect of the
world for the USSR. However, Gorbachev will probably be presiding over significant cuts in the size of the Soviet armed forces
and a shifting of economic resources from the military to the
civilian sector. By 1995, the United States and the USSR hopefully will have agreed to new limitations on testing warheads
and weapons systems. Most importantly, unilateral arms control measures, first by the Soviets in cutting conventional forces
in Europe and then reciprocated by the United States in related

Five Years to Change the Course of History


areas, could become an accepted approach. This route would be

an accelerated alternative to the time-consuming formal negotiation process which results in our diplomats curtailing the problems posed by yesterday's technologies rather than tomorrow's.
Meanwhile, Gorbachev's generals may be given ever-increasing
responsibilities to provide troops to help in civil reconstruction
following earthquakes and in the building of new roads and
Looking at his neighbors to the West, Gorbachev will undoubtedly breathe a sigh of relief as he leaves office. No Ionger
will he be the Soviet leader who is walking a tightrope in trying
to ensure a semblance of order within the Socialist bloc, where
political and financial chaos increasingly threatens stability in
most of the countries. With difficulty he should be able to superintend still another temporary truce with Solidarity, and he has
little choice but to allow the Hungarians to stretch the limits of
economic experimentation even further as their contribution to
new thinking. The promised withdrawal of 50,000 Soviet soldiers and 5000 Soviet tanks from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary presumably will take place; but the clamor
from increasingly influential factions within Eastern Europe to
remove all Soviet forces from the region may become loud and

In Washington five years from now, Gorbachev will continue to witness government debates over how slow or how fast
the United States should move toward a more relaxed and less
adversarial relationship with the USSR. Many Americans will
continue to believe that the changes in the USSR are the result of
a one-man show, skeptical that a worthy successor to Gorbachev will be found and convinced that perestroika is reversible. The American military-industrial complex will be unhappy

Chapter 10


with any shifts in our military priorities away from the BastWest confrontation; fighting terrorism and Third World insurgendes is not nearly as capital-intensive nor financially rewarding for entrenched economic interests as preparing for nuclear
exchanges with the USSR.
Soviet-American relations will always be an important
theme for many politicians and for the man on the street in the
United States; but in the all-important arena of world economics, the Soviet Union will remain for the indefinite future a
minor participant at best. Americans will continue to perceive
the Soviet Union as a threat and NATO as an important force to
repel the threat. But most Americans will become more concerned with the tightening encroachment of environmental decay araund them and the next virus to follow AIDS into the
mainstream of American life.
Gorbachev will soon see a Washington preoccupied as never before with population growth, poverty, and debt in the
Third World; internal strife in Latin America and Asia; global
environmental dangers; trade conflicts with Europe and Asia;
and growing foreign ownership of American real estate. He will
recall the Soviet mistake of selling Alaska to the United States,
and he will warn us about our mistake of letting Japan gradually
take over the Hawaan Islands through real-estate acquisitions.

During the next five years, science and technology will be at

the core of many policies adopted by the USSR to address their
internal problems and to shape their foreign policies. Similarly,
in the United States, science and technology will Ioom ever
!arger as we set the stage for entering the next century.
As we have seen, technology drives the military confrontation between the two countries while also providing powerful
tools to monitor compliance with arms control agreements. Tech-

Five Years to Change the Course of History


nology determines the rate and direction of economic growth in

our two societies, although in the United States we are obviously
on a more advanced plateau than are the Soviets. Unfortunately, many of the technologies that will determine our economic
future are the same technologies that fuel the military confrontation; these dual uses are the root of our difficulties in devising
collaborative efforts that will have economic payoff for both
countries while helping to bridge political and cultural gaps.
One of the great challenges confronting the Bush administration is wise resolution of the duster of technology issues
conceming our trade and scientific relationships with the USSR,
and particularly relationships involving dual-use technologies.
While the National Security Council will have little difficulty
developing broad policy directives advocating embargoes on
technologies which are "critical" to maintain our military edge,
translating such broad policies into hundreds of individual export control decisions will not be easy; the Pentagon considers
many technologies critical, while American business considers
very few to be so critical that we should forgo trade opportunities. Stricter enforcement of much shorter lists of embargoed
items can better serve both interested parties. Advocating scientific cooperation in nonsensitive areas of mutual interest while
restricting cooperation in sensitive areas also sounds good, but
again the hundreds of decisions at the lower levels of the US
Govemment on entry visas for Soviet scientists will be the important manifestation of our policies. If research programs are
truly sensitive, they should be classified; visa restrictions will
have little impact on preventing worldwide diffusion of unclassified research methods and results. Let us hope that our
new officials will recognize that many past attempts to punish
the Soviets by denying them access to our products and our
laboratories have only punished the US economy and the advancement of science.


Chapter 10

In one area, namely, the preservation of the global environment, we can help the Soviet Union and they can help us without
becoming too deeply ensnarled in the problems of military technology. Many cooperative programs are underway bilaterally
and through international organizations concerning the warming
of the globe, preservation of important plants and animals that
enrich the genetic pool of the planet, pollution of the oceans, and
other ecological issues of broad international interest. Our scientific understanding of the causes and the extent of global environmental darnage from human activity remains very rudimentary.
Both countries have considerable scientific talent as well as much
firsthand experience for addressing ecological global concerns,
and the t<;>pic deserves a special status during discussions between the leaders of the United States and the USSR. Therefore,
the two governments should amend their four-point political
agenda (arms control, human rights, regional issues, bilateral
cooperation) with a fifth topic, namely, global issues. While environmental concerns would be the centerpiece of this new agenda item, consideration of a broader range of energy issues and
health problems which affect the entire world would very naturally enter the discussions and the calls for action.
Turning more directly to scientific cooperation, we have
seen the benefits from many science ventures with the USSR,
but wehavealso experienced the frustrations of wasted efforts.
As Soviet scientists begin to put their huge house in better order, opportunities for shortcutting the road to scientific discovery through cooperative endeavors increase. Wehave identified
ma11y areas with high technical payoff through cooperation,
while recognizing that there will be minimal technical benefit
from cooperation in many other fields where the Soviets have
little to offer.
However, even in some fields of current Soviet weakness,
cooperation can help avoid surprises and can return other bene-

