sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexei Kosygin, Alexey Obukhov, Anatoly Gromyko, Andrei Gromyko, Genrikh Borovik, Georgy Arbatov

The Dartmouth Conference: The First 50 Years 1960—2010

Reminiscing on the Dartmouth Conference by

T THE PEAK OF THE , and facilitating conditions conducive to A the Dartmouth Conference was one of economic interaction. the few diversions from the spirit of hostility The significance of the Dartmouth Confer- available to Soviet and American intellectuals, ence relates to the fact that throughout the who were keen, and able, to explore peace- cold war, no formal Soviet-American contact making initiatives. In fact, the Dartmouth had been consistently maintained, and that participants reported to huge gap was bridged by and Washington these meetings. on the of their The composition of discussion and, from participants was a pri- time to time, were even mary factor in the success instructed to “test the of those meetings, and it water” regarding ideas took some time before the put forward by their gov- negotiating teams were ernments. The Dartmouth shaped the right way. At meetings were also used first, in the early 1970s, to unfetter actions under- the teams had been led taken by the two countries by professionally quali- from a propagandist connotation and present fied citizens. From the , political them in a more genuine perspective. But the experts and researchers working for the Insti- crucial mission for these meetings was to tute of World Economy and International establish areas of concurring interests and to Relations and the Institute of U.S. and Cana- attempt to outline mutually acceptable solutions dian Studies, organizations closely linked to to the most acute problems: nuclear weapons Soviet policymaking circles, played key roles. reduction, international conflict resolution, For the , the team was made up

1 of political scientists; prominent bankers and as was explicitly demonstrated by the failure businessmen; and former senior officers of of the Middle East policies pursued by the State Department, the Pentagon, the U.S. George W. Bush. I tend to believe that my government, and the CIA. For a long time, Dartmouth colleague and friend Hal the American team was headed by David Saunders—a brilliant expert on international Rockefeller, with whom I developed a warm affairs—would share the view that integrat - relationship. The Soviet team was originally ing efforts by the United States and headed by Nikolay Inozemtsev and then by could be of paramount importance in putting Georgy Arbatov. Vitaly Zhurkin, Mikhail an end to the inveterate Arab-Israeli enmity. Milstein, and Grigory Morozov were exten - This is especially so, if consider the rise sively involved. I and my counterpart, Harold of Iran in the region, a consequence of the Saunders, former U.S. Assistant Secretary U.S. occupation of . of State, were cochairs of the specialized The Dartmouth Conference was also Regional Conflicts Task Force. valuable in that it contributed to the growing It should be noted that we achieved human affinity and the forging of friendships, considerable progress in designing measures so difficult to imagine at that time. Let me to normalize the situation in the Middle share a story that was an unusual occurrence East. And all of our suggestions were com - during that period, when an ideological wall mu nicated to the very “top.” Much to my had been erected between our two countries. regret, due to external and internal reasons, In 1974, when planning the meeting that our recommendations were never translated was to be held in , our team wanted into action. The U.S.-U.S.S.R./Russian to invite the Americans to visit a Georgian collaboration seeking to resolve the Middle family. We asked for and gained permission East conflict did not yield any fruit even from , then First after the cold war was over. The ensuing Secretary of the Communist Party of Georgia. monopolization of the mediation mission by I suggested dinner at the apartment of my the United States proved to be ineffective, wife’s relative—Nadezhda Kharadze. A

2 professor of the Conservatory and a former private jet and left with everyone else at three prima donna of the Tbilisi Opera Theatre, she o’clock in the morning. He even offered lived modestly, like most members of the Geor - dishwashing assistance to the hostess. Later, gian intelligentsia. Nadezhda had to borrow a on multiple occasions, he told me that he table and chairs from her neighbors, and as a never forgot that evening, although initially result, all residents in the building knew that he underestimated the sincerity of the hosts, she was expecting Rockefeller himself to be thinking, perhaps, that everything had been one of her guests. On that evening, the party just another instance of a also included former Senator Hugh Scott, who scenario. I remember that he approached had proposed the impeachment of President Ernest Hemingway’s portrait, which was Nixon; Scott’s wife; former U.S. representative hanging above my nephew Sandrik’s desk, to the U.N., ; and editor-in-chief and looked behind the frame to make sure that of Time magazine, Hedley Donovan. the spot behind it was not sun-bleached— Nadezhda’s apartment was on the fourth evidence that the portrait was not hung with floor. Municipal authorities had no time to the single purpose of impressing him. paint the walls inside the stairwell by the time In Tbilisi, enjoyed of our arrival, so they thought better of it and tremendous popularity. Ted Kennedy, who instead unscrewed all the light bulbs. Because stayed in the Georgian capital with our group, there was no elevator in the building, we complained that whenever he appeared in walked up the stairs in darkness, yet, on each the streets, the boys would always cry out: floor there was a source of light—just like in “Hello to Rockefeller!” Italian movies, every apartment door opened as Meeting and working with my American we passed by and we were scrutinized in silence. colleagues at the Dartmouth Conference is The party was a lot of fun. We enjoyed one of the best memories of my life. splendid Georgian dishes and sang Russian, Dr. Yevgeny Primakov is president of the Russian Chamber Georgian, and American songs. David of Commerce and was Russia’s foreign minister from 1996 Rockefeller rescheduled his return flight on his to 1998 and prime minister from 1998 to 1999.

3 Citizens Light the Way by David Rockefeller

OMETIME IN THE SPRING or early Soviets seemed eager to put the Stalinist era Ssummer of 1961, Norman Cousins, the behind them and find ways to engage the editor of the prestigious Saturday Review of West in “useful dialogue.” Literature, a man I had known and admired Norman loved the word dialogue and for many years, came to see me in my office at placed great stock in face-to-face meetings as the Chase Manhattan a means of changing Bank in Lower Manhat- attitudes and solving tan. Norman invited me to problems. I was much attend, according to my less optimistic than he notes at the time, a “US- that conversations would USSR conference” in somehow diminish the January of 1962 at Airlie ideological, political, and House near Washington, military threat that the D.C., as part of the Amer- Soviet Union posed to ican delegation. Norman the United States. But said that this would be Norman was a tremen- the third meeting of the dously persuasive man. group—the first of which had been held on the In the end, he convinced me that there was Dartmouth College campus in Hanover, New merit to his idea. Hampshire, in the autumn of 1960—and that After consulting with my advisors and the conference had the support of senior offi- checking my schedule, I agreed to join the cials in the Kremlin, as well as in the U.S. delegation and attend the January meeting. government. When I asked the purpose of the As luck would have it, the meeting was post- conference, Norman said it might improve re- poned and the location changed to October of lations between the two countries because the 1962 in Andover, Massachusetts, on the cam-

4 pus of Phillips Academy. Meanwhile, my own my belief that Dartmouth made a profound schedule (I was president and co-chief execu - difference in the relationship between the two tive officer of the Chase at the time) prevented superpowers. me from participating in all but the initial That is why I believe that the Dartmouth stages of the conference, which, in retrospect, Conference’s 50th anniversary provides an was probably the most memorable of all Dart - opportunity to reflect on the past and imagine mouth conferences. The Soviet and American the future. Although Russia and the United delegates met and continued their “dialogue” States are no longer locked in a deadly con - against the chilling backdrop of the Cuban test, threatening world peace and the survival missile crisis—certainly the darkest and poten - of the human race, we should renew our efforts tially deadliest moment in the entire cold war. to build a new bilateral relationship that could I attended most of the Dartmouth meet - lead to a more stable and peaceful interna - ings over the first 30 years and found them tional order. This relationship—like any incredibly useful in exactly the way that relationship—will develop only if we tend it Norman Cousins had claimed they would be. carefully and channel its energies thought - Both the Americans and the who were fully. Governments must, of course, play a privileged to attend these annual gatherings central role in this process. At the same time, learned a great deal about each other. It was one lesson we should have learned from the as if we were holding up gigantic mirrors in last century’s experience is that governments which we could see exactly how others saw us. alone cannot fuel the engine of mutual under - And, while I cannot claim that our meetings standing and productive change. It is my hold the key to understanding the end of the hope that the experience and commitment of cold war or explain why neither side resorted private citizens, such as the members of to the use of nuclear weapons—Norman the Dartmouth Conference, will help to light Cousins’ deepest concern—it is nevertheless the way. David Rockefeller was chair and chief executive officer of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1969 to 1980. This essay is adapted from his preface in JamesVoorhees’ Dialogue Sustained: The Multilevel Peace Process and the Dartmouth Conference (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2002). 5

Origins of an Idea world government. He was The the strongest proponent of the idea for a conference that would N MAY OF 1959, Norman bring together high-level citi - Cousins went to Moscow zens from the two primary Dartmouth with a simple but grand antagonists of the cold war. And iIdea: to engage citizens from the he had a personal relationship two major nuclear powers in a with the president of the United Conference: conversation on how to prevent States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. a nuclear war. So when Cousins went to Cousins was a unique figure Moscow in 1959, he went not in the intellectual and public life just with an idea, but with the The First 50 Years of mid-20th century America. blessing of the president. In He was editor for 35 years of Moscow, he met with the Soviet the Saturday Review of Literature , Peace Committee to explain his a founder of the anti-nuclear idea for a citizens’ conference. Philip D. Stewart and SANE movement, and a com - While Cousins’ humor evoked Harold H. Saunders mitted believer that world peace laughs, his harsh criticism of could only be achieved through many aspects of Soviet policy, particularly regarding nuclear testing and human rights, was met with coolness. Although promised a response, Cousins could not have left the meeting with much reason for hope. Because this would be the first meeting organized by the Peace Committee (the members of which were not pro-Soviet), the committee leadership was deeply skeptical that this invitation would be accepted. Nevertheless, the request was routed through the Soviet Norman Cousins

7 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Central Committee’s Interna - One can only imagine the approval to move ahead with principles of this dialogue were tional Department, to whom the surprise when, in October 1959, this meeting. Alla Bobrysheva, negotiated. Many of these arose Peace Committee reported. the Peace Committee received Russian interpreter and Dart - from Norman Cousins’ deep mouth Conference coordinator, insights into what it takes to is convinced that this decision enable effective human dis - was only possible through the course, especially across deep personal intervention of Soviet divisions of hostility and suspi - leader . cion. The first principle was that Cousins’ subsequent personal everyone would participate as a meetings with Khrushchev, as private citizen, not as a repre - well as a second meeting with sentative of a group or organiza - the Peace Committee, which tion, whether private or official. took place at the Crimean resort The idea behind this was that reserved for high-level party private citizens would feel less officials (located next door to constrained by official policy Khrushchev’s own villa) indi - and more able to recognize cate the high level of Soviet and respond to fundamental interest this conference gener - human values. The challenge, ated in Moscow. however, was that there was In the spring of 1960, as little notion of a “private” preparations advanced for the citizen in the Soviet Union. first conference meeting, which Nevertheless, in the end, both W. E. B. Du Bois (center) met with Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev (second from right) was to be held at Dartmouth sides agreed that everyone during a 1959 visit to the Soviet Union. Also shown, from left, are: Mikhail Kotov, executive College in Hanover, New would participate strictly in secretary of the , Alla Bobrysheva, and Shirley Graham, Du Bois’ wife. Hampshire, the fundamental their personal, or private,

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

October 4, 1957 January 1958 Soviets launch Sputnik— U.S.-Soviet Cultural INTERNATIONAL challenge America’s Exchange Agreement technical lead signed

1957

DARTMOUTH

8 THE FIRST 50 YEARS

capacity, irrespective of their the United States sufficiently up and declared that Russian culture that had high-level official positions. powerful and persuasive to Americans deeply re - produced an artist of such The other principles were break through deeply embed - spected the Soviets for genius. It was then, she designed to develop an environ - ded Soviet stereotypes of the their courageous struggle said, that she decided to ment that would maximize the “imperialist” West. Cousins’ against during become a ballerina. 1 potential for developing rela - answer was to involve persons World War II. Americans, Bobrysheva cited these two tionships on a human level, whose careers and deepest he said, would never for - cases to “illustrate the kind of while making it possible to raise beliefs embodied both the diver - get how many lives the So - human relations breakthrough and confront the most difficult sity and the breadth of the viet people lost in that that . . . was no less important and contentious issues frankly American experience and char - struggle. Everyone stood than the political value of start - and openly. Meetings were kept acter. Examples include William up and for a moment, ing the Dartmouth process.” off the record to create a safe Benton, businessman and there was a deep silence, It was never expected that environment, free from publi- former U.S. senator; Grenville which gave way to unani - the Dartmouth Conference city. Stretching the meetings Clark, lawyer; Russell Crouse, mous and sustained ap - would directly influence official over five or more days, with playwright; and Agnes DeMille, plause. From then on, the policy; rather, from the begin - additional meetings before and ballerina and choreographer. tone of the dialogue ning, it was hoped the dialogue following the main sessions, Alla Bobrysheva wrote of the changed markedly. . . . would help shape ideas in the provided ample free time for impressions two of these people policy environment in both As a little girl, Agnes informal conversations and made on her: countries. From the very first DeMille met the great getting to know each other as During a harsh argument Dartmouth meeting, and contin - Russian ballerina Anna human beings. about disarmament, uing until today, fulfilling this In his selection of U.S. parti- Pavlova and was capti - Grenville Clark, highly intent has meant including cipants Cousins showed some of vated by her skill as a respected in the legal com - participants with both breadth his keenest insight. The question dancer. It made her think munity and among lead - and depth in the core issues was how to create an image of about the people and the ing public figures, stood impacting the U.S.-Soviet