Five Years to Change the Course of History


fits as well. One such case is cooperation in the field of economics, where we have little to leam. Indeed, a few months ago the
leading Soviet economist Leonid Abalkin told us that his colleagues have no idea what is meant by inflation; a Soviet colleague added, "We have one textbook on the topic, but it was
written 50 years ago." Our staying abreast of Soviet thinking in
this area, and indeed influencing Soviet thinking, is clearly in
our national interest. Similarly in medicine, we may not want to
adopt Soviet surgical procedures for reshaping the eyeball as an
alternative to wearing glasses. But staying abreast of their
assembly-line techniques for completing 15-minute, computerassisted eye operations on hundreds of walk-in/walk-out patients every day may provide us with ideas for related approaches to medical problems afflicting tens of millions of
Effective scientific exchange programs require many years
to develop and mature before significant benefits can be reaped.
In the United States, only the US Govemment has the financial
resources to support such long-term endeavors. Private foundations often provide short-term support for novel cooperative
programs but seldom will consider support over many years.
Therefore, the Bush administration should take steps to reverse
the steady decline in govemment funds available for SovietAmerican scientific cooperation-a decline that continued for
eight years under the Reagan administration. By forgoing the
purchase of one jet fighter every three years, we could double
the current size of our scientific exchanges.
Finally, with regard to Eastem Europe, we can continue to
benefit technically from cooperation with selected scientists of
the region; and the political implications of such cooperation are
increasing daily as the turmoil chums in the region. Still, US
Govemment funding to support such cooperatinn is minimal.
While our diplomats talk enthusiastically about the importance

Chapter 10


of cooperation with the region, American budget offleials have

yet to consider such cooperation as important as the purchase of
two tanks each year.

Being a tennis buff, I carry my racquet to Moscow and the

capitals of Eastem Europe. I sometimes play with tennis balls
produced in the local factories, only to find that they usually
bounce like sponges. When I complain to my partners that I
can't reach the ball because it doesn't bounce very high, they
simply reply that I must run faster. The good players run faster,
and they win the points. But most of us simply curse the factory
that produced such lousy balls.
In the USSR and in Eastem Europe the people have been
expected to run faster and faster as the products of their factories became softer and softer. Now they are wom out from their
running. The spirits of even the most avid players have been
broken, and the facilities where they practice their trade are
used less and less and gradually fall into disrepair.
Tennis players like to play well, but they also like to win
and to take home the trophies. In the past, Soviets have worked
hard in the laboratories, in the factories, and in the fields, but
they have also wanted to receive recognition. Can Gorbachev
help them receive this recognition so they will continue to try to
win the games by running after the ballsthat don't bounce very
high? Or should we provide them with ballsthat bounce a little
higher so they can play at a higher Ievel?
Yes, we should help Gorbachev and the Soviet people. We
can help them in ways that advance our national security
and that promote our human values. We not only have highbouncing tennis balls, but we have many scientific and technological tools that can help them raise their standard of living.

Five YeiUS to Change the Course of History


Unlike the game of tennis, in international relations there

need not be winners and Iosers. As American and Soviet scientists work together, the winners can far outnurober the Iosers as
both countries gain. Many years ago Einstein recognized that
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. lt is the measles of mankind." Let us hope that our two countries are rapidly ernerging
from the adolescence of scientific nationalism.
Most importantly, American scientists have known andrespected for many years Soviet scientific colleagues who are now
members of Gorbachev' s brain trust and who fully appreciate
the need to redirect the Soviet scientific enterprise toward
peaceful purposes. The likelihood of their success in doing so
depends to a large extent on the US response to the new opportunities for relaxation of military tensions and for scientific cooperation. This is the challenge of techno-diplomacy.


1. Adapted from the definition of diplomacy set forth in Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1987, p. 357.
2. Letter from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Maxim M. Litvinov, Soviet People's
Commissar for Foreign Affairs, November, 16, 1933.
3. The archives of US Government agendes, exchange organizations, and research centers bulge with eye-witness accounts of conditions in Soviet sdentific research institutions. Productivity of Soviet sdentists relative to Western
Counterparts is a popular topic in their reports. The estimate of 30 percent is
based on private and public Statements during late 1988 by offleials of the
Soviet Academy of Seiences and is generally consistent with such reports.
4. Secretary Shultz was particularly forceful on this point during a seminar at
the National Academy of Seiences on September 14, 1987, devoted to the
impact of information technologies on international relations.

1. A particularly powerful film depicting the activities of Soviet gangsters is
"Outside the Law," which was showing in Moscow in November 1988. The
film concludes with the removal of a huge photograph of Brezhnev from a
building in Moscow, apparently symbolizing the end of corruption within
the police force, which had been ignoring criminal activities in exchange for








regular payments to senior police officials. Also during the fall of 1988, the
Moscow weekly Ogonyok carried a number of articles about unpunished
crime and corruption in the USSR.
See, for example, Patrick Cockburn, "RIP Krernlinology. With Glasnost Who
Needs to Read Tea Leaves?" The Washington Post, February 14, 1988, p. Cl.
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Perestroika, New Thinking for Our Country and the
World, Harper and Row, 1987. Two other publications also present his
views, namely, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Mandate for Peace, Paperjacks Ltd.,
New York, 1987, and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, A Time for Peace, Richardson
and Steinman, New York, 1985.
Abel Aganbegyan, The Economic Challenge of Perestroika, lndiana University
Press, 1988.
"Glasnost in the Soviet Union, An Update," Soviet and East European Report,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, April 10, 1988.
Interesting commentaries on the development of the Soviet economy under
Gorbachev, including management and international economic concerns,
are included in Marshall Goldman, "Gorbachev, Turnaraund CEO," Harvard
Business Review, May-June 1988, pp. 107-113; Jerry F. Hough, "Opening Up
the Soviet Economy," The Brookings Institution, 1988; "The Soviet Economy," The Economist, April 9, 1988, pp. 3-18; Ed A. Hewett, "The Foreign
Economic Factor in Perestroika," The Harriman Institute Forum, August 1988;
and Vladislav L. Malkevich, "The Importance of Trade in East-West Relations," Journal of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council, vol. 13, no. 5, 1988.
In addition to the writings of Gorbachev, interesting perspectives on
changes in Soviet strategies are included in Robert Levgold et al., "Gorbachev's Foreign Policy; How Should the United States Respond?" Foreign
Policy Association, April 1988; and Rozanne Ridgway, "Perspectives on
Change in the Soviet Union," Department of State, Current Policy No. 1090,
July 1988.
See, for example, John Hardt, "Perestroika and Interdependence: Toward
Modernization and Competitiveness," Presented in Seoul, Korea, on July
26, 1988, at a seminar sponsored by the George Washington University and
the Korean Association of Communist Studies.
The rapid spread of technologies is discussed in Globalization of Technology,
International Perspectives, Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Societies, National Academy Press, 1988.
George Shultz, "National Success and International Stability in a Time of
Change," Department of State, Current Policy No. 1029, December 1987.
George Shultz, "Managing the US-Soviet Relationship," Department of
State, Current Policy No. 1129, November 1988.
A reasonably complete Iist of intergovernmental agreements in place in rnid1988 is setforthin Newsletter, The Soviet-East European Program of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Summer 1988, p. 17.