November 1958 July 1959 September 1959 Berlin Crisis— American National Khrushchev’s official visit to U.S. Khrushchev threatens Exhibition in Moscow; and “Spirit of Camp David” visit to close Western Nixon-Khrushchev to Roswell Garst’s corn farm access to Berlin “Kitchen Debate”

1958 1959

9 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

relationship, who would also mention current and former draw from and contribute to members of Congress. S AT DARTMOUTH AND THE CRIMEA , some of the stream of ideas, concerns, While never a negotiated the most memorable incidents took place away from the and concepts that form the con - criterion, the Soviets, within cAonference table. During one of the infrequent recess periods, the text and often the content of the context of their society, Soviet delegation went off to see some of the sites and memorials official policy. In October 1960, included people with similar of the American Revolution. As they approached the monument at the first Dartmouth meeting, qualities and policy roles. at Bunker Hill, but before the inscription at the base of the monu - participants included Walt Thus, the Soviet cochair during ment was visible, the oldest member of the Soviet group took off Rostow, economist and national the first decade, Alexander his hat and began to move his lips. Those very close to him heard security advisor to President Kornichuk, was not only the him recite the famous lines from Emerson: Johnson; Arthur Larson, a long- recipient of state prizes and “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, time friend and close advisor awards for his novels, but Their flag to April's breeze unfurled, to President Eisenhower; and was also a close advisor to both Here once the embattled farmers stood George F. Kennen, former U.S. Khrushchev and Leonid Brezh - And fired the shot heard round the world.” ambassador to Moscow and nev. His successor, Georgy author of what became the U.S. Arbatov, director of the Institute Will there be another conference? It is too early to say. But policy of containment. Over of U.S. and Canadian Studies, at a time when the air is filled with talk about official summit the years, members of the U.S. was a protégé of Politburo meetings, it may be useful to remember that citizens are at the policy community who partici - member and a base. Their discourse can be relevant, helpful, even significant. pated in Dartmouth included leading, if controversial, For nothing in the world—spaceships not excluded—can be more future and former secretaries voice on Soviet-U.S. relations exciting or constructive than a worthwhile human encounter. and assistant secretaries of state, through the 1970s and 1980s. Excerpted from Norman Cousins’ “Experiment at Andover,” Saturday Review national security advisors and Over the years, participants of Literature , November 10, 1962 staff, and former chairs of the from the Soviet policy commu - Joint Chiefs of Staff, not to nity included more than a

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

May 1960 November 1960 INTERNATIONAL U-2 shot down by Soviets, Kennedy elected president, Paris Summit cancelled claims “missile gap” with the Soviet Union

1960

October 29- May 21-28, 1961 DARTMOUTH November 4, 1960 Plenary Plenary Crimea, U.S.S.R. Hanover, NH

10 THE FIRST 50 YEARS

dozen department heads from nent authors, such as Alexander threatening or unacceptable. rative and prosperous world the Central Committee Secre - Solzhenitsyn, to pressing for The longest serving and most for all peoples has and contin - tariat and approximately the the emigration of Soviet , prominent Soviet ues to attract the attention, the same numbers each from the as well as other human rights voice was that of , energies, and the imaginations Ministries of Defense and issues. At the same time, by political commentator. of leading citizens from each Foreign Affairs. including in the delegation While the tension between country. However, the develop - Of course, both the Soviets prominent U.S. writers and genuine policy concerns and ment of the Dartmouth Confer - and the Americans understood journalists, such as from the propaganda remained nearly ence process has been no more the importance of public opin - New York Times , the Washington until the dissolution of the of a straight, linear process than ion in the relationship and the Post , and the International Soviet Union, by the early the course of the U.S. relation - potential of the Dartmouth Herald Tribune , it was hoped 1980s, it became accepted prac - ship with the Soviet Union Conference to shape it. How - that Americans would receive a tice to limit such “dumping,” as and its successor, Russia. As ever, the two sides approached more nuanced, less stereotyped, it came to be called, to the first the possibilities and challenges the public’s role in this relation - and more complex picture of hour of any plenary session. in the larger relationship have ship in nearly diametrically Soviet reality and policy. The first 50 years of the emerged, so the Dartmouth opposed ways. The Soviet organizers, or Dartmouth Conference process Conference process has altered The Americans tended to see at least the Communist Party have proved the vitality of its its substantive focus, its struc - a two-way relationship—on the International Committee to founding idea and principles. ture and process, and the one hand, nearly all U.S. partici - whom they reported, sought to The idea that the United States profile of participants in order pants accepted as part of their make the Dartmouth Conference, and the Soviet Union, and to maximize the conference’s responsibility, directly, clearly, if only in part, an influential later Russia, together have a potential impact. Since the full and without equivocation, to forum both for promoting the particular role and responsibil - story has been well told, 2 this raise concerns prevalent among official Soviet policy line and ity not only to avert nuclear brief overview will focus on the U.S. public. These ranged for denouncing U.S. policies and war, but also to play a critical Dartmouth’s major develop - from Soviet treatment of promi - actions that the Soviets found part in building a more collabo - mental phases.

August 1961 August 1961 Khrushchev orders resumption Berlin Wall built of atmospheric nuclear testing, explodes 100 megaton H-bomb

1961 1962

October 21-27, 1962 Plenary Andover, MA

11 O UNDERSTAND the the nature of the Soviet-U.S. challenge and the impact relationship. There were some of the first Dartmouth U.S. economists who predicted conferences, we need to recall that within 20 years the Soviet T Union’s The : the atmosphere of the time and Learning to Talk Together, Creating a Safe Space

Dartmouth College President John Dickey (center) with Russian delegation, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1960

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

June 1963 November 1963 INTERNATIONAL President Kennedy calls John F. Kennedy for a treaty prohibiting the assassinated; proliferation of nuclear Lyndon B. Johnson weapons becomes president 1963

DARTMOUTH

12 LEARNING TO TALK TOGETHER, CREATING A SAFE PLACE

would enable them to outstrip had extremely limited knowl - The hysteria created by Senator Little wonder, then, that U.S. GDP. Then in 1957, Moscow edge of the Soviet Union in Joseph McCarthy’s assertions simply bringing such a group launched the first successful general, let alone of its military that “communists” occupied together on the bucolic campus satellite into space, an event that planning and intentions. And even the highest reaches of the of Dartmouth College was not only shocked Americans, no wonder; before 1958 and the U.S. government had only just itself seen as a significant but also convinced many that signing of the first begun to wane. achievement. The theory was the Soviet Union had a substan - Soviet-U.S. Cul - While the Soviet- simple: highly experienced, tial lead over the United States tural Exchange U.S. agreement knowledgeable, and committed in science and technology. Agreement, for The first 50 years made it possible people talking together in a Also, given the raging contest more than 30 for Soviet scien - private setting would soon between the two superpowers years, the only of the Dartmouth tists to join and recognize each other as human to achieve security through contact between Conference process contribute to the beings, and this would form the deployment of nuclear these countries have proved the newly organized, the basis for addressing fun- weapons, the Soviet satellite had been at the vitality of its founding multinational damental human challenges launch profoundly shook U.S. official level, with Pugwash move - together. Reality initially idea and principles. confidence. Indeed, during even diplomats ment that same seemed to contradict this as - the 1960 presidential election, having almost no year, the pro - sumption. From the start, the John F. Kennedy argued that interaction with posed Dartmouth sides seemed so far apart that the Eisenhower administration ordinary Soviet meetings would they seemed to come from had permitted a “missile gap,” citizens. Ideology be the first to two different worlds. But the leaving Russia with consider - on each side portrayed the other attempt bilaterally to bring to - conference design combined ably more nuclear-armed as committed to its destruction; gether a diverse array of citizens with the determination of the missiles than the United States. a perception only reinforced for to address a broad range of top - participants achieved a break - As if this were not worri - the United States by Khrushchev’s ics, including Pugwash’s main through. Alla Bobrysheva some enough, the United States 1956 boast, “We will bury you!” agenda of nuclear disarmament. captured the moment:

March 1965 August 1964 U.S. bombing initiates Operation Gulf of Tonkin Khrushchev ousted Rolling Thunder, an extensive bombing incident leads from power campaign against NorthVietnam on toVietnam Haiphong Harbor near Hanoi conflict 1964 1965

July 25-31, 1964 Plenary Leningrad, U.S.S.R.

13 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Sharing the same space One of the hopes behind the Norman Cousins. . . . For many participants, Dart - during the entire week-long Dartmouth Conference was that Meeting Norman Cousins mouth III, held at the Phillips conference contributed such contact over time might was like opening a win - Academy in Andover, Massa - greatly to the establishment help open the closed Soviet soci - dow onto a wider world, chusetts, from October 21 to of new human relation - ety, or at least some members with more issues to think 27, 1962, was the crucible in ships. Sitting together at of its elite, to about and re - which the value and role of the broader ways of Dartmouth Conference was one table during meals, solve than I thinking. While demonstrated. It was during the walking together to the had previously no one would “Sharing the initial introductory dinner that conference room, enjoying confronted. venture profound same space during He introduced President Kennedy made his a stroll together on the claims in this me to a wider famous speech confirming that campus grounds, playing the entire week- regard, even range of solu - the Soviet Union was building a game of tennis during after 50 years, long conference missile sites capable of launch - tions. Every lunch break—all this led Bobrysheva contributed greatly ing medium- and intermediate- meeting with to discovering in a recent offered at least range nuclear missiles at the to the establishment him in the adversary a friendly human one such per- United States and announcing of new human 30 years that being with many similar sonal testimony: an immediate blockade of all relationships.” followed that feelings and problems. military shipments to . The great gift I first meeting Political issues were dis - received from Should the meeting continue? left me en - Should the delegates immedi - cussed not with enemies the first Dart - riched by his ately return home? What was but with thoughtful mouth Conference, and ideas, his energy and his the role of even well-connected scholars deeply concerned which I proudly cherished dedication to improving private citizens in such a crisis about the future of their for the following 30 years, 4 life on our planet. between their two countries? 3 was my association with countries and the world. Each side pondered these questions, consulting with their

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

June 1967 6-day Arab-Israeli INTERNATIONAL War

1966

DARTMOUTH

14 LEARNING TO TALK TOGETHER, CREATING A SAFE PLACE

respective governments for ity of the Russians or their advice. As became clear only desire to have a productive many years later, the Soviet conference. The second delegation itself was deeply was that both Russians and divided, with only a minority Americans, as private citi - ready to continue the meeting. zens, showed a clear desire However, upon consultation to find a way out of the with Soviet ambassador to crisis. 5 Washington, , In a 1989 interview, long-time who urged the meeting to go Soviet participant Yuri Zhukov on, they presented a united observed that this “was undoubt - front and agreed to continue edly the most dramatic and with the meeting if the Ameri - meaningful” of the Dartmouth cans wished to do so. Norman conferences. “I think that in our Cousins perhaps summed up meeting in Andover,” he contin - best the American perspective ued, “the way we dealt with the on this meeting: problems, were harbingers of the The debate at Andover solution reached at the highest that week was strenuous, level later on.” 6 Dartmouth III, sometimes strident, but in short, demonstrated “the two things became clear unanimity of the American and as it spilled over into the Soviet participants in the face of second day. One was that a crisis, which threatened not the Cuban crisis didn’t only both their countries but 7 interfere with the cordial - also the whole world.” Irina Lagunova (from left), John Dickey, and Sergei Yutkevich, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1960

June 1967 November 1968 Kosygin-Johnson Nuclear Soviets invade Nixon elected, summit nonproliferation détente begins treaty signed

1967 1968

15 HE MEETING held in Dartmouth Conference to pur - The 1970s: Kiev during the summer sue innovative approaches to of 1971 brought in its achieve concrete results. In his wake a series of efforts to “move near decade as U.S. Dartmouth T cochair (with Cousins), Chollar, Seeking Substantive from talk to action.” Creating the basis for this new direction with the active support of his Breakthroughs, was a shift in primary funding conference colleagues, pursued and organizational responsibil - at least four substantive and one Experimenting with ity on the U.S. side from the procedural innovation: a joint Ford Foundation to the Charles organization to promote trade New Formats F. Kettering Foundation, and economic cooperation, joint which continues to provide the research on climate change, Dartmouth Conference’s princi - scientific collaboration in nitro - pal financial and organizational gen fixation, a joint framework support. Robert G. Chollar, who for a Palestinian-Israeli peace had recently become president settlement, and small, highly and board chair of the Kettering focused subgroups, or task Foundation, was a former forces, for detailed exploration electrical engineer and research of key challenges in the U.S.- scientist at NCR in Dayton, Ohio. Soviet relationship. Chollar not only exhibited From today’s perspective, the curiosity and experimental these innovations, though approach of a scientist, but hardly remembered, in fact, also the practical, goal-oriented established the practice, across German Gvishiani (from left), Norman Cousins,Victoria Siradze, tendencies of a businessman. a number of fields, of jointly and Hedley Donovan, Tbilisi, U.S.S.R., 1974 These traits led him to push the working on critical problems.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

INTERNATIONAL November 1969 SALT negotiations begin

1969

January 13-18, 1969 DARTMOUTH Plenary Rye, NY

16 SEEKING SUBSTANTIVE BREAKTHROUGH S, EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW FORMATS

More than this, at the time of businesses looked to build on economist from the new Insti - colleagues, the creation of such the Tbilisi meeting in 1974, for this event in order to open the tute of U.S. and Canadian an organization won general example, there were no more Soviet market for trade and Studies, Mikhael Zakhmatov. support. Building on this than a handful of scientists in commerce. Not surprisingly, this Building upon his recent deal initiative and support from the world worried about climate was a core theme to sell Pepsi in Soviet ministries and other change, and even they had only later that year at Russia in exchange U.S. business groups, the U.S.- a vague idea that its source may Dartmouth VII. for Russian Soviet Trade and Economic have to do with increasing use Participating from From today’s vodka, Kendall Council soon became a reality. of carbon-based energy sources. the business urged the This organization continues perspective, these While there were joint scientific world, in addition creation of a per - today as the U.S.-Russia Busi - projects in the mid-1970s, such to Chollar, were innovations, though manent, joint ness Council. as -, the Dartmouth Donald Kendall, hardly remembered, body to address While a useful beginning, Conference was unique in the CEO of Pepsico; in fact, established issues impacting Rockefeller and others recog - breadth and depth of the joint Michel Fribourg, the practice, across trade between nized that creating a long-term, search for ways to address president of Con - the two nations. mutual and sustained economic both bilateral and global scien - tinental Grain; a number of fields, Rockefeller, a relationship required more tific, economic, and political and David Rocke - of jointly working on firm believer in than the establishment of a trade challenges. feller, chair of critical problems. the benefits of council. So, in 1974 at Dartmouth Dartmouth and Economics. In Chase Manhattan growing world VIII in Tbilisi, Georgia, Chollar the autumn of 1972, facing Bank. Their Soviet trade, supported and Rockefeller were joined by poor harvests at home, the interlocutors in - this initiative. Bill Hewitt, CEO of John Deere; Soviet Union made its first large cluded Georgy Fribourg also saw Jim Ferguson, CEO of General grain purchase from the United Trusevich, head of the USSR such a joint institution as useful Foods; and Sam Pisar, a highly States, drawing upon U.S. Bank for Foreign Trade; for putting trade relations on a knowledgeable Russian- government export credit guar - Nikolai Orlov from the Ministry long-term foundation. With the American lawyer, to explore the antees. A number of American of Foreign Trade; and a young active support of their Soviet possibility of U.S.-Soviet joint

July 1971 Kissinger secret mission to 1970 1971

July 12-16, 1971 Plenary Kiev, U.S.S.R.

17 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

ventures in the Soviet Union. among these was the idea of spend a year in , tures on Soviet soil with Western This meeting was quite possibly leasing contracts, which would learning the banking business, partners. The article could only one of the first serious bilateral allow Western businesses to ac - at Chase’s expense. A small have been published with conversations on the topic, and quire de facto control over land, step, but one that did eventually support from some individual little wonder. The Soviet Union equipment, and come to fruition. or group in the top leadership . lacked a convertible currency, resources through While there were joint Serious U.S.- Unfortunately, there was no visi - meaning there was no practical their investments. scientific projects in Soviet joint ven - ble follow-up to this article, and way to repatriate profits, nor They had not the mid-1970s, such tures did not from 1976 until the Gorbachev even to set meaningful market found a solution as Apollo-Soyuz, the develop until era nearly 10 years later, the values on potential Soviet con - for profit repatria - Dartmouth Conference near the end of idea of joint ventures no longer tributions; and private property tion, other than was unique in the the Soviet period. resonated with our Soviet in the means of production not through reexport Yet, a 1975 article colleagues. The most probable breadth and depth only did not exist, but also was of products to appearing in the explanation is that the reform prohibited by Soviet law. While Western markets. of the joint search leading journal of initiative was supported by these realities may have made Recognizing for ways to address the Communist , the prime minis - this exploration seem like a that doing busi - both bilateral and Party, , ter, but dropped as his influence fools’ errand, creative ideas ness in the Soviet global scientific, made an explicit within the leadership declined were put on the table and seri - Union would economic, and call for opening rapidly after the mid-1970s. ously examined and discussed. require Soviet up the Soviet The Dartmouth Conferenc e political challenges. By the end of three days of partners who un - economy to the played a useful and creative role dialogue, several conceptual derstood Western competitive forces in planting some of the seeds of approaches to making joint ven - financial and business practices, of the world market in order to economic reform, which would tures possible were developed David Rockefeller invited the prevent economic stagnation germinate only as the political and accepted as a valuable basis bright, young Soviet econo - and decline. The author gave atmosphere became more for further work. Principal mist, Mikhael Zakhmatov, to explicit support for joint ven - receptive.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE February 1972 May 1972 May 1972 August 1972 Nixon visit Nixon commences ABM treaty signed; SALT I signed; Last U.S. combat to China mining North Nixon-Brezhnev Nixon visit troops depart INTERNATIONAL Vietnamese harbors summit to China

1972

December 3-7, 1972 DARTMOUTH Plenary Hanover, NH

18 SEEKING SUBSTANTIVE BREAKTHROUGHS, EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW FORMATS

Dartmouth and Science. Among concerned that with advances Paul Doty, a Harvard bio - concern led the conference to the number of efforts under - in science, such activities could chemist; Sterling Wortman, a support the proposal of the taken through the Dartmouth become feasible in the near world-famous rice scientist; and Soviet cochair, renowned arctic Conference to encourage scien - future, and if utilized, might George Woodwell, renowned explorer and leading meteorolo - tific collaboration, three deserve have disastrous consequences ecologist and founder of Woods gist, Yevgeny Fedorov to urge mention: weather modification, for our planet. Encouraged by Hole Research Institute; this that the adopt climate change, and nitrogen a treaty outlawing such use fixation. The primary agenda of science for purposes of war - item for the workgroup on sci - fare. This idea took form in entific cooperation at the Tbilisi 1977 as the U.N. Environmental meeting in 1974 was prevention Modification Convention. of weather modification for mil - The discussion of weather itary purposes. This seemingly modification led to a broader esoteric topic had captured conversation on climate. While interest among Soviet scientists some scientists had warned that as a result of suspicions that the excessive use of carbon-based United States had attempted, fuels was causing the Earth to supposedly with some success, warm, at the time, this view to use weather modification in was not widespread. In fact, support of their war efforts in very little serious research into Vietnam. While not finding this even such fundamental ques - assertion credible, American tions as how carbon moves participants, such as Thomas from captured sources like fossil Malone, a distinguished profes - fuels into the atmosphere and sor of meteorology, were then back into living organisms Ted Kennedy (from left),Yuri Zhukov, and Georgy Arbatov, Tbilisi, U.S.S.R., 1974

January 1973 June 1973 September 1973 October 1973 1973 December 1973 Vietnam Peace Washington Socialist President Organization of Arab The October Soviets and U.S. Treaty signed Summit— Salvador Allende Petroleum Exporting (Yom Kippur) cochair Nixon/Brezhnev overthrown by Countries (OPEC) Arab-Israeli War Peace Conference Chilean military formed, imposes oil on Middle East with U.S. support embargo on the U.S.; oil prices quadruple 1973

19 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

had been conducted, let alone fixation. There are some forms how it might impact climate. of plant life, such as blue algae But the Soviet and U.S. scien - and some legumes, that have a tists at this Dartmouth meeting unique property: they make agreed that carbon was likely their own fertilizer by “fixing” central to climate change. As nitrogen directly from the air. a result, the conference recom - If scientists could discover how mended that the study of the the process works and then carbon cycle and its impact transfer this capability to other on climate change be included plants, especially grains like in the agenda of the global wheat, rice, and corn, this could scientific effort known as The multiply the world’s food sup - International Geophysical Year ply by many times, wiping out of 1976. While only one initia - hunger. In the 1930s, this led tive among many, Dartmouth, Charles F. Kettering to create a Yuri Zhukov, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Genrikh Trofimenko, Georgy Arbatov, and Landrum Bolling, Moscow, 1975 through its farsighted agenda special laboratory, dedicated to and knowledgeable and influ - just this task, at Antioch College breakthroughs would surely dozen of the Soviet Union’s top ential participants, was at in Yellow Springs, Ohio. By the follow. specialists in photosynthesis the forefront in encouraging time Robert Chollar came to Armed with this conviction, and related fields. As Chollar research into what many see as Kettering, the lab appeared to Chollar, lab director Marvin and Lamborg explained the today’s and tomorrow’s most be on the cusp of major break - Lamborg, and a small group of laboratory’s work, the Soviet profound human challenge. throughs. If more scientists scientists travelled to Moscow scientists’ faces showed their The third scientific colla- around the world were to put at the conclusion of Dartmouth excitement. After several days boration of the Dartmouth their collective efforts into this IX in Jurmala, , in July of discussion, a general plan for Conference dealt with nitrogen work, he believed, the required 1977. They met with several collaborative work was drawn

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

January 1974 May 1974 June 1974 August 1974 First Kissinger Kissinger Nixon/Brezhnev President Nixon INTERNATIONAL shuttle agreement mediated Summit resigns, succeeded on Egyptian-Israeli Israeli-Syrian by disengagement disengagement

1974

April 22-26, 1974 DARTMOUTH Plenary Tbilisi, U.S.S.R.

20 SEEKING SUBSTANTIVE BREAKTHROUGHS, EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW FORMATS

up and agreed on in principle. the world’s leading producer International Conference on tice, and suffering, exploring The Soviet Ministry of Agricul - of artificial fertilizers? Do you Photosynthesis held in Beijing, the path to peace was a per - ture needed to approve the want to destroy a whole indus - China, in the summer of 2010. sonal moral imperative for him. project, so the group arranged try and one of the Soviet Dartmouth and the Middle East . For career ambassador Charles a meeting with Boris Runov, the Union’s proud - In the 1970s, Yost, having served as ambassa - deputy minister and a fellow est agricultural While only one three long- dor in Syria and in Morocco, as Dartmouth participant. As the achievements?” initiative among many, term U.S. Dart - well as at the United Nations, scientists explained the nature With that, all Dartmouth, through mouth finding a workable solution to of the proposed research and hope for collab - its farsighted agenda participants this crisis was a core U.S. interest its potential benefits for Soviet oration among had deep per - and obligation. For Landrum citizens, the minister’s smile some of the and knowledgeable and sonal and Bolling, a deeply committed slowly turned into a scowl. “Let world’s most influential participants, professional Quaker, former president of me get this straight,” he said, capable scien - was at the forefront commitments Earlham College, and later a “if this research is successful tists came to a in encouraging research to advancing top foundation officer, this then we can grow all the wheat, crashing halt. the cause of search became his life’s work. into what many see as corn, and other crops we need Again, a seed peace in the The effort took Bolling to fre - without fertilizer? Is that cor - planted, per - today’s and tomorrow’s Middle East. quent talks with Palestinian rect?” When both Americans haps too early most profound human For Norman leader Yasser Arafat, and and Soviets agreed that he had and on unrecep - challenge. Cousins, the with every Israeli leader who correctly understood the argu - tive soil. Today, search took would meet him, not to men - ment, the minister nearly however, even him with some tion the White House and the exploded. “Don’t you realize though the Kettering laboratory regularity to many of the coun - State Department. Each of that the Soviet Union, after is no longer functioning, the tries in the region, as well as these men was either a leader investing untold billions of ideas it generated continue to into the White House. Wherever of or closely tied to ongoing rubles has just recently become influence the field with the 15th there was war, instability, injus - academic and political efforts

April 1975 July 1975 August 1975 September 1975 Fall of Saigon, last U.S. Apollo-Soyuz Final Kissinger mediates personnel leaveVietnam, space link-up Act signed second Sinai communists take power agreement

1975

June 3-5, 1975 December 16-19, 1975 Plenary Task Force Moscow, U.S.S.R. NewYork, NY

21 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

to devise a settlement scheme “peace process.” If successfully leaders on both sides agreed Zhurkin, deputy director of the acceptable to all sides. developed in Dartmouth, this that a small group, not more Institute of U.S. and Canadian The 1973 Arab-Israeli war framework might even form than three or four people per Studies, Alexander Kislov , had set the stage for a signi- the basis for a joint Soviet-U.S. side, should meet as a special from the same institute, and fi cant international peace proposal in the task force to Igor Belyaev, a Middle East initiative. U.S. Secretary of State proposed 1976 This confluence of work solely on specialist from the Institute of conducted Geneva Confer - this issue. Africa. Primakov was not pres - thought is a pertinent an intense U.S. mediation— ence on the Mid - The very first ent. The atmosphere of the dubbed by the journalists flying dle East. Ideas example of how task force to meeting differed markedly from with him as the “Kissinger were exchanged, ideas develop in the meet outside the previous Dartmouth meetings. shuttles.” This process of daily and prospects interrelated policy- framework of There were no polemics, no flights between Israel and an seemed to im - plenary sessions, long justifications of current influencing and Arab neighbor had already prove significantly where every policy. Rather, the participants produced three interim agree - when Yevgeny policymaking decision and worked as genuine collabora - ments, in January and May 1974 Primakov joined communities and posi tion could tors, rather than as represen- and in September 1975. the Dartmouth how difficult it be authorized by tatives of their countries, and It was natural for the Dart - Conference at is to identify the the appropriate each brought to the work a mouth Conference sessions to Tbilisi, Georgia, officials, took keen sense of his government’s explore whether America, in 1974. Primakov source of any place in a New interests and policies. Israel’s principal ally, and the was politically policy initiative. York hotel room At the end of three remark - Soviet Union, the major military well connected in mid December able days, the group had and political supporter of Egypt both in Moscow 1975. The U.S. reached unanimous agreement and Syria, might develop a mu - and in Cairo, where he had just principals included Cousins, on a framework for Middle tually acceptable framework for ended a nine-year tour as Pravda Yost, and Bolling. The Soviet East peace, covering virtually what came to be called the correspondent. Dartmouth delegates consisted of Vitaly the entire gamut of heretofore

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

August 1976 November 1976 INTERNATIONAL All Soviet military personnel advisors elected president leave Egypt

1976

April 30-May 4, 1976 DARTMOUTH Plenary Rio Rico, AZ

22 SEEKING SUBSTANTIVE BREAKTHROUGHS—EXPERIMENTING WITH NEW FORMATS

with them to the National disagreements. When Secretary Security Council Staff as they of State Cyrus Vance and For - joined the Carter administration eign Minister in January 1977. For a while, issued a joint statement on con - indeed, it did appear that these vening a conference that many ideas might form the basis for felt reflected the Dartmouth a joint Soviet-U.S. proposal in agreement, Israeli interests Geneva, as the Soviet govern - created conditions that blocked ment let it be known that they further movement at that time. would support the basic draft For his part, Egyptian president produced by the task force. expressed his Government thinking was frustration by flying to Israel compatible with the ideas from in November 1977. For U.S.- the Dartmouth task force and Soviet relations, in the short the Brookings report. This con - term at least, this led to deep fluence of thought is a pertinent frustration for the Soviets, Vernon Jordan, Jurmala, Latvia, 1977 example of how ideas develop hampering continued collabo- intractable issues. While the was very close in substance to in the interrelated policy- ration with the United States Soviet participants took the the framework produced by influencing and policymaking on such issues. Procedurally, draft to party and government the Dartmouth task force. communities and how difficult for Dartmouth, this frustration leaders for review, the U.S. Zbigniew Brzezinski (who had it is to identify the source of was reflected in the fact that participants brought it into the participated in the Moscow any policy initiative. it took seven more years until ongoing work of a Brookings Dartmouth session the previous In 1977, U.S. efforts to nego - Soviet colleagues again en - Institute study group. Within a summer) and Bill Quandt both tiate the terms for a Geneva trusted a small task force to month, Brookings published its served on that Brookings com - Conference became embroiled meet outside direct official report, which, not surprisingly, mission and brought its ideas in Arab-Arab and Arab-Israeli oversight.