1. Differing views of Soviet military doctrine, strategies, and activities are set






forth in the following: Gareyev Makhmut, "The Revised Soviet Military

Doctrine," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 1988; Dmitri Yazov,
"The Soviet Proposal for European Security," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
September 1988, pp. 8-11; L. lvanov, "Nuclear Weapons and Defense of
Western Europe," Pravda, November 29, 1988, p. 6; Casper W. Weinberger,
"Arms Reductions and Deterrence," Foreign Affairs, Spring 1988, pp. 700719; Gerhard Wettig, "New Thinking in Security," Problems of Communism,
March-April 1988, pp. 1-14; and William E. Odom, "Soviet Military Doctrine," Foreign Affairs, Winter 1988/1989, pp. 114-134.
"Western Defense, The European RoJe in NATO," EUROGROUP, Brussels,
May 1988.
A recent US Government report on burden sharing is "Sharing the Roles,
Risks, and Responsibilities for the Common Defense," AReport to the United States Congress, Department of Defense, December 22, 1988.
The Department of State summarizes the NATOapproach to security in Ref.
"Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts," NATO, November 1988.
"Statement of the Warsaw Pact Defense Ministers Committee 'On the Correlation of Warsaw Pact and North Atlantic Alliance Force Strengths and
Armaments in Europe and Adjoining Waters,"' Pravda, January 30, 1989,
p. 5.
See Senator Carl Levin, "Beyond the Bean Count," Armed Forces Subcommittee on Conventional Forces and Alliance Defense, Second Edition, July
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Speech to the United Nations, December 8, 1988,
Soviet Mission to the United Nations. A presentation of the proposals is
presented in "This Is Not Just a Matter of Tactics," Newsweek, December 19,
1988, pp. 31-32.
"Understanding the INF Treaty," US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1988. Also, "The INF Treaty: Questionsand Answers," Department of
State, February 1988.
Many articles have been published during the past several years in Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists presenting all sides of the arguments concerning verification and the need for continued testing. The position of the Reagan
administration on testing is set forth in "Nuclear Testing Limitations: US
Policy and the Joint Verification Experiment," Department of State, July
1988; and "Reagan Administration Efforts in Nuclear Testing: A Chronology," Arms Control Update, US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
August 1988. Also, a particularly succinct statement of the US positionwas



released by the US Delegation to the Nuclear Testing Talks in Geneva on

September 17, 1987, namely:
... a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing is a Iang-term objective, which
must be viewed in the context of a time when we do not need to depend on
nuclear deterrence to ensure international security and stability, and when we
have achieved broad, deep and verifiable arms reductions, substantially improved verification capabilities, expanded confidence building measures, and
greater balance in conventional forces.

11. Early commentaries on SOl and the Soviet response are included in "Soviet
Strategie Defense Programs," Department of State and Department of Defense, October 1985; and R. Z. Sagdeyev and S. N. Rodionov, "Space Based
Anti-Missile System: Capabilities Assessment," Space Research Institute,
Academy of Seiences of the USSR, 1986. A more recent discussion is Benjamin Lambeth and Kevin Lewis, "The Kremlin and SOl," Foreign Affairs,
Spring 1988, pp. 755-770.
12. An expansion of this theme can be found in Matthew Evangelista, "How
Technology Fuels the Arms Race," Technology Review, July 1988, pp. 43-49.
13. For useful background, see Reykjavik and Beyond, Deep Reductions in Strategie
Nuclear Arsenals and the Future Direction of Arms Contra!, Committee on International Security and Arms Control, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, 1988.
14. Additional perspectives on the prospects for arms control agreements are set
forthin George Shultz, "The Administration's Arms Control Agenda," Department of State, Current Policy No. 1121, November 1988; Jan M. Lode!,
"An Arms Control Agenda," Foreign Policy, Fall1988; and Leon V. Sigal and
Jack Mendelsohn, "The Stage Shifts in Arms Control," Technology Review,
August/September 1988, pp. 52-61.

1. Roald Z. Sagdeyev, "Science and Perestroika: A Long Way ToGo," Issues in
Science and Technology, Summer 1988, pp. 48-52; R. Sagdeyev, "19th Party
Conference: Tasks of Restructuring; Where Have We Lost Momentum?"
lzvestiya, April 28, 1988, p. 3.
2. Among the many history books that describe this stage of development of
the Soviet state is Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, Fourth
Edition, Oxford University Press, 1984.
3. Terrence Garrett, "Soviet Science and Technology-a New Era?" Department of Trade and Industry, London, February 1988, p. 1.
4. "From the Notes of Academician V. Legasov," Pravda, May 20, 1988, p. 3.
5. These and other Soviet building practices were discussed by American scientists and engineers who visited Armenia shortly after the earthquake





during a public meeting at the National Academy of Seiences on January 23,

Reliable information on Soviet expenditures for military research and development is not readily available. The estimates are based on a review of
Soviet information on research expenditures in general and on information
developed during Hearings of the Joint Economic Committee of the US
Congress in the mid 1980s.
Garrett, p. 6.
"Decline of Prestige in the Engineering Profession," Tekhnika i Nauka, no. 11,
November 1987, p. 10.
Louis Lavoie, "The Limits of Soviet Technology," Technology Review,
November/December 1985, p. 70.
Soviel Military Power: An Assessment of the Threat, 1988, Department of Defense, April 1988, p. 141.
Some of these comments are based on a seminar held at the National Academy of Seiences on July 21, 1988, on the topic of dual-use technologies.
"The Soviet Economy," The Economist, April 9, 1988, p. 11.
Michael J. Berry, ed., Science and Technology in the USSR, Langman Group
UK Ltd., 1988, p. 58.
Several recent publications provide interesting overviews of trends in Soviet
science. They include: Loren R. Graham, "Gorbachev's Great Experiment,"
Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 1988, pp. 23-32; Craig Sinclair, "Reflections on Scientific Research in the Soviet Union," Science and Public Policy,
June 1987, pp. 133-138; "Soviet Science," Nature, October 29, 1988, pp. 779800; Richard M. Judy, "Soviet Science and Technology: Problems, Policies,
and Directions," Prepared for the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle
East, House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, US Congress,
April 13, 1988; and "A Study of Soviet Science," US Government (released
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy), December 1985.