September 1978 November 1977 Camp David Accords Egyptian president Anwar El Sadat visits Israel

1977 1978

July 9-14, 1977 Plenary Jurmala, Latvia

23 HE CONTRIBUTIONS dent Reagan’s “Empire of Evil” The 1980s: of the Dartmouth Con - speech—the second half of the ference process in the decade was characterized by the 1T980s cannot be understood Soviet Union’s deliberate but outside the political context in soon uncontrolled transforma - Sustained Collaboration which it operated. To put it tion, which left most of the West most simply, if the first half of in disbelief. In the United States, on Core Concerns, the 1980s was characterized by 1980 saw the election of Ronald The Task Forces growing hostility—recall Presi - Reagan and his determination Prove Themselves

Revold Antonov (from left, front row), George Sherry, David Rockefeller, and Stanislav Borisov; Georgy Arbatov (two on the right, back row) andYuri Bobrakov, Williamsburg,Virginia, 1979

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

March 1979 June 1979 July 1979 December 1979 Egyptian-Israeli SALT II signed Sandinistas come Iran Hostage Soviet invasion of INTERNATIONAL Peace Treaty to power in crisis begins and Nicaragua; continues for Soviets offer 444 days military support 1979

May 4-7, 1979 May 22-25, 1980 DARTMOUTH Plenary Emergency meeting Williamsburg,VA Bellagio,

24 SUSTAINED COLLABORATION ON CORE CONCERNS, THE TASK FORCES PROVE THEMSELVES

not only to stand firm against in Hungary and Czechoslovakia “Soviet aggression” anywhere, in 1956 and 1968, as well as but also to turn the tide against the recent imposition of martial Soviet influence everywhere. law in Poland, some leading For its part, the Soviet Union U.S. figures feared this action was burdened with leadership augured further Soviet moves that seemed resistant to change. toward Iran and the Gulf. Later in the decade, a new gen - Immediately following the eration of Soviet leaders would Soviet incursion into Afghani- refer to this period as the height stan, the United States broke off of stagnation. In this atmos - virtually all contact. The Carter phere, even negotiations to limit administration withdrew the strategic nuclear arms, for more SALT Treaty from the ratifica - Andrei Shumikhin (from left), Alexander Barchenkov, and Phil Stewart, LBJ Ranch, Texas, 1988 than a decade the central axis of tion process in the Senate and the U.S.-Soviet relationship, decided that the United States lations now worse than in 1960 Soviet and U.S. citizens might were suspended indefinitely. would boycott the upcoming or 1962? Was it not important to even be able to develop The tone for the early 1980s summer Olympic Games in maintain a trusted venue where common or parallel analytical was set in December 1979, when Moscow. Consultations with each side might listen to the frameworks or approaches that, the Soviet Union, seeking to leading foundations and gov - other’s concerns, where the rea - with time and joint effort, could protect its failing puppet regime ernment officials resulted in sons for the current crisis could help to untangle some of the in Kabul, sent 100,000 Soviet warnings that this was not the be explained, where ideas for seemingly intractable problems troops into Afghanistan. Remem - time for U.S. citizens to talk moving beyond the crisis might that dogged the relationship: bering the Soviet takeovers in with Soviet citizens. The Soviet be explored? Was not such a di - from arms control to Afghani- Eastern following World Union needed to be isolated, alogue especially important stan to confrontations in the War II, the military repressions punished. But U.S. members of when governments had reached Middle East, in Central Amer - of independent political activity Dartmouth asked, were our re - an impasse? Perhaps private ica, and in southern Africa.

July 1980 November 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics boycotted elected president, significantly increases military spending 1980 1981

November 16-19, 1981 Plenary Moscow, U.S.S.R.

25 An Interpersonal Bond Is Born by Vitaly Naumkin

PARTICIPATED IN THE DARTMOUTH I still recall my emotions when I first Imeetings, beginning in 1984, almost from attended Dartmouth. I was seized with tension, the initiation of the Regional Conflicts Task imagining an enemy and expecting an immi- Force, a span of more than a quarter of a century. nent sharp clash of opinions. Instead, I saw Those were the years of apprenticeship in shap- that there was extraordinary intellectual and ing politics and gaining invaluable expertise purely human intimacy, an overwhelming in a civil society format. All the major players willingness to better understand each other. It were citizens outside of government. was utterly vexatious that we did not know Earlier, I had a teaching America well enough and career at Moscow Univer- that Americans knew even sity. Yevgeny Primakov less about Russia, since it suggested that I take a job had been concealed behind as a head of department the iron curtain. But then with the Institute of Oriental the rules of the “zero-sum Studies at Russia’s Acad- game” dictated the terms, emy of Sciences. It’s only and Russians and Ameri- fair to say that I had some cans viewed the world prior experience in network- through very different ing with Americans. Back prisms. Despite that, Dart- in 1966-1967, I had studied mouth, without a shadow the Egyptian dialect of Ara- of doubt, created an inter- bic at American University personal bond based on in Cairo, attended lectures genuine respect, if not of eminent U.S. professors, trust. All of us were ex- and sometimes benefited from informal opportu- tremely excited about exploring potential ways nities to communicate with American colleagues. out of the regional bundles of problems, seem- Later, I met with those U.S. professors at inter- ingly impossible to untangle. We were driven by national conventions many times. However, enthusiasm, stemming from the awareness that this was my first, and unforgettable, encounter we were contributing to a global political decision- with experts of such high caliber. making process. I can see that now, in a very

26 different epoch, the same emotions inspire young continued, some of the former adversaries became Russian Dartmouth participants. the Inter-Tajik Dialogue participants and wound I am especially happy to have been involved up as friends, much the same way we had grown in the evolution of the Dartmouth peace-making to be real friends with the Americans. venture in the period following the disintegration Our joint work in this new format—actually of the Soviet Union in 1991. At first, some of our moderating a Dialogue among others—contri- group members were very skeptical and appre - buted significantly to Inter-Tajik reconciliation. hensive about the idea advanced by Hal Saunders Alas, as we discovered in our next effort, the to switch our attention to conflicts in the post- successful Tajik experience could not be fully Soviet space and start up a dialogue between repeated when applied to a tripartite format. In opposing parties in one of those conflicts. There 2001, we started a Dialogue among individuals was still the logic of the cold war constraining from the conflict involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russian colleagues: why do we need Americans and Nagorno Karabakh. Although those 12 meet - in our own backyard? But Hal was endowed ings did not influence government peace-making, with a tremendous visionary instinct. Irina they did lead to agreement among participants on Zvyagelskaya and I suggested that we should at - a document they called “Framework for a Peace tempt a dialogue among the major factions in the Process.” Moreover, no one had ever succeeded former Soviet republic of , which had in bringing all three parties together at the nego - slipped into a vicious civil war in 1992 shortly tiating table either before or after us. after its independence. We started identifying I am sure that just as Dartmouth was instru - potential Dialogue participants, but the task ap - mental in the early 1990s, it will be useful for peared to be much more difficult than we would us today, during difficult times, whenever we have ever thought. For example, one of the desig - and our American partners are confronted with nated participants was not convinced to fly to new menaces and challenges. Given that some Moscow until after arriving at the airport; he recurrent manifestations of our old confrontation joined us but flew without baggage, just wearing can still be perceived, we have a lot of work to do, a suit. Another participant left the first meeting and we need to transfer our expertise to future abruptly when a leading opposing member of generations. the Dialogue refused to deal with him, as he had Dr. Vitaly Naumkin is the director of the Institute of Oriental previously threatened to kill this member of the Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences and president of opposition. But as time went on and the talks the International Center for Strategic and Political Studies.

27 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Norman Cousins perhaps convening of the most intense The first new task force, led of our common and conflicting expressed the feelings of Dart - series of meetings yet. An by Harold Saunders and interests in conflicts from mouth at this time when he emergency meeting in May Yevgeny Primakov, focusing on Afghanistan to Nicaragua to the wrote a statement to be read at 1980 in Bellagio, Italy, (the only Soviet-U.S. interactions in re - Middle East, Angola, and South the 1986 Dartmouth Conference Dartmouth meet - gional conflicts, Africa. For instance, in 1984, the in Baku: ing to be held in a As Saunders said held its initial task force developed a frame - country other meeting in Au - work for the two governments Our role is to raise ques - in opening the than the Soviet gust 1982 and, to pursue consultations in the tions and seek answers Union or the first meeting, the over the next Middle East, and with each that do not ordinarily United States) purpose of the task decade, convened other, with the purpose of laying come up in the official discussed the force was to probe 18 times. As foundations for an international exchanges. We can speak Soviet invasion Saunders said in conference on the Arab-Israeli those interactions and think in a larger con - of Afghanistan, opening the first conflict. Not long after the text. We are not obligated its consequences, to determine what meeting, the pur - onset of Gorbachev’s , to defend every action or and potential insight might be pose of the task members of the task force decision that occurs on remedies. It gained into what force was to worked together for three days the official level. We can was agreed at was called “the probe those inter - roughly every six months, creat - afford to think in terms of Dartmouth XIII, actions to deter - ing a capacity for a much more central Soviet-U.S. historical principle. We in November mine what insight intimate engagement, even at need not shrink from the 1981, to continue relationship.” might be gained the official level. They jointly moral issues that often small working into what was developed and worked through task forces on a called “the central ideas to facilitate the Soviet un - [underlie] the political frequent and regular basis. No Soviet-U.S. relationship.” The winding of its commitments in problems or confrontation. 8 one, however, could have fore - task force became a joint effort the developing world, from These were the ideas, the seen the momentum these task to develop shared analytical, Afghanistan to southern Africa deep convictions, that led to the forces would create. nonideological understandings and Central America.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

March 1982 November 1982 INTERNATIONAL President Reagan calls Brezhnev dies, succeeded the Soviet Union the byYuri Andropov, former “Evil Empire” head of KGB

1982

August 24-30, 1982 February 1-4, 1983 April 28-30, 1983 DARTMOUTH Regional Conflicts Regional Conflicts Arms Control Task Force Task Force Task Force Suzdal, U.S.S.R. Amelia Island, FL Denver, CO

28 SUSTAINED COLLABORATION ON CORE CONCERNS, THE TASK FORCES PROVE THEMSELVES

Formed in 1983, the task dress the substantial imbalances Force, we were able to articulate force on arms control, cochaired in strategic forces, particularly four lessons learned: by Paul Doty and Georgy the Soviet advantage of so- • Create a cumulative agenda. Arbatov, worked on an equally called “heavy” missiles, such as Questions left hanging at intense schedule, devoting a the SS-18, capable of carrying the end of one meeting total of 42 days over 10 years in up to 10 independently targeted could be studied between an effort to share perceptions, nuclear warheads. A recurring meetings and become the agenda for the next. This deepen understanding, and political thread in the arms capacity transformed a develop creative approaches to control dialogue was the Soviet series of meetings into a issues dogging official negotia - frustration that its strategic mili - political process. tors. The group also considered tary equality with the United • Move from polemical to issues and ideas not yet on any States did not automatically analytical talk. That change official agenda. There was care - grant the Soviet Union the was a step from debate ful exploration of the military political equality it so urgently and argument to dialogue— and political implications of desired. Doty explained that a a mode of communication the so-called “zero option” for nation that imprisons political in which participants listen intermediate nuclear force in dissidents in mental hospitals carefully enough to each Europe and a similarly detailed and refuses to grant its citizens other to be changed by exploration of the political personal and political freedoms what they hear. Dialogue and strategic implications of would never be accepted by is the essence of relationship. the impending deployment of the United States as its political • Develop a common body of newly developed, highly accu - equal. knowledge. This consists of rate, cruise missiles. Constant From the Dartmouth task knowing not just what the DanielYankelovich (from left) and Georgy Arbatov, attention was given to working force experience, particularly other side’s position was but Hanover, New Hampshire, 1984 through together how to ad - the Regional Conflicts Task what interests lay behind it.

1984 Andropov dies, succeeded by

1983 1984

November 29- March 10-12, 1984 May 14-17, 1984 November 16-18, 1984 December 2-4, 1984 December 1, 1983 Arms Control Plenary Regional Conflicts Arms Control Regional Conflicts Task Force Hanover, NH Task Force Task Force Task Force Moscow, U.S.S.R. Leningrad, U.S.S.R. Washington, D.C. Moscow, U.S.S.R.

29 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

• Work together within the the third world have to do with Recognizing the importance portance as a place where both task force to design joint or bilateral interests? Secretary of of addressing the impact of Soviets and Americans, often complementary approaches State Kissinger explained count - actions by each side on the over - with significant debates within to shared problems. As a less times that Soviet actions all relationship, Dartmouth’s each delegation, sought to vehicle for plotting such that appeared to Political Relations understand for themselves and a course of action, they American citizens Task Force was then explain to others the developed what they as evidence of Soviets and formed in January nature and significance of these called “political scenarios.” Soviet expansion - 1985, cochaired changes. These began as a way of Americans, often describing a sequence of ism caused those with significant by Columbia Task force participants citizens—some - University scholar learned to ask themselves not steps that would interact debates within each at specified points to move times through Seweryn Bialer only whether an idea might delegation, sought the parties forward onto Congress—to and Deputy successfully solve a problem new ground. impose limits on to understand Director of the but also how it could be de - A persistent issue raised in the president’s and then explain Institute of U.S. signed so as to make it possible these task forces, largely by freedom in con - the nature and and Canadian for governments to accept it. Soviet colleagues but present ducting policy significance of these Studies Vitaly As they increasingly placed toward the Soviet Zhurkin. This whatever problem they ad - to some extent on both sides, changes. was why and how events in Union. It wasn’t task force met dressed in the larger context of one area of the world, such as until later, at the five times over the overall relationship between Afghanistan, impacted the over - first meeting of the next four the two countries, the task all political relationship. Why the Regional Conflicts Task Force years. As political and economic forces could be thought of as a couldn’t policy, the Soviets that one Soviet participant change accelerated during the “mind at work in the midst of a argued, be compartmentalized? voiced an understanding of this second half of the 1980s, this relationship,” to use Saunders’ What did Soviet ambitions in political reality. task force acquired critical im - phrase.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

March 1985 March 1985 April 1986 Chernenko dies, begins laying the ground - Chernobyl nuclear INTERNATIONAL Gorbachev succeeds work for a policy of , or incident occurs openness, leading to political and economic reform

1985

January 29-31, 1985 April 7-14, 1985 September 30- November 28-30, 1985 May 12-17, 1986 October 4, 1985 DARTMOUTH Political Relations Regional Conflicts Arms Control Plenary Task Force Task Force Regional Conflicts Task Force Baku, Azerbaijan Moscow, U.S.S.R. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Task Force Moscow, U.S.S.R. Pocantico, NY

30 HE FORMATION of the ence, which continues today. Political Relations Task This incipient shift in emphasis Force and its focus on was evident in Dartmouth XV 1988 -199 1: the overall Soviet-U.S. relation - in Baku, Azerbaijan, May 1986. T Accelerating change in the ship was the beginning of in - creased attention to the role of Soviet body politic was increas - citizens in social and political ingly apparent in the task forces A Turbulent Transition change that, in various forms, over the next two years, but it would become a significant new was at Dartmouth XVI held at track in the Dartmouth experi - the Lyndon Baines Johnson

Newport Beach, California, 1988

October 1986 January 1987 June 1987 Reykjavik Summit between Reagan Gorbachev announces Reagan speaks at and Gorbachev; Zero Option (eliminating policy of perestroika , the Berlin Wall: all intermediate-range nuclear forces) or reconstruction “Mr. Gorbachev, tear considered but rejected down this wall!”

1986 1987

November 11-13, 1986 December 3-4, 1986 December 5-6, 1986 May 5-7, 1987 July 5-8, 1987 August 31- Regional Conflicts Arms Control Political Relations Regional Conflicts Arms Control September 5, 1987 Task Force Task Force Task Force Task Force Task Force Regional Conflicts Moscow, U.S.S.R. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Graylyn, NC & Moscow, U.S.S.R. Task Force Washington, D.C. Moscow, U.S.S.R.

31 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

which seemed to overwhelm far more nimble in working Americans and Soviets alike. with the multiple and fast- At the end of the formal meet - developing facets of change. ings in Austin, the Kettering They then agreed to create the Foundation flew the Soviet Civil Society Task Force. delegation to Newport Beach, Poignantly, it was during California, for 4 days of meet - a meeting of the Regional Con - ings with 25 American citizens flicts Task Force in December who had participated in 1991 outside Washington that National Issues Forums on the the end of the Soviet Union superpowers’ relationship. was formally announced. The Meanwhile, the task forces meeting had begun three days tried to cope with the increas- earlier with a Soviet participant ing rapidity of change. In the stating that, in effect, the Soviet midst of this turbulence, the Union, as it had been known to 30th-anniversary meeting in the world, had completely and Leningrad in July 1990— irrevocably ceased to exist. After Sergey Plekhanov (from left), Julie Zinet, Vitaly Zhurkin, and Robert Kingston, Newport Beach, California, 1988 Dartmouth XVII—became the the final session on Sunday, last of the Dartmouth plenaries. December 8, Soviet participants Library and Museum in Austin, brought to this meeting a Both sides shared Kettering came to the closing dinner hav - Texas, in April 1988 that Soviet panoply of stars in the increas - Foundation President David ing just seen on television an leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s ingly visible Soviet civil society. Mathews’ judgment that plena - announcement from glasnost and perestroika burst Participants witnessed an unan - ries on the old scale would not that the new Commonwealth dramatically onto the scene. ticipated outpouring of the “new be appropriate in the emerging of Independent States would Soviet cochair Georgy Arbatov political thinking” in Moscow, situation; task forces were succeed the Soviet Union.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

February 1988 November 1988 December 1988 Armenia-Azerbaijan George H.W. Bush Gorbachev speech INTERNATIONAL conflict begins over elected president before UN and Nagorno Karabakh first summit with (erupts into full-scale George Bush fighting in 1992) 1988

January 13-15, 1988 February 15-17, 1988 February 18-20, 1988 April 25- December 4-7, 1988 May 8, 1988 DARTMOUTH Arms Control Regional Conflicts Political Relations Regional Conflicts Task Force Task Force Task Force Plenary Task Force Washington, D.C. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Austin, TX; NewYork, NY Newport Beach, CA; Washington, D.C. 32 AR FROM WRITING said in a fortieth- 1991-2010: Dartmouth’s epitaph, anniversary Dartmouth participants plunged Conference reunion in into intense exploration of the Moscow in September F 2000: “We have lost our dimensions of the new era. 9 Two Decades of Harold Saunders and James market.” Experimentation Voorhees captured the challenge As their experiments in Dialogue Sustained : continued, their sense of the The resilience of the need for a mind at work in Dartmouth tradition the midst of a relationship would be tested. . . . continued to absorb them. The people of Dartmouth Those experiments were would spend the rest pursued on two tracks: a new of the decade—and civil society track and the beyond—struggling continuing but significantly through reflection and expanded track pursued by experience to develop the Regional Conflicts Task their role in the interaction Force. The Arms Control Task between these two “whole bodies politic.” Force, later called the Task Governments had been Force on Cooperation and their primary audience Security, ended with its 16th for three decades, but meeting in Washington, D.C., as a Russian participant in December 1992. John Esp (left) and Igor Nagdasev, Washington, D.C., 2006

December 1989 December 1989 Berlin Wall George Bush and comes down Mikhail Gorbachev summit at Malta

1989

January 16-18, 1989 January 19-21, 1989 May 8-12, 1989 November 26- Arms Control Political Relations Regional Conflicts December 1, 1989 Task Force Task Force Task Force Regional Conflicts Moscow, U.S.S.R. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Task Force Washington D.C.

33 A New Paradigm, a New Process, a New Concept Edwin Dorn (from left), Russian interpreter, and Evgeny Bunimovich, Moscow, 2008 HE NEW THINKING Task Force. As this task force in Moscow and on the matured, three conceptual broader global stage developments emerged in the was reflected occasionally in dialogue, beyond the substance T of the exchanges on the conflicts exchanges throughout the first years of the Regional Conflicts themselves.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

October 1990 German reunification INTERNATIONAL

1990

April 19-22, 1990 June 10-16, 1990 July 22-28,1990 December 2-8, 1990 DARTMOUTH Arms Control Regional Conflicts Plenary Regional Conflicts Task Force Task Force Leningrad, U.S.S.R. Task Force Washington, D.C. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Washington, D.C.

34 A NEW PARADIGM, A NEW PROCESS, A NEW CONCEPT

First, to participants grap - thinking in Moscow to a task Second, it was repeatedly decade, Saunders named the pling with seemingly intractable, force meeting in May. This new articulated in exchanges within process “Sustained Dialogue.” 12 deep-rooted human conflicts in thinking encompassed the full the task force that a “Dartmouth Sustained Dialogue differed far-flung corners of the world range of interactions in and be - process” had emerged. As early from most other change pro- and with their effect on the rela - tween “whole bodies politic”— as 1990, they began talking cesses in that it focused on rela - tionship between the two not just the actions about applying tionships, which are often the countries, it gradually became and reactions of this process to underlying cause of problems, evident that the state-centered governments. This Sustained Dialogue other areas of rather than only on the problems 13 “realist” paradigm that had thinking became differed from most conflict. In 1991, themselves. This led Saunders dominated the academic field clear in April in a published to develop and carefully define of for 1988 during other change processes letter to a col - a “concept of relationship,” two generations was not large Dartmouth XVI in that it focused on league, Saunders which served as an analytical enough to embrace the full and was cap- relationships, which are conceptualized tool for understanding the inter - range of interactions in those tured eloquently often the underlying this as a five- actions in a dialogue and as an situations. Elements of this think - in Gorbachev’s stage process. operational tool for beginning cause of problems, ing appear in the transcripts of December 1988 In March 1993, to change them. the task force’s earlier meetings. address to the rather than only on the the cochairs Against the background of In 1987, two threads began to United Nations problems themselves. of the task those conceptual developments come together: Harold Saunders General Assembly, force, Saunders and the dissolution of the Soviet was distilling his thoughts and which members and Gennady Union at the end of 1991, explo - suggesting a new paradigm in of the task force Chufrin, pub - rations and experiments in the a monograph for the United watched together on television. lished an article in Negotiation two arenas mentioned above— States Institute of Peace and the A decade later, Saunders would Journal that laid out this five- civil society and regional Kettering Foundation, and Rus - call this worldview the “rela - stage process, calling it “a pub - conflicts—were developed and sians brought the new political tional paradigm.” 10 lic peace process.” 11 Later in the pursued.

July 1991 August 1991 October 1991 December 26, 1991 BorisYeltsin Attempted Yeltsin announces radical Official dissolution elected first coup against economic reforms, of the Soviet Union president of Gorbachev including rapid Russian privatization, known Federation as “shock therapy.”

1991

July 7-13, 1991 October 21-25, 1991 December 4-8, 1991 Regional Conflicts Arms Control Regional Conflicts Task Force Task Force Task Force Moscow, U.S.S.R. Moscow, U.S.S.R. Washington, D.C.

35 HE CIVIL SOCIETY would be added to the track was launched, Dartmouth Conference as noted above, at complex over the long Civil Society DTartmouth XVII. Voorhees term—as David Mathews describes this move: suggested—or whether This had been an issue there would be other ways Task Force central to the work of the of enhancing interactions Kettering Foundation in between the two civil 14 the United States. Now, as societies. the Soviet Union sought The most enduring step in democracy, strengthening this arena was the Kettering civil society was becoming Foundation’s establishment of an important issue among a program of international civil those inside and outside society fellowships. Coincident the Soviet Union who were with the transformative changes concerned with how com - in the former Soviet bloc, a number of Latin American munist states could make countries emerged from military a transition to democracy. dictatorships. The foundation During much of 1991 and began inviting citizens from 1992 a plethora of conversa - both regions (eventually ex - tions probed this subject in panding to other countries) to depth to determine whether Kettering to see what they Svetlana Gorokhova (right), Washington, D.C., 2006 a civil society task force might learn about civil society,

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

January 1992 November 1992 Russian Federation William J. Clinton INTERNATIONAL becomes an elected president independent country

1992

March 19-24, 1992 March 25-30, 1992 May 25-30, 1992 June 1-6, 1992 October 19-24, 1992 December 6-10, 1992 December 12-14, 1992 DARTMOUTH Civil Society Cooperation & Regional Conflicts Civil Society Civil Society Regional Conflicts Cooperation & meetings Security Task Force Task Force meetings meetings Task Force Security Task Force Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Washington D.C. Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia

36 CIVIL SOCIETY TASK FORCE

democracy, and citizens as eign Literature, which became political actors. At first, fellows a partner supporting parallel came for two-month periods to activities after 2000. read Kettering research; later, In June 1991, a small Ketter - these research visits were made ing group, including prominent into longer fellowships. Russian journalists, had exploratory scholars created one of the discussions with Russian col - largest groups of alumni of the leagues at the Institute for U.S. program. One of the first fel - and Canadian Studies with a lows, Igor Nagdasev, a philoso - particular focus on the role of phy student at Moscow State media in civil society. In Octo - University, returned to Russia ber 1991, a Kettering group (after temporarily being at the returned to the institute t o Institute for U.S. and Canadian continue the conversation and Studies) and formally estab - agreed to meet again in March lished the Russian Center for 1992. Mikhail Khomin (from left), Irina Mirnaya, and Igor Nagdasev, Moscow, 2008 Citizenship Education in 1993. One of the problems partici - Shortly after, Denis Makarov, pants faced in the Civil Society which numerous groups might Voorhees, “would simply make a professor of political science Task Force meetings was the operate without being confined them happen.” 15 at Moscow State Pedagogical broad range of elements and by a task force’s terms of refer - The March 1992 meeting University, returned to found interests in this area. One idea ence. With the exception of a enabled a broader range of Rus - the Foundation for Develop - proposed was to think of a small group that facilitated sians to recognize the potential ment of Civic Culture in 1996. task force “without walls.” The connections, groups would that might be realized from Several fellows subsequently thought was to generate a con - not come together to talk about working together. A revealing came from the Library of For - ceptual framework within interactions but, to quote moment in this meeting—