1. "Perestroika Throws a Party," The Economist, October 1988, p. 51.
2. Comments on reforms in the agricultural sector are included in Grant Mangold, "Portraits of Perestroika," Soybean Digest, December 1988, pp. 6-13;
Karen Brooks, "Gorbachev Tries the Family Farm," Bulletin of the Atomic Seienfists, December 1988; "Freeing Russia's Farms," The Economist, August 6,
1988, pp. 37-38; and M. A. Polyakov and A. N. Khitrov, "Economic Concepts
of Scientific and Technological Progress in the USSR Agroindustrial Complex," 1988 (unpublished manuscript by two Soviet specialists).
3. Among the many discussions of Soviet economic reforms are "Gorbachev's
Economic Plans," Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, vols. 1 and 2,



November 23, 1987; Ed A. Hewett, Reforming the Souiet Economy, The Brookings Institution, 1988; "The Soviet Economy," The Economist, April 9, 1988,
pp. 3-18; Hedrick Smith, "On the Road with Gorbachev's Guru," New York
Times Magazine, April 10, 1988; Richard E. Ericson, "The New Enterprise
Law," The Harriman Institute Forum, Columbia University, February 1988;
"Soviet Defense Ministry Boosts Output of Consumer Goods," lzvestiya,
November 10, 1988; "United States-Soviet Relations: 1988," Hearings before
the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, House of Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs, US Congress, February-April, 1988.
4. Insights conceming the cooperative movement are included in David Remnick, "For Kremlin, Coops Are Good-to a Point," The Washington Post, January 8, 1989, p. A23; and "The Growth of New Soviet Cooperatives," Journal of
the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council, vol. 13, no. 5, 1988, pp. 35-43.
5. Reports on recent changes within the Soviet scientific establishment include
Michael Parks, "Moscow Reprograms Its Scientists To Get Results," Los Angeles Times, October 18, 1988, p. 1; G. I. Marchuk, "Soviet Science Is the
Breakthrough to the Future," Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, no. 46, November 1987,
pp. 20-21; G. I. Marchuk, Text of Speech at Party Conference, Pravda, July 1,
1988, p. 2; V. Konovalov, "The Scientists and the Time," Interview with G. I.
Marchuk, lzvestiya, March 22, 1987, p. 2; V. A. Kirillin et al., "Elections to the
Academy of Sciences," Pravda, December 18, 1987; Maleolm W. Browne, "Far
Reaching Changes Seen in Soviet Science", New York Times, February 15,
1988, p. A22; and Roald Sagdeyev, "USSR Academy of Seiencesat a Tuming
Point," Moscow News, January 3, 1988, p. 12.
6. Report of speech by G. I. Marchuk at June 29, 1988, session of 19th All-Union
Communist Party Conference, Pravda, Second Edition, July 1, 1988, pp. 2-3.

1. Additional comments on the relationship between exchanges and foreign

policy can be found in Glenn E. Schweitzer, "Who Wins in US-Soviet Science

Ventures?" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988, pp. 28-32; Yale
Richmond, "Soviet-American Cultural Exchanges: Ripoff or Payoff?" The
Wilson Center, Smithsonian Institution, November 1984; John M. Joyce, "USSoviet Science Exchanges, A Foot in the Soviet Door," Russian Research
Center, Harvard University, 1982; and "US-Soviet Exchanges: The Next Thirty Years," The Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, February 1, 1988.

1. Many of the currently active joint ventures are identified in "Special Issue:
Joint Ventures," USSR Technology Update, Delphic Associates, May 5, 1988.







Comments on future prospects are included in John E. Parsons, "The Future

of East-West Industrial Cooperation," Technology Review, November/
December 1988, pp. 57-63.
Prospects for cooperation in space research are discussed in Kathy Sawyer,
"Taking Detente to Mars and Beyond," The Washington Post, May 15, 1988, p.
B3; and Henry F. Cooper, "A Reporter at Large, Explorers," The New Yorker,
March 7, 1988, pp. 43-61.
Two interesting reviews of scientific exchanges are "Review of U5-USSR
Interacademy Exchanges and Relations," National Research Council, September 1977; and Catherine P. Allesand Arthur E. Pardee, "The U5-USSR
Agreement on Cooperation in the Fields of Science and Technology: Review
and Evaluation," SRI International, March 1984.
Selected scientific benefits of exchanges are documented in "United StatesSoviet Scientific Exchanges," Hearings of the Subcommittee on Europe and
the Middle East, House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, US
Congress, July 31, 1986; and "Selected Aspects of US-USSR Cooperation in
Science," Prepared by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council for the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, House of
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, US Congress, August 1986.
"Briefing Book for NAS Exchangees to the USSR," National Academy of
Sciences, 1987/1988.
Another perspective on scientific relations between the two countries is presented in I<im McDonald, "US Researchers See Historie Shift in Relations
with Soviet Scientists," The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 22, 1988, p. 1.

1. "Soviet Acquisition of Militarily Significant Western Technology, an Update," US Government (department unspecified), September 1985, p. 2.
2. "To Examine U5-Soviet Science and Technology Exchanges," Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology, US House of
Representatives, June 23-25, 1987, p. 11.
3. Judith Axler Turner, "Soviet Espionage Efforts Have Targeted US Research
Libraries and Staffs since 1%2, FBI Charges in Report," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, May 25, 1988, p. 1.
4. Brendan Greeley, "Soviets Target US Companies, Universities for New
Technologies," Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 30, 1985,
p. 86.
5. "Assessing the Effect of Technology Transfer on US/Western Security. A
Defense Perspective," Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy,
February 1985, p. E-1.
6. lbid., pp. 1-4.



7. lbid., pp. 1-7.