October 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, bombing of and assault on Russian Parliament

1993

March 26-28, 1993 May 30-June 4, 1993 August 1-3, 1993 September 3, 1993 September 27-29, 1993 October 13-15, 1993 Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Future of Dartmouth Civil Society Inter-Tajik Dialogue Task Force Dialogue Conference meetings Dialogue Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Rostov, Russia Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Vladimir, Russia

37 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

closely akin to what had been public forums (National Issues the public’s ability to deliberate the U.S. experience of civil soci - learned about establishing gen - Forums) on difficult issues. A on an issue. Georgy Arbatov ety had been opened to enable uine dialogue in the Regional large Russian group participated. talked with the New York Uni - interested Americans and Conflicts Task Force—came At the same time, two more versity School of Journalism Russians to pursue in their own when a Russian asked Ameri - meetings were about starting way whatever interests they can participants to talk about held in Moscow a center built might find in common. their personal motivations for that centered “At this point, the around this At the 40th Dartmouth re - participating in the exchange. around senior discussions moved to approach for union in Moscow in September In the words of an American U.S. journalists journalists at 2000, David Mathews proposed a deeper level as we participant, “at this point, the involved in ex - his institute in a new avenue of research into discussions moved to a deeper ploring “public each explained both our Russia. the Russia-U.S. relationship. level as we each explained journalism” in personal concepts of “After one He suggested to Nagdasev and both our personal concepts of the United States. politics and democracy more meeting Makarov that they conduct a politics and democracy and The idea was to in Moscow, in series of deliberative forums and then reflected on then reflected on why we, indi - encourage jour - October 1992,” across Russia on Russian citi - vidually, thought interaction nalists to move why we, individually, Voorhees writes, zens’ views of the United States with like-minded Russians was beyond a view of thought interaction with “following the and of the Russia-U.S. relation - important.” themselves as like-minded Russians Russian group’s ship. In the United States, At the end of this meeting, experts informing was important.” visit to the citizens would participate in the Russians were invited to send the public to a United States in similar forums through the a delegation to the Kettering view of them - July, the number National Issues Forums. Foundation’s annual Summer selves as learning of such meet - More than 100 of these forums Public Policy Institute in Ohio how the public thinks about a ings faded, but Russian partici - were conducted, and Denis where a large number of Ameri - problem and then framing is - pation in the fellows program at Makarov began a longitudinal 16 cans were assembling to learn sues as the public would frame Kettering continued steadily.” study of Russians’ thinking about holding deliberative, them. The hope was to enrich Perhaps enough windows on about the United States.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

December 1994 Yeltsin orders 40,000 INTERNATIONAL troops to Chechnya, starting the first Chechen war against Chechen separatists 1994

January 4-6, 1994 March 1-3, 1994 May 10-12, 1994 June 10-14, 1994 September 21-24, 1994 October 4-6, 1994 November 30- Inter-Tajik Dialogue Inter-Tajik Dialogue Inter-Tajik Dialogue Inter-Tajik Dialogue Inter-Tajik Dialogue Future of Dartmouth December 2, 1994 DARTMOUTH Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia Washington, D.C. & Moscow, Russia Conference Inter-Tajik Dialogue Princeton, NJ Washington, D.C. Pushkin, St. Petersburg, January 22-27, 1994 March 23-24, 1994 September 23-30, 1994 Russia Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Dialogue Regional Conflicts Task Force Moscow, Russia Task Force 38 Dayton, OH Moscow, Russia CIVIL SOCIETY TASK FORCE

Phil Stewart, using the five tensions and immigration. The elements of the concept of rela - thought was that this approach tionship, produced a written could provide insight into the portrait of the relationship on culture of each country, compar - the basis of the forums in each ing how citizens thought and country. 17 The first meeting to acted in response to comparable exchange insights took place problems. Insights from these in Washington, D.C., in 2003. forums were exchanged in a This line of research came to meeting outside Moscow at the be called “New Dartmouth.” end of September 2008. At the start of the next round In a subsequent initiative in 2009-2010, forums were con - of deliberations, Russian parti- ducted among citizens in each cipants watched video clips of country on their views of their Americans talking about Russia. respective country’s present And in the United States, U.S. and future role in the world. citizens viewed clips of Russian The insights from these and the conversations about America. two previous rounds of forums Russian and U.S. counterparts is the subject for a panel of then began work on a book, Dartmouth veterans to reflect When Citizens Deliberate: Georgy Arbatov (second from left) and Yuri Zhukov (second from right) with local officials, on at the 50th-anniversary Bukhara, Uzbekistan, 1986 Russian and American Citizens celebration in Washington, D.C., Consider Their Relationship , At a meeting at the National paring forums on one or two on October 26, 2010. which was published both in Press Club in Washington, D.C., problems that citizens of each the United States and Moscow in May 2006, participants sug - country faced. The problems in 2006. gested holding and then com - chosen were racial and ethnic

February 1995 Russian forces gain control of the Chechen capital, Grozny

1995

March 28-30, 1995 June 19-22, 1995 September 11-14, 1995 September 24-28, 1995 November 28-30, 1995 Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Dialogue Dialogue Dialogue Task Force Dialogue Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Dayton, Ohio Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia Russia Russia Russia

39 N 1992, members of the Soviet Union; and (3) they Regional Regional Conflicts Task would focus on the new Russia- Force made three decisions U.S. relationship. Iabout their future work: With the above in mind, Conflicts (1) they would conceptualize task force participants explored the process of dialogue they the possibility of dialogue had learned; (2) they would among the several factions in apply that process to one of the the vicious civil war that had Task Force conflicts that had broken out broken out in the former Soviet in the territory of the former republic of Tajikistan. This country, bordering China and Afghanistan, affected Russian security interests and was just gaining a U.S. presence. Only a few humanitarian agen - cies were paying attention to the conflict. And unlike the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, which involved international oil interests, an Armenian dias - pora of the 1915 mass killings in , and the “white heat” of Muslim-Christian conflict, the problems in Tajikistan seemed self-contained. Deana Arsenian (from left), Samuel Charap, and Hal Saunders, Moscow, 2010

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE July 1996 August 1996 Increasingly Cease-fire in the unpopularYeltsin Chechen war INTERNATIONAL is reelected in a closely contested election

1996

February 26-28, 1996 March 26-31, 1996 May 21-23, 1996 June 24-26, 1996 October 8-10, 1996 December 1-4, 1996 DARTMOUTH Inter-Tajik Russia/U.S. Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Dialogue Dialogue Dialogue Task Force Dialogue Task Force Pushkin, Washington, D.C. Dushanbe, Moscow, Russia Snegiri, Moscow, Russia St. Petersburg, Tajikistan Moscow region, Russia Russia 40 The Inter-Tajik

Dialogue Participants in a Sustained Dialogue training, Tajikistan, 2003 HE REGIONAL Conflicts skaya, went to Tajikistan and Task Force deputized talked with 110 potential parti- Within the three Russian and three cipants in a dialogue; eventually American members to explore 8 Tajik citizens attended the T first meeting with the task force. Framework of the possibility of inviting individuals from the opposing Many would not attend a meet - the Dartmouth parties in the Tajik civil war to ing convened by either Russians talk about their conflict. Two or Americans, but they would Conference Russian members of the task accept an invitation from “an force’s convening team, Vitaly international movement,” such Naumkin and Irina Zvyagel - as the Dartmouth Conference.

May 1997 July 1997 July 1997 Chechen Russia opposes Asian peace NATO expansion to financial accord encompass the crisis Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary

1997

February 25-27, 1997 May 9-11, 1997 October 5-9, 1997 October 27-29, 1997 Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Dialogue Dialogue Task Force Dialogue Pushkin, Pushkin, Washington, D.C. Snegiri, St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Moscow region, Russia Russia Russia 41 Ahead of Its Time by Irina Zvyagelskaya

THE DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE For the Dartmouth participants, this realiza - was set up to create a forum where leading tion created a new challenge: a new track and American and Soviet intellectuals (nongovern - format was needed. Thus the Regional Conflicts mental representatives) could meet and discuss Task Force (RCTF) was established in 1981 to peace initiatives and means of easing tensions examine regional conflicts in which U.S.-U.S.S.R. between the two super - involvement was powers. It was used as an more pronounced and unofficial channel of com - tensions between these munication between the respective “proxies” respective governments. could have initiated a The participants were in global war. fact often briefed and de - RCTF participants briefed by their respective concentrated on issues state officials before and with specific cultural, after the conference. And ethnic, and political many observers believe dimensions, along with the Dartmouth process the Soviet-American contributed to détente. interaction. One had The end of the 1970s to analyze not only the marked the end of the motivations of the American-Soviet tacit superpowers but also understanding. Politi - the behavioral modes cians asked, what was of local actors, their happening to détente? Instead it became obvious reasoning and goals, and the coincidence and that, since the Iranian revolution and the Soviet divergence of interests between the locals and invasion of Afghanistan, the rivalry between the their patrons. It was of great help, especially for two countries had dramatically shifted to other younger participants (like me) who at the time regions (mainly to the Middle East and west Asia were very much influenced by stereotypes born and, to a lesser extent, to Africa and Latin America). by the zero-sum game. Later, when writing and

42 AHEAD OF ITS TIME

lecturing on the Middle East conflict, I would speak their own language. And, these regional recollect those debates and deliberations, which differences are strengthened by religious ones: the had provided me with a stereoscopic vision of the Pamiris belong to the Ismailite branch in Islam conflict and accentuated its complexity and its while the majority of the locals are Sunnites. multifaceted nature. Becoming a republic did not eliminate the Besides a general analysis of regional situa - fragmentation. Southerners remained alienated tions, the RCTF meetings had a practical purpose: from Tajikistan’s main cultural centers (Bukhara to prevent misinterpretation of each other’s inten - and became part of Uzbekistan) tions. The messages for respective governments and from the north (Leninabad Oblast). Being had been passed, revealing (despite mistrust and the main industrial and agricultural area of the suspicions) true motivations of the superpowers. republic, comprising approximately 40 percent The citizens’ exchanges and the recommendations of its total population, and bordering Uzbekistan, they formulated planted the seeds of mutual respect. the oblast developed a lifestyle of its own. It The collapse of the Soviet Union, perceived by became home to the educated elite and a nest of some political scientists as the end of an era, gave the Communist nomenclature and cadres of the way to a plethora of ethnopolitical conflicts. The state officials. Under the Soviet regime, there Tajik conflict, which erupted in 1992, could be were efforts to keep a political balance among seen as a conflict with a quasi-ethnic dimension. the regions, but the Leninabadis had the upper The Tajik nation had only come into existence hand. Southerners had been dissatisfied with the under Soviet rule when certain ethnoterritorial division of labor, but under the Communists, entities were granted quasi-sovereignty and they did not dare challenge it. “republic” status. Despite its appearance on the When the central authorities no longer had map, the Tajik Soviet Republic has remained a any impact on the republics, old hatreds surfaced. fragmented society. The most vivid differences And, in the absence of a mechanism to rein them exist between the Northerners and the Southern - in, the tensions became destructive for the state ers, including the Pamiris. Some observers believe itself. Encouragement from the outside also played that they belong to different ethnic groupings a role in fanning the conflict. regarding their appearances, cultural habits, and In the interregional strife, Tajik traditionalism traditions. There are small ethnic groups which used Islamic slogans, which appealed to and

43 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

sought to mobilize the rural population, first and were signed by governments but that only citizens foremost. Tajik society, however, was not could transform conflictual relations and create Islamized enough to produce hard-boiled funda - a new atmosphere. Patterns of interaction are mentalists. It was well-educated intellectuals from changed through working together in Sustained regions other than Leninabad—the Pamirs , Dialogue; participants can gain respect for other Garm, and others—who provided the ideologists participants’ experiences and find common inter - needed for the democratic and nationalist factions ests. In Tajikistan, the pro-government forces and of Tajikistan. the opposition, despite rivalry and a deep mistrust The start of the civil war in Tajikistan in 1992 of each other, had a common ground: they wanted drew the attention of the RCTF. The task force had a single, flourishing, democratic, and independent a unique opportunity to apply the methods and Tajikistan. This vision helped them overcome approaches from the Dartmouth meetings to the animosity. The RCTF organizers helped the Tajik civil strife within a traditional society, inciting participants realize that they were victims of the citizens to think about solutions. At first there was civil war and, more important, that they, acting plenty of skepticism and doubt. Would Sustained and feeling as true citizens, could share responsi - Dialogue work in Tajikistan? Would both sides bility for the fate of their country. agree to participate with so much blood having Sustained Dialogue was a factor in the context been spilled? that shaped the parties’ willingness to engage The Inter-Tajik Dialogue showed that the in official talks. It also provided new ideas, which Dartmouth process could be regarded as a univer - were in great demand at the time. Sustained sal tool. It could work in different cultural milieu Dialogue enabled its participants to talk freely, and under different circumstances (the cold war, providing space for exchange and new approaches. civil strife, rising tensions between states and Participants learned how to put an idea into the within societies). right political context. They were much less bound RCTF members managed to form a group by rigid approaches than officials and opposition “within the civil conflict to design a peace process leaders, allowing them to come up with new ideas. for their own country.” These activities were Later, several participants became delegates to directed by the conviction that peace documents the official negotiations.

44 AHEAD OF ITS TIME

One should also mention the dialogue on the negotiators had their own format and were against conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan around any changes. The bilateral negotiations conducted Nagorno Karabakh. It was the only form of negoti - by the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan have ations for the Nagorno Karabakh settlement that remained a process closed from the public. involved Nagorno Karabakh representatives. To sum up, the Dartmouth process in its During the 11th round of negotiations (June 18- different manifestations—the bilateral relations , 20, 2006), the sides created a “Framework Agree - the RCTF, the Inter-Tajik Dialogue, the conflict ment on a Peace Process in the Region.” The around Nagorno Karabakh—has been an unforget - core idea of this document could have provided a table experience. At the height of the cold war, drastic change in the conflict: “Participation of Dartmouth helped its participants moderate their plenipotentiaries from Nagorno Karabakh in the positions and overcome certain stereotypes. It negotiations, as a party signing the agreements, played a role in preventing a clash of the two super - assuming the obligations to implement the agree - powers over their regional interests; it brought ments, to form normal relations with its neighbors together participants of civil strife; it offered a new and mutual obligations on non-interference into format and new ideas on the conflict around the internal affairs of each other will create condi - Nagorno Karabakh. tions that will be considered as the intermediate Sustained Dialogue has always been ahead of status of Nagorno Karabakh. Agreements reached its time. Born as a forum of intellectuals, keeping and implemented by Nagorno Karabakh will its intellectual value, it has provided a new vision actually constitute the recognition of this status.” of civil society. It does not teach how to organize On December 10, 2006, the Dartmouth task NGOs. It teaches a much more important thing: force addressed a letter to the OSCE Minsk Group’s the responsibility of being a citizen. Only citizens U.S., Russian, and French cochairs, stating a can change conflictual relations and make peace; number of priority measures to initiate a peace Sustained Dialogue, the Dartmouth Conference process with the involvement of the public and the process, provides citizens with an opportunity to support of the OSCE Minsk Group. creatively participate in a peace process. Unfortunately, the revolutionary ideas worked Dr. Irina Zvyagelskaya is vice president of the International out within the framework of the Dartmouth Center for Strategic and Political Studies and a professor Conference were not accepted at that time. Official at Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

45 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

It was perhaps reflective of call “The Inter-Tajik Dialogue war and for the continuing that the opposition was a the emerging role of citizens within the Framework of the atrocities, clearing their minds conglomerate of factions; there outside government that Dart - Dartmouth Conference.” In by “dumping” their feelings was no one party to negotiate. mouth participants on several retrospect, one can describe the about each other. In the third A month later, leaders of the significant occasions over the Dialogue as de - meeting, some - opposing factions met, wrote a years had proposed joint action veloping through one said in effect, common platform, and formed of one sort or another by their four phases. Now it could be “Enough of this the United Tajik Opposition governments. Now it could be The first said that a serious talk. What we said that a serious joint action phase, March need to do is to joint action was was undertaken—but by citi - 1993 through start a negotia - zens. One might say that this March 1994, was undertaken—but tion between the was the first joint U.S.-Russian almost a textbook by citizens. One government and citizens’ peace-making mission. rendition of the might say that this the opposition In the first meeting in March five stages of Sus - about creating was the first joint 1993, one Tajik participant ex - tained Dialogue. conditions so plained concisely the genesis of After Naumkin U.S.-Russian citizens’ refugees can go the war: “Independence was and Zviagelskaya peace-making home.” They thrust upon us, and we were had, in prepara - mission. had named an not prepared for it.” The war tory explorations, objective together was essentially about who formed the group, and were ready would govern the new country it met three times to move to a new and how. That meeting turned (March, June, stage of working together. They out to be the first of 37 three- and August) near Moscow. then focused on how to start a day meetings over 12 years in The participating Tajik parties negotiation, concluding that the what participants came to blamed each other for the civil greatest obstacle was the fact Nancy Stewart (from left) and Patricia Coggins, Leningrad, U.S.S.R., 1990

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

August 1998 Russian financial INTERNATIONAL collapse

1998

February 9-11, 1998 June 5-7, 1998 October 27-29, 1998 November 13-15, 1998 Inter-Tajik DARTMOUTH Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Regional Conflicts Dialogue Dialogue Task Force Dialogue Snegiri, Voronovo, Voronovo, Belarus Snegiri, Moscow region, Moscow region, Russia Russia 46 THE INTER-TAJIK DIALOGUE

(UTO). Two members of the mended that the negotiating dialogue group participated in teams form four subcommis - that meeting and four became sions to engage citizens members of a steering group and government officials in for the UTO. They brought their implementing provisions of a platform to the fifth meeting. peace agreement on refugee Pro-government members return, economic rebuilding, quizzed them intensively. A disarmament, and drafting a rapporteur recorded their an - constitution. swers and typed them into In a second phase, from a brief document. The pro- April 1994 through June 1997, government members left the dialogue continued to meet saying that they believed the every two or three months basis for negotiation existed. alongside the UN-mediated A month later, the government peace negotiations. Three and opposition accepted the members participated in both invitation of a United Nations groups. Often, dialogue partici - emissary to join UN-mediated pants produced a joint memo peace talks. At the sixth meet - addressing an impasse reached ing of the Inter-Tajik Dialogue, in the negotiations. One of participants wrote their first their options found its way into of more than two dozen joint the peace agreement as an memoranda, “Memorandum important provision creating a on a Negotiating Process for National Reconciliation Participants in a Sustained Dialogue training, Tajikistan, 2003 Tajikistan,” which recom - Commission to oversee imple -

May 1999 August 1999 August 1999 December 31, 1999 Yeltsin fires Yeltsin names Second Chechen Yeltsin resigns, Prime Minister war begins days making Putin acting Yevgeny Primakov his candidate to after Putin’s president head the new appointment government 1999

March 9-11, 1999 March 12-14, 1999 July 4-5, 1999 December 10-12, 1999 Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Task Force Dialogue Dialogue Dialogue Snegiri, Snegiri, Moscow, Russia Snegiri, Moscow region, Moscow region, Moscow region, Russia Russia Russia 47 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

mentation of the agreement and had begun. While the dialogue drugs; (3) use a dialogue format The story in Tajikistan con - to provide a space for resolving continued for another five to establish economic develop - tinues, but the outcome remains questions not dealt with fully years, participants’ energies ment committees in 15 towns; very much in the balance. An enough in the peace agreement. were increasingly channeled these committees had the dual authoritarian government rules, The third phase was a tran- into their own purpose of solving but as one dialogue participant sition period established by nongovernmental economic problems who had been a civil society the peace agreement under the organization, the that the govern - fellow at the Kettering Founda - guidance of the National Recon - Public Committee ment was not ad - tion said, “The government ciliation Commission. It lasted for Democratic From early 2000 dressing and, in the can’t solve all of these prob - from July 1997 to early 2000. Processes, which to the present, process, providing lems. If they’re going to be Five members of the commis - was registered in one could say that space to bring citi - solved, we the citizens will have sion were members of the 2000. They decided zens back together to solve them.” The number the peace-making dialogue. Each dialogue session to work in four after the trauma of citizens that the spirit of the during this period involved areas: (1) conduct phase had ended of civil war; and dialogue has touched is un - members reviewing develop - dialogues in seven and the peace- (4) work with three known. The question in this, ments in the country since the regions of the building phase professors from the poorest of the former Soviet last meeting, selecting one country on state, had begun. each of eight uni - republics, is whether the needs or two difficult problems to society, and versities to develop of the citizens can be met— concentrate on, and writing a religion to discuss a textbook and by government or by citizens joint memorandum on those the role of Islam in programs in con - themselves—or whether there subjects. a secular demo - flict resolution— will be a gradual deterioration From early 2000 to the pres - cratic state; (2) conduct delib - this textbook is now required of conditions to the point of ent, one could say that the erative forums among citizens reading for all students entering popular revolt without com - peace-making phase had ended on key public issues, such as Tajikistani universities to study mensurate improvement in the and the peace-building phase the economy, education, and the social sciences. quality of life.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

1999-2000 February 2000 March 2000 August 2000 November 2000 Russian economic Russian military Putin elected Russian submarine George W. Bush recovery, largely forces under Putin president Kursk suffers an elected president INTERNATIONAL due to a sharp rise level the Chechen explosion, sinks in the price of oil capital of Grozny and regain control 2000

March 31 - April 2, 2000 July 21-23, 2000 September 25-27, 2000 December 1-3, 2000 Inter-Tajik 40th Reunion DARTMOUTH Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Dialogue Dialogue Moscow, Russia Dialogue Pushkin, Pushkin, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia Russia Russia 48 HE NEED TO FOCUS the effort initiated in the Nixon The on the overall relation - administration to move the ship between the two relationship “from confronta - cTountries has been an underly - tion to negotiation.” The Russia-U.S. ing impulse since the beginning Regional Conflicts Task Force of Dartmouth. At Dartmouth was formed to probe interac - XIII in 1981, the implicit ques - tions between the two powers tion pervading the agenda was, beyond their borders. The task Relationship what happened to détente?— force sought a greater under - standing of the real interests of each country and of the dynamics of their relationship by studying the places where the United States and Russia competed through local proxies. Then in 1985, Dartmouth leaders formed the Political Relations Task Force to talk about the Russia-U.S. relation - ship itself. After the Soviet Union dis - solved, Kettering made several efforts to identify a vehicle to fill this need. In October 1994 and again in March 1996, the Charle s Yost (from left), Hugh Scott, Valeri Pekshev, and Yuri Zhukov, Tbilisi, U.S.S.R., 1974

June 2001 September 2001 First Bush-Putin Summit; Bush 9/11 attacks, start announces: “I looked into [Putin’s] of “Globa l War eyes and knew I could trust him. I on Terror.” Arms looked the man in the eye. . . . I was control placed on able to get a sense of his soul.” the back burner

2001

February 17-18, 2001 March 9-11, 2001 July 20-22, 2001 October 15-17, 2001 October 19-21, 2001 Regional Conflicts Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Inter-Tajik Armenia-Azerbaijan- Task Force Dialogue Dialogue Dialogue Nagorno Karabakh Snegiri, Snegiri, Pushkin, Snegiri, Task Force Moscow region, Moscow region, St. Petersburg, Moscow region, Moscow, Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia 49 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

foundation called together in - resources. Voorhees goes on to Saunders wrote in an article The task force continued the terested individuals to reflect argue: published in 1997 in the pattern of regular meetings on this need. The 1996 effort Although the Kettering Washington Quarterly : through 2001, focusing on one involved a visit to Moscow and Foundation on the Ameri - Nowhere is the politics of area of conflict in each meeting both a general meeting and vis - and reflecting on how each can side was an early and the unfolding Russian- its between pairs of Americans affected the overall relationship. continuing supporter of U.S. relationship more and Russians in an experiment At that point, the members Dartmouth, its interest as clearly and broadly re - to create “a dialogue without a decided to embark on another an organization lay per - vealed than in the “Near table.” The reasons these explo - intensive peacemaking effort haps more in the political Abroad,” those states of rations did not bear fruit are as the Inter-Tajik Dialogue processes involved in the the former Soviet Union complex. Voorhees’ analysis is was entering a peace-building beyond Russia’s borders, cogent: “There was no readiness dialogue than in analytical phase. They invited participants on either side to devote the or scholarly attention to excluding the Baltics. from Armenia, Azerbaijan, nearly full-time attention of one the substance of the rela - Nowhere else can one see and Nagorno Karabakh to a 18 individual committed to mak - tionship itself. more sharply what each dialogue to discuss their con - ing this kind of Russian- U.S. di - The Regional Conflicts Task side really wants and fears flict, which had been stalemated alogue an ongoing reality.” In Force decided to focus on the in Russian-U.S. interaction since a 1994 ceasefire ended Russia, even influen tial citizens new Russia-U.S. relationship as on the world stage. . . . military hostilities. were coping with fundamental one of its three objectives, but The Near Abroad is the changes in their social, eco - it did so by shifting its attention one region where the two nomic, and political practices; from distant conflicts to those powers are beginning to the institutions that had sup - in what Russian citizens were define the key elements of ported the Soviet side of Dart - then calling the “near abroad.” a sound working relation - mouth no longer had the Members felt, as Chufrin and ship. 19

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

October 2002 Chechen separatists take over a INTERNATIONAL Moscow theater and hold over 700 hostage; commandos use sleeping gas and kill 100 hostages in the process

2002

May 21-23, 2002 May 24-26, 2002 October 15-20, 2002 November 22-24, 2002 DARTMOUTH Inter-Tajik Armenia-Azerbaijan- Inter-Tajik Armenia-Azerbaijan- Dialogue Nagorno Karabakh Dialogue Nagorno Karabakh Snegiri, Task Force Dushanbe, Task Force Moscow region, Snegiri, Tajikistan Snegiri, Russia Moscow region, Moscow region, Russia Russia 50 AUNDERS, Stewart, process, and ultimately, the Naumkin, and Zviagel - Armenia-Azerbaijan- Nagorno skaya recognized the Karabakh Dialogue followed The Sintractability of this conflict but the five stages of the process. decided to proceed to test the Suffice it to offer two conclusions Armenia- limits of the Sustained Dialogue in the context of this history. Azerbaijan- Nagorno Karabakh Dialogue

Maxim Mirzoyan (from left) and Aram Sarkisyan, Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh Task Force, Moscow, 2003

March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

2003

March 17-19, 2003 March 21-23, 2003 April 29-30, 2003 September 26-28, 2003 December 6-8, 2003 Armenia-Azerbaijan- Inter-Tajik New Dartmouth Armenia-Azerbaijan- Inter-Tajik Nagorno Karabakh Dialogue Washington, D.C. Nagorno Karabakh Dialogue Task Force Snegiri, Task Force Dushanbe, Snegiri, Moscow region, Voskresenskaya, Tajikistan Moscow region, Russia Moscow, Russia Russia 51 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Second, participants in such such as that developed during a dialogue could, after consider - Saunders’ experience in the able agonizing, overcome their Arab-Israeli conflict in the resistance to dialogue and reach 1970s, as a vehicle for partici - agreement on an approach to pants’ examination of steps restoring a peaceful relation - short of a final settlement that ship, but those from Armenia might begin movement toward and Azerbaijan were unable peace at a time when defining to engage their presidents in the terms of a final relationship considering their proposal. The was politically impossible. participants worked their way This joint experiment was through the Sustained Dialogue a product of the Dartmouth process with considerable Regional Conflicts Task Force. pain and strong resistance to While again demonstrating the overcoming the obstacles to possibility of a joint citizens’ Participants in the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh Task Force, Moscow, 2003 empathy and genuine dialogue. peace-making effort and further The moderators found the con - refining the process, it con - First, as in Tajikistan, the 12 such a peace-making effort. meetings of the dialogue from Each member of the team cept of relationship an essential tributed only marginally to a October 2001 to December 2007 brought particular strengths to key to analyzing their interac - deeper understanding of the demonstrated the ability of an the work, and those strengths tions. The moderators also ex - Russia-U.S. relationship. The American and a Russian group effectively complemented each perimented with introducing task force would return to to collaborate seamlessly in other. the idea of a peace process , that focus in 2008.