8. lbid. Among the many other sources is Michael Weisskopf, "Soviet Radar
Allegedly Stolen from US," The Washington Post, September 24, 1985, p. AlS.
9. See, for example, "Tracking a Techno-bandit," Newsweek, December 7, 1987,
p. 66.
10. David E. Sanger, "In Shift, US Says Toshiba Sale to Moscow Was Damaging," The Washington Post, March 15, 1988, p. 8.
11. "Soviet Acquisition of Technology, an Update," p. 3.
12. lbid, p. 4.
13. Scientific Communication and National Security, National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Academy
Press, 1982.
14. The export controllaws and regulations are detailed and complex. Of particular relevance to scientific cooperation is "Export Administration Regulations," Scientific or Educational Data, pt. 379, p. 2. Also, see "Export Control
of Technical Data," International Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, July 20, 1983.
15. Balancing the National Interest, US National Security, Export Controls, and Global
Competition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1987; and Global Trends
in Computer Technology and Their Impact on Export Control, National Research
Council, National Academy Press, 1988.
16. Scientific Communication and National Security, p. 65.
17. For further insights on the complexities of technology transfer, see Bruce
Parrott, ed., Trade, Technology, and Soviet-American Relations, Indiana University Press, 1985; Thane Gustafson, "Selling the Russians the Rope? Soviet
Technology Policy and US Export Controls," Rand Corporation, April1981;
"East-West Technology Transfer: A Congressional Dialogue with the Reagan Administration,'" Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, December
19, 1984; Andrew C. Revkin, "Supercomputers and the Soviets," Technology
Review, August/September 1986, p. 69; Janice R. Lang, "Scientific Freedom:
Focus of National Security Controls Shifting," Chemical and Engineering News,
July 1, 1985, p. 7; and Allen Wendt, "US Stance toward the Soviet Union on
Trade and Technology," Department of State, Current Policy No. 1128,
November 1988.

1. Eduard Shevardnadze, Statement to UNESCO, USSR Mission to UNESCO,

October 12, 1988.

2. "Reform and Human Rights: The Gorbachev Record," Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, US Congress, May 1988.



3. Robert B. Cullen, "Human Rights: A Millennial Year," The Harriman Institute

Forum, Columbia University, December 1988.
4. For example, see Stephen White, John Gardner, and George Schopflin,
"Democracy and Human Rights," Communist Political Systems: An Introduction, St. Martin's Press, 1982.
5. "Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Final Act, Helsinki,
1975," Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State.
6. See, for example, "Glasnost and State Secrets," Soviet East European Report,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, April 10, 1988.
7. A discussion of Soviet psychiatric practices is included in Constance Holden, "Politics and Soviet Psychiatry," Science, February 5, 1988, p. 551. A
more highly technical discussion is included in Walter Reich, "The World
of Soviet Psychiatry," The New York Times Magazine, January 30, 1983, pp.
8. See "The USSR Withdraws from the World Psychiatrie Association," A
Chronicle of Human Rights in the USSR, no. 48, October 1982-April
9. Current trends in modifying psychiatric practices are reported in Bill Keller,
"Mental Patients To Get New Legal Rights," New York Times, January 5,
1988, p. Al.
10. Robert B. Cullen, "Soviet Jewry," Foreign Affairs, Winter 1986, pp. 252-266.
11. Additional discussions of problems in the USSR, including rumblings
among the ethnic minorities, are reported in Douglas Stanglin and Jeff
Trimble, "Raising the Stakesfora Good Czar," US News and World Report,
November 28, 1988, p. 40; and "Cracks in the Soviet Facade," Newsweek,
March 14, 1988, p. 26.

1. Eastern Europe is a geopolitical definition of a region of countries of great
diversity. The topography includes fertile agricultural valleys and barren
hills, rugged mountains and coastal beaches, dense forests, !arge marshlands, rolling plains, and even an area of sand dunes. While most frequently
considered as a political bloc, the countries have very different cultures,
languages, and histories. Religious heritage and practice encompass !arge
populations of Catholics, Moslems, and Orthodox religions and smaller populations of many other sects. Thus, the people are as different as the geography. Eight countries are considered tobe in Eastem Europe based on their
location and their embracement of communism since World War II. They are
the so-called northem-tier countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East
Germany; the southem-tier countries of Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria;
and two countries with unique political orientations, namely, Yugoslavia and






Albania. Historians have coined Central Europe as an area of political cohesiveness of the past, while military planners consider Central Europe to be a
area of potential military conflict between East and West. The communist
countries usually considered to be in Central Europe are Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Hungary. Finally, in March 1988, Yugoslavia successfully convened a meeting of the Ieaders of the Balkan countries, reminding us that this geopolitical concept is still alive. Thesecountries are Rumania,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, and Turkey.
"Cracks in the Bloc," Newsweek, October 24, 1988, p. 30.
William Pfaff, "Reflections (Central and Eastem Europe)," The New Yorker,
December 26, 1988, pp. 83-90.
"Cracks in the Bloc," p. 30.
A discussion of the organization and the strengths of science and technology
in Eastem Europe is included in Gyorgy Darvas (ed.), Science and Technology in
Eastern Europe, Longman Group UK Ltd., 1988.
For elaboration of developments in Bulgaria, see Glenn E. Schweitzer, "lntroducing Research Results into Practice: The Bulgarian Experience," Technology
in Society, vol. 9, 1987, pp. 141-155.
See, for example, "Eastem Europe TurnstoWest in Effort To End Technology
Gap," The Washington Post, February 28, 1988, p. Hl.
Discussions of US policy are included in John C. Whitehead, "The US Approach to Eastem Europe: A Fresh Look," Department of State, Current Policy
No. 144, February 1988; and "US Policy toward Eastem Europe," Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, US Congress, October 2-3,

1. Robert G. Kaiser, "The USSR in Decline," Foreign Affairs, Winter 1988/1989,

p. 97.
2. Comments on the outlook for perestroika are included in Leonid Abalkin,
"Reconstruction in Management of the Soviet Economy, Preliminary Results
and Prospects," Institute of Economics, Academy of Seiences of the USSR,
February 22, 1988; Joel Kurtzman, "Of Perestroika, Prices, and Pessimism,"
New York Times, November 1988, p. 1; and "Economic Reform Stalled in
USSR: Bureauerats Manage to Keep Their Jobs," Soviet East European Report,
Radio Free EuropetRadio Liberty, December 10, 1988.

Abalkin, Leonid, 297
Academy of Medical Seiences (USSR)
AIDS research, 147-148
competitive grants, 118-119
Academy of Seiences (USSR), 65, 7374, 85, 142
age of membership of, 116-117
diplomacy and, 135-136
human rights polieies of, 241242
perestroika and, 114, 117-120
politics and, 115
private exchanges and, 171
retirement polieies of, 116-117
technology collection and, 207
Afghanistan, 15, 141
public reaction to, 7
White Sea exploration and, 147
Aganbegyan, Abel, 5
Agriculture (USSR)
collectivization, 106
general policies, vi-vii
perestroika and, 105-107
science and, 68
AIDS research, 147-148
Akademgorodok (Science City), 122
Alcoholism, 165
Amerika (magazine), 144

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 56. See

also Arms control
Anti-war sentiment (USSR), 154
Applied technology, 124-129. See also
Technology; Soviet seience and
Aristotle, 131
Armenian earthquake, vi, 71-72
Arms control
advantages of, 7
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 56
disarmament and, 35
Eastern Europe, 285-286
economics of, 44
first-strike policy, 33
Gorbachev and, 30, 42
INF agreement, 44-47
NATO and, 38, 41-42
nuclear test ban, 47
perestroika and, 292
seabed restrictions, 37-38
standing-start option, 42
Strategie Arms Reduction Talks
(START), 46-47
summits, 16-17
surveillance technology, 28
techno-diplomacy, 59
triad concept, 31-33



Arms control (Cant.)

US viewpoint on, 30-34
verification of, 45-46
INF agreement, 44-47
technology capabilities of, ix, 26,
See also entries under names of
Berlin, 36
Biological warfare, 147
Bourgholtzer, Frank, 168
Brezhnev, Leonid, 69-70, 242
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 257
Bulgaria, 271-274, 280. See also Eastern Europe
Bush, George, 20, 295, 297
Carlucci, Frank, 23
Carpenter, Scott, 146
Carter, Jimmy, 247
Ceramics, 88, 92
Chekhov, Anton, 159
Chemical engineering, 92
Chemical polymers, 92
Chernobyl disaster, vi, 7, 70-71, 165,
scientific cooperation, 165
Soviet science and technology, 7071
agriculture in, 105
industrial production in, 80
INF agreement, 44-47
nuclear weapons and, 243
CIA, X, 198
Commercial interests (US), 162-165
Commercial exchanges, 174
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 232-234
Competitive grants, 118-119
Computers, 5, 10-11
cooperatives, 114


Computers (Cant.)
Eastern Europe, 278-279, 283-284
educational system, use in, 121122
exchanges, effect on, 210
international economics, effects on,
ix, 10
microprocessors, 91
software, 90, 114, 218
Soviet capabi!ities, vi-vii, 9, 81,
technology collection, 198
Conservation. See Environmentalism
Construction techniques (Soviet), 72
Conventional forces,
NATO, 36-44
Soviet Union, 39-44, 87
Cooperatives, 113-114
Coordinating Committee on Export
Control (COCOM), 215
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 266
Cultural exchanges, 144-145
Curie, Marie, 267
Czechoslovakia, 256, 262-263. See
also Eastern Europe
Defensive defense (Soviet concept),
Department of Defense (US)
research funding, 12
technology transfer, 193-194, 196197, 214-216
Department of State (US), 137, 139.
See also Diplomacy
Developing countries. See Third
Diplomacy, 133-158
agencies involved in, 137-139
American scientists and, 139, 153155
cultural exchanges, 144-145
detente, 148-152
Eastern Europe, 257-258

Diplomacy (Cant.)
foreign policy considerations, 133,
139-141, 145-148, 157
negotiations, style of, 133-136
personal experiences and, 155-157
political considerations, 14, 141144
politicians and, 138
summits, 16-17, 34-35, 234, 238
techno-diplomacy, v-vi, 21, 59,
technology protection and, 212217
visa restrictions, 219-221, 284
See also Scientific cooperation
Disarmament. See Arms control
Dissidents. See Human rights
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 229
Dual-use technologies, 13, 87-92
East Germany, 259-260, 262, 271. See
also Eastern Europe
Eastern Europe, 255-286
conditions in, 274-277
contemporary science in, 269-271
description of, 309
economic factors, 255-264, 279-280
education, technica!, 267-268, 270
environmental problems in, 265266, 286
history of science in, 266-269
human rights in, 280-282
importance of, 285-286
military power and, 259-260
overview of, 255-258
political problems, 255-262
reforms in, 262-263
relations with, 297-298
Soviet domination of, 259-262
Soviet military in, 259-260
Soviet technology and, 278-279
technology applications in, 270274
technology gap, 258

Eastern Europe (Cant.)
technology linkages with West,
268, 278
technology transfer and, 278
trade with, 282-283
United States and, 257-258, 277278, 281-285
See also entries under names of
Economic factors
disarmament, 35
Eastern Europe, 261-262, 279-280
NATO expenditures, 38
research and development, Soviet,
72-73, 74
scientific cooperation and, 169170
Soviet conditions, 29-30
technology collection, 202-203
troop reductions, 44
US-USSR relations, 218
See also Finance
Edison, Thomas, 101
Educational systems
Eastern Europe, 267-268, 270
engineering (USSR), 95-96, 123124
perestroika and, 120-124
private exchanges with the US
and, 170-174
problems of, 129-130
Soviet approach to, 93-97
Einstein, Albert, 267
Electronics, 26. See also Computers
Embargoes, 19, 214-215
diplomacy and, 140
Soviet policies, 81-82
Engineering (USSR)
approach to, vii, 78-82
educational system, 95-96, 123124
management role, 79
Entrepreneurship, 5, 7-8, 112-114

diplomacy and, 140
Eastern Europe, 265-266, 286
exchanges and, 137
future and, 296
importance of, ix-x
international cooperation and, 1314, 166-167
nuclear testing and, 47-53
scientific cooperation and, 166-167
US-USSR agreement on, 152
Environmental Protection Agency
(US), 47-48, 169-170
Berlin, 36
technology theft, 197-200
See also Intelligence agencies
Exchange rates, 163
Exchanges. See Cultural exchanges;
Diplomacy; Scientific cooperation
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
x-xi, 196-197
Eastern Europe, 263-264
importance of, ix, 29
Third World, 29
See also Economic factors
Fishing, Soviet, 151
Ford Motor Company, 66
Foreign exchange. See Exchangerates
Franklin, Benjamin, 191
Freud, Sigmund, 267
Fulbright, J. William, 131
Fulbright program, 172
General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT), 19
Genetics, 68
Germany. See East Germany; West
Eastern Europe, 255

Glasnost (Cant.)
effects of, 129-130
human rights and, 234-235
media, role of, 3-4, 6, 145
psychiatry and, 244
public reaction to, 6
See also Perestroika
Gorbachev, Mikhail, 287
agriculture, policies of, 105
bureaucracy and, 112
Eastern Europe and, 255, 262, 279
goals of, 103-104
human rights and, 232-234, 237
intellectuals and, 115-116
mutual security policy of, 29
national security and, 8-9, 30
nuclear disarmament and, 30, 292
Perestroika, 4-5
personality of, viii, 155
political realities facing, 4, 20, 285
private sector policy of, 66, 112114
public reaction to, 7
Reagan and, 17, 155
reforms of, 4-6
SDI and, 56
Soviet science and, 64, 70
Soviet troops and, 42, 292-293
summits, roJe in, 16-17, 34-35,
234, 238
technology goals of, 9-10, 111
technology collection and, 203
See also Glasnost; Perestroika
Grant programs. See Competitive
GRU (Soviet military intelligence),
Health, x
Helsinki Accords, 236-237
Hong Kong, 278
Human rights, 231-252
Carter on, 247
Eastern Europe, 282-283



Human rights (Cont.)

Gorbachev and, 232-234, 237
Helsinki Accords, 236-237
KGB and, 239, 250
perestroika and, 231
psychiatric abuses, 243-245
Reagan on, 247
refuseniks, 17, 234-235, 238-242
Sakharov, roJe of, 249
scientific cooperation and, 232
Soviet constitution and, 235-236
Soviet Jews, 17, 233-234
Soviet society and, 250-251
US-USSR relations and, 17, 237238, 245-249
Hungary, 256, 262-263. See also Eastern Europe
IMF. See International Monetary
agriculture, 106-108
competitive grants, 118-119
inventions and patents, 118
Soviet industry, 107
Soviet science and technology, 9899
See also Pay scales; Productivity
Individual rights, 234. See also Human rights
Industry. See Perestroika; Soviet
Union; Trade
INF. See Intermediate Nuclear Force
Inspections. See Verification
Intellectuals, Soviet, 114-116
Intelligence agencies
diplomacy and, 137-138
scientific cooperation and, 179
scientists and, 153
technological competition and, xxi
technology collection and, 196200, 205-206, 211

Intelligence agencies (Cont.)

See also entries under names of
Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF)
description of, 44-47
negotiation of, 16-17
International finance. See Economic
factors; Finance
International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA), 142143
International Monetary Fund (IMF),
Inventions and patents, 118
Jackson-Vanik legislation, 246
Japan, 26, 92, 199, 264, 278
Kaiser, Robert, 289-290
Keyworth, Jay, 54
KGB, x-xi, 15, 196~197
exchanges and, 138
human rights and, 239, 250
technology collection and, 207
Khrushchev, Nikita, 68, 155, 242
Kissinger, Henry, 31, 140-141, 148149
Legasov, Valeriy, 70-71
Lenin Prize, 65
Lenin, V. 1., 66, 67
Lysenko, Trofim, 68
Machine tools, 90-91
Managers and management (USSR)
perestroika, 8
engineers, 79
industry, 110-111
intellectuals, 114
Marx, Kar), 7, 68
exchanges and, 155
glasnost and, 3-4, 6, 145



Medvedev, Roy, 83
Mendeleyev, Dmitriy, 65
Metallurgy, 91-92
Microprocessors. See Computers
Military power, 25-59
competition and, 25, 26
Eastern Europe and, 259-260, 285286
expansion of, 25
exchanges and, 142-143, 211
historical forces and, 27
INF agreement, 44-47
limitations of, 6-7
mutual security and, 28-30
nuclear age and, viii-ix
nuclear testing and, 47-53
perestroika and, 292-293
sdence and technology, 13-14
SDI and, 53-57
Soviet industry and, 109-111
Soviet nuclear arsenal, vii
Soviet sdence and technology, 8387
Soviet Union and, vii
techno-diplomacy and, 59
technology, aspects of, 57-58, 193196, 294-295
technology transfer, 214-215
US-USSR relations, 25-28
Mutual security
Gorbachev and, 8, 29
military power and, 28-30
National Academy of Sdences (US),
xi, 135-136, 239-240
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 165
National Sdence Foundation (US),
National security, 25-59
environmentalism and, ix-x
Gorbachev and, 30
internationalism and, 8-9
mutual security and, 8, 28-30

National security (Cant.)

nuclear disarmament and, 34-36
nuclear testing and, 47-53
SDI and, 53-57
techno-diplomacy and, 59
See also Technology collection
Nevada Test Site, 47-49
New Economic Policy (USSR in
1920s), 66-67
Nobel Prize, 65, 67-68, 292
Non-nuclear forces. See Conventional
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), 36-44
Military Committee, 37-38
Soviet view of, 39-41
technology protection, 212
Novosibirsk, 68, 122
Nuclear disarmament. See Arms
Nuclear safety, 165
Nuclear testing, 47-53
arguments for and against, 49-50
bans on, 51-53
environmental concerns about, 4749
treaty limitations on, 51
Nuclear weapons
disarmament and, 36
Gorbachev and, 30
INF agreement and, 45
military power and, viii-ix
NATO and, 39
Soviet view of, 44
targeting of, 31
triad concept, 31-38
See also Arms control
Oceanography, 151, 165
Pacifism. See Anti-war sentiment
Patents. See Inventions and patents
Pavlov, lvan, 65


Pay scales, 117-118, 121. See also Incentives; Productivity
Perestroika, 103-130
Academy of Seiences (USSR) and,
65, 73-74, 85, 116-120, 142
agriculture and, 105-107
applied technology and, 124-129
bureaucracy and, 111-112
Eastern Europe, 262-265
economic reforms and, 291
educational system and, 120-124,
elites and, 104-105
entrepreneurship and, 7-8, 112114
environmental concerns of, 296
goals of, 103, 111, 291
human rights and, 231
industrial modernization and, 8081, 107-109, 130
intellectuals and, 114-116
motivations for, vi, vii-viii
Perestroika, 4-5
political reforms, 290-291
private sector and, 112-114
productivity and, 291
public reactions to, 7
sdence and technology and, 9-14,
114-116, 291-292
Soviet military and, 109-111, 292293
technology goals of, 9-14, 124-129
technology collection and, 203
The Economic Chal/enge of Perestroika, 5
See also Glasnost
Perle, Richard, 194-196, 207, 208, 217
Peter the Great, 65
Poland, 141, 256, 261-263, 279-280.
See also Eastern Europe
Productivity (USSR)
general, vii, 82
industry, 80-81
military, 109-111

Productivity (USSR) (Cant.)

perestroika, 291
private sector, 112-114
science, 63
See also Incentives; Pay scales
Profits, 8
Psychiatrie abuses, 243-245
Quality control (USSR)
general, vii, 80
industry, 80, 108
military, 80, 83-84
Reagan, Ronald
exchange programs and, 141
Gorbachev and, 1, 155
human rights and, 247
INF agreement and, 44
NATO and, 37
SDI and, 53
Soviet pipeline and, 214-215
summits, role in, 16-17, 34-35,
234, 238
Reasonable sufficiency (Soviet concept), 40
Refuseniks, 17, 234-235, 238-242. See
also Human rights
Regional conflicts, 17-18
Research and development (USSR)
aeronautics and, 77, 86, 197
applied technology and, 124-127
economic factors and, 72-74, 97
educational system and, 122-123
engineers and, 82
machine tools and, 90-91
military needs and, 12-14, 85-87,
See also Science and technology
Reykjavik summit, 34-35, 234
Rumania, 261, 263, 280. See also Eastern Europe
Roosevelt, Franklin 0., vi



Sagdeyev, Roald, 61, 63-64, 78

Sakharov, An drei, 248-249
Schools. See Educational systems
Science and technology (USSR), 63-


Academy of Seiences and, 65, 73J4, 85, 142

agriculture and, 106
Armenian earthquake and, 71-72
big science projects, 13-14
chemical engineering and, 92
Chernobyl disaster and, 70-71
civilian/military dichotomy, 83
computers, 88-90
contemporary conditions of, 63-65,
cooperation with the United States
and, 26-28
diplomacy and, 133-158. See also
dual-use technologies and, 13, 8792
education and, 93-97
engineering and, 78-82
exchanges and, 143
fusion, 202
history of, 65-70
Institute of Bio-organic Chemistry,
machine tools and, 90-91
metallurgy and, 91-92
military applications of, 83-87
perestroika and, 9-14, 114-116,
Peter the Great and, 65
problems of, 129
young scientists, salaries of, 121
See also Research and development
Science city (Akademgorodok), 122
Scientific cooperation, 161-190
assessment of, 157-158
activities in, 137, 161-162
basic science, agreement on, 18,

Scientific cooperation (Cont.)

benefits of, 157, 174-177
big science projects, 13-14
commercial interests and, 162-165
critics of, 194-196
economic factors and, 169-170
environmental programs, 13-14,
152, 166-167
exchanges, ac'ldemic, 172
exchanges, bilateral, 165-170, 173,
exchanges, private, 170-174
exchanges, restrictions on, 221
future of, 251-252, 296-298
foreign policy and, 18, 146-148
human rights and, 232, 248-249
international perspective of, 179182
oceanography and, 151
personal experiences in, 155-157,
problems in, 178-179
space cooperation, 116, 149-150,
154, 167-169
summit agendas and, 18
technology collection and, 208-211
See also Diplomacy
SDI. See Strategie Defense Initiative
Shevardnadze, Eduard, 231
Shultz, George, ix, 14-15
Siberia, 68-69
Soviet Jews, 17, 233-234
Soviet Union
agriculture, vi-vii, 68, 105-107
bureaucracy, 111-112
consumer goods, 7
currency problems, 76, 163
economic problems, ix, 5, 7-8, 2930, 72-74
education, 93-97
energy, 81-82
foreign visitors, 4
industrial production, 80
intellectuals, 114-116

Soviet Union (Cant.)
military strength, vii, 42-43
NATO viewed by, 39-41
nuclear eapacity, 33
problems, general, vi-vii
Spaee researeh
detente, effects on, 149-151
scientifie eooperation and, 146,
149, 154, 167-169
Soviet scienee and, 77, 87
Soviet sueeesses in, 202
Stalin Josef, 67, 106, 231, 242
Strategie Arms Reduetion Talks
(START). See Arms eontrol
Strategie Defense Initiative (SDI), 17,
34, 53-57
reaetion of Soviets to, 54-56
Soviet scienee and teehnology and,
teehnology transfer and, 201
Szilrd, Leo, 267
arms eontrol and, 59
ehallenge of, vi, 299
definition of, v
US-USSR relations and, 21
Asian eapabilities, ix
eompetition in, 10
Eastem Europe and, 258, 270-274
military, 26, 57-58, 83-87, 294-295
perestroika and, 9-14, 124-129
seientifie eooperation and, 165-170
SDI and, 54
Soviet Union, generally, 6-7
See also Seienee and teehnology
Teehnology eolleetion
dangers of, 194-196, 210
eeonomics of, 197-198, 202-203,
evidenee of, 197-200
effeetive use of, 92, 222-224, 283
extent of, 200-201, 203


Teehnology eolleetion (Cant.)

future and, 203, 225-227
international perspeetive of, 203206, 211
methods of, 203-206
proteetion against, 196-197, 212217, 219-221, 225-227
trade sanetions and, 199
Teehnology transfer
Cold War, effects on, 213
eontrol of, 217-222
Eastem Europe and, 283-285
eeonomics of, 202-203, 218
embargoed products and, 10, 19,
European policies for, 38
exehanges and, 142-143, 225-226
govemment oversight of, 21, 137
limitations on, 212-217, 218, 221
military eoneerns of, 193-194, 214215
perestroika and, 111, 113-114
risks and benefits of, 197
scientifie eooperation and, 224-225
SDI and, 201
Soviet Union, impaet on, 100
trade, effeet on, 21, 215-216
US teehnology spin-off programs,
Teller, Edward, 267
Testing, See Nuclear testing
Third World
perestroika and, 9
Soviet Union and, 15
superpowers interest of, 25
Titanium. See Metallurgy
agreements on, 19
Eastem Europe, 80, 260-261, 264,
embargoes, 19, 214-216
fairs, 206
human rights and, 246, 283


Trade (Cont.)
tariffs and, 19
technology collection and, 199-200
US-USSR Trade and Economic
Council and, 163
Union of Soviet Sodalist Republics.
See Soviet Union
United Nations, 281
United States Information Agency
(USIA), 144
US-USSR relations
adversarial nature of, 133
future possibilities for, 293-299
human rights and, 17, 237-238,
intelligence services and, x-xi
military power and, 25-28
NATO and, 36-44
nuclear testing bans and, 51-53
overview of, v-vi
perestroika and, 14-21, 292-293
scientific cooperation and, 161-190
SDI and, 54-57
techno-diplomacy and, v-vi, 21,
59, 299


US-USSR relations (Cont.)

technology collection and, 205-206
See also Diplomacy
Universities. See Educational systems
Verification (arms control), 45-46
Visa restrictions, 219-221, 284
Vlaikov, Todor, 253
Warsaw Pact, 36-44
Western Europe
military expenditures by, 38
NATO and, 37
technology transfer and, 213-214
See also North Atlantic Treaty
West Germany, 38-39
White, Edward, 168
White Sea exploration, 147
Wigner, Eugene, 267
World Psychiatrie Association, 244
Yazov, Dmitriy, 23
Yugoslavia, 263, 280
Zhivkov, Todor, 273-273