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE March 2004 August 2004 November 2004 Russia opposes a Beslan school Disputed Ukrainian second NATO hostage crisis presidential election INTERNATIONAL expansion, en - (1,300 hostages) causes tension in Russia’s compassing the relationship with the West, Baltic states owing to allegations of Russian interference 2004

February 25-27, 2004 September 21-23, 2004 September 24-26, 2004 September 30- October 1, 2004 DARTMOUTH Armenia-Azerbaijan- New Dartmouth Armenia-Azerbaijan- Nagorno Karabakh Moscow, Russia Nagorno Karabakh Inter-Tajik Task Force Task Force Dialogue Snegiri, Snegiri, Dushanbe, Tajikistan Moscow region, Moscow region, Russia Russia 52 On Dartmouth’s Jubilee by Gennady Chufrin

T THE END OF THE 1980s, I became vision and process of establishing a peace dia- A Soviet cochair of the Regional Conflicts logue between conflicting parties. (Published in Task Force after its first Soviet cochair, Yevgeny the United States in 1993; Russia in 1995.) Primakov, moved to the top echelon of the Soviet It certainly was not an academic exercise, government. The cold war had already passed and I feel proud and happy that when this process its peak, but differences was later applied by our between the Soviet Union Dartmouth U.S.-Russian and the United States team in Tajikistan in remained very sharp on order to help end the civil many issues in global war there, it proved to be politics, such as regional successful. conflicts in third world This is not the end countries. of Dartmouth’s history. The next 15 years of Unfortunately, the world working in the task force today remains infested gave me the unique experi- with ethnic, religious, ence of establishing a social, and other conflicts, constructive relationship dividing people and caus- with my American col- ing enormous suffering Gennady Chufrin (right) leagues and even working and pain. out a common approach to the resolution of com- I sincerely hope that the U.S.-Russian experi- plex issues. Building on our Dartmouth experience, ence of establishing a peace dialogue developed in my counterpart and the U.S. cochair, Harold the framework of the Dartmouth process may not Saunders, and I published a booklet, “The Public be forgotten but used again and again to serve the Peace Process in Practice,” which describes our noble purpose of helping resolve conflicts. Dr. Gennady Chufrin is deputy director emeritus of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations and a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

53 Dartmouth Task Force on the Russia-U.S. Relationship Howard Solomon (from left), EdVerona, and Eugene Rumer, Moscow, 2008

LTHOUGH the rela - forces in August 2008. Saunders tionship between the determined that the present two countries had stewards of the Dartmouth been deteriorating for a decade, process would not be faithful to A the courageous founders of it took a sharp nosedive follow - ing the military clash between Dartmouth if they did not use Russian and Georgian military the process as an instrument to

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

INTERNATIONAL

2005

June 24-26, 2005 December 9-11, 2005 DARTMOUTH Armenia-Azerbaijan- Armenia-Azerbaijan- Nagorno Karabakh Nagorno Karabakh Moscow, Russia Snegiri, Moscow region, Russia

54 DARTMOUTH TASK FORCE ON THE RUSSIA-U.S. RELATIONSHIP

seeing whether the relationship assessment of one U.S. partici - conduct of all aspects of the April 2010 meetings to what could be placed on a footing pant: “The relationship is relationship. It was established was now being called “former that would contribute to global dysfunctional.” By the second at the summit as the Bilateral Soviet space.” As one American peace and development. meeting outside Presidential put it, “The most neuralgic Dartmouth partners came Washington, D.C., Commission points in the Russia-U.S. rela tion - together once again to launch in June 2009, with 16 work - ship lie in this area— , the effort. Naumkin and Barack Obama groups. After Georgia, NATO expansion. But Zviagelskaya played their cus - had been elected “The most neuralgic each of its meet - no one is talking about it.” tomary leadership role at the U.S. president and points in the Russia- ings, the task At the fourth meeting in International Center for Strate - had, even before force met with April 2010, participants had the gic and Political Studies in his inauguration, U.S. relationship the cochairs of opportunity to reflect in the con - Moscow. In 2002, the Interna - pledged an effort lie in this area— the workgroup text of the new “Euro-Atlantic tional Institute for Sustained to “reset” this Ukraine, Georgia, on foreign pol - Security Initiative.” Launched Dialogue was incorporated, relationship. By NATO expansion. icy—in Moscow, by the Carnegie Endowment with Harold Saunders at its the time the task Deputy Foreign for International Peace, this But no one is helm, and represented the U.S. force met, prepa - Minister Sergei international commission had role in Dartmouth’s Armenia- rations for a talking about it.” Ryabkov, and in just released a report of its Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh summit meeting Washington, first meeting, a central portion Dialogue and the establishment in Moscow Under Secretary of which was devoted to defin - of the new task force. with Presidents of State for Po - ing the elements of security In December 2008, the Medvedev and litical Affairs in the 21st century. The task Dartmouth Task Force on the Obama were nearing comple - William Burns, also a former force produced its own list of Russia-U.S. Relationship held tion. The task force strongly U.S. ambassador to Russia. principal threats to security as its first meeting outside Moscow. supported the formation of a The task force turned its at - its contribution. Participants accepted the stark mechanism to systematize the ten tion in the October 2009 and

2006

May 1-3, 2006 June 18-20, 2006 December 8-10, 2006 New Dartmouth Armenia-Azerbaijan- Armenia-Azerbaijan- Washington, D.C. Nagorno Karabakh Nagorno Karabakh Moscow, Russia Moscow, Russia

55 F WE SIMPLY READ forms in a vacuum, but rather A Mind at the records of some 130 from a constant stream of ideas meetings, it is easy to argue forming, shaping, flowing, that they had little direct, meas - and continuously reshaping I within a larger policy commu - Work in the urable impact on policy. Yes, the discussions were interest - nity. By the time these ideas ing. Yes, useful insights and are expressed in specific policy ideas were exchanged. Personal statements, actions, or agree - Midst of a relationships were developed, ments, it is usually impossible, but what about policy impact? even for those making the In thinking about this, it is easy decisions, to identify clearly Relationship to miss the forest for the trees. their sources. It is rather like As noted earlier, policy seldom asking which water drops in

David Mathews (from left), William Winter, Phil Stewart, Irina Khakamada, Sergey Markov, Ekaterina Genieva, and Evgeny Bunimovich, Washington, D.C., 2006

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

INTERNATIONAL

2007

December 7-9, 2007 DARTMOUTH Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagarno Karabakh Snegeri, Moscow region, Russia

56 A MIND AT WORK IN THE MIDST OF A RELATIONSHIP

a large river come from which Cousins had in mind when he tributary. expressed his conviction that A more useful approach may by meeting “human to human,” be to think of the Dartmouth we could break through the process , in its continuous, barriers of mistrust and find multifaceted, intense form of peaceful ways to manage con - connecting the highest policy flicting interests. The informal - levels in each country, as “a ity, the intensity, the frequency, mind at work in the midst of and the high degree of consis - a relationship.” By a “mind at tency of participants in task work,” we mean a group of force meetings contributed highly knowledgeable people strongly to creating the deep having a sufficient degree personal relationships that of freedom from official could learn to work together constraints, with high personal as a single “mind.” motivation and adequate “In the midst of a relation - resources of energy, time, and ship” suggests a dense network David Mathews (from left), Denis Makarov, and Ludmila Kadyaeva, Moscow, 2008 money, to engage the most of connections between difficult issues. More than this, ders’ definition, “Dialogue is a is required to assemble mean - Dartmouth participants and however, “a mind at work” process of genuine inter action ingful and useful new ideas both governments and societies, implies not just an exchange of through which human beings and approaches. This is not such that ideas and concerns accusations or information; it listen to each other deeply achieved simply by bringing flow relatively easily into this requires both a willingness and enough to be changed by what people together. Rather, it also “mind” from officials and a capacity to hear deeply, to they learn.” 20 Development of requires development of a from citizens. In his history of seek to understand the reasons a more or less common set of significant degree of personal Dartmouth, Voorhees describes behind the thinking. In Saun - analytic and conceptual tools empathy. This is what Norman in detail the sinews of these

February 2008 August 2008 November 2008 Kosovo declares Georgia attempts to assert control Barack Obama independence over South Ossetia. Russian troops elected president (Russian tension intervene. Senator John McCain, then with the West) Republican presidential candidate, declares that “We are all Georgians.” 2008

September 29-30, 2008 December 5-7, 2008 New Dartmouth Dartmouth Task Force Moscow, Russia on Russia-U.S. Relationship Moscow, Russia

57 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Dartmouth, during the 1980s a number of them became repeat participants sharing a diversity of perspectives on the nature of citizen thinking and its impact on the relationship. Opinion specialists, such as Daniel Yankelovich, complemented these views with more system - atic evidence. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the value attached to the mind at work in the middle of the U.S.- Soviet/Russia relationship is the experience, level, and diversity of partici - pants attracted to this process. James Collins (from left), Vitaly Naumkin, Yevgeny Primakov, Hal Saunders, Andrey Sidorov, Victor Yesin, and Veniamin Popov, Moscow, 2008 On the U.S. side, it became a connections. In the 1980s, these cil, and the State and Defense International Department, vari - frequent practice that govern - connections, while always infor - departments. Some participants ous offices of the KGB, and the ment officials, such as General mal, became quite regularized. regularly were briefed and Ministries of Foreign Affairs Brent Scowcroft, General American participants, both debriefed by the CIA. On the and Defense. David Jones, Ambassadors before and after each meeting, Soviet side, participants were While people with broad Charles Yost and Richard Burt, engaged in detailed discussions briefed and debriefed by the public constituencies, particu - and Assistant Secretary Harold with top officials from the White highest bodies of party and larly members of Congress, Saunders to mention only a House, National Security Coun - state, including the Secretariat’s had long been participants in few, who had been briefed by

DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE TIMELINE

July 2009 Obama-Medvedev INTERNATIONAL Summit

2009

June 12-14, 2009 October 30-November 1, 2009 DARTMOUTH Dartmouth Task Force Dartmouth Task Force on Russia-U.S. on Russia-U.S. Relationship Relationship Washington, D.C. Moscow, Russia

58 A MIND AT WORK IN THE MIDST OF A RELATIONSHIP

recalling Alla Bobrysheva’s de - contributed. In a 1989 meeting, “The fundamental question at scription of how her worldview a participant from the Soviet this point in history is whether began to change as she came to Foreign Ministry affirmed that humanity can survive.” As know and hear the views of dis - Soviet foreign policy was Voorhees notes, Norman tinguished Americans. In this renouncing “the peaceful coexis - Cousins could have made this regard, Dartmouth surely must tence approach . . . as a form statement in 1960 at Dartmouth be seen as part of a stream of of class struggle in the interna - I. 21 A mind at work had been new ideas, or new ways of see - tional arena [which] was the created in the middle of the ing the world and of being in formula that was orthodox here U.S.-Soviet relationship. the world, a stream that after for decades.” He went on to say, 1986-1987 turned into a torrent. Yes, ideas come from reading, from media, which often reveal Dr. Harold H. Saunders has been a profound inconsistencies be - cochair of the Dartmouth Conference Hal Saunders tween established values and Task Force since 1982. He is the director of international affairs at the Kettering and had debriefed Dartmouth lived experience. But, once the Foundation and president of the Interna - participants, later became active door is opened, new ways of tional Institute for Sustained Dialogue. Dartmouth participants after thinking become internalized He was U.S. assistant secretary of state leaving government service. A best through a dialogue that en - from 1978 to 1981. more frequent practice on the ables and encourages a rethink - Soviet side was for active-duty Dr. Philip D. Stewart was executive ing of previous worldviews. director of the Dartmouth Conference generals, party officials, and This was and is the essence of from 1972 to 1990. He is a senior Foreign Ministry staff to assume the Dartmouth process. One associate of the Kettering Foundation a direct role in the dialogue. quotation will suffice to illus - secretary of the International Institute When looking for substan - trate the depth of the change in for Sustained Dialogue. tive impact, it may be worth thinking to which Dartmouth Phil Stewart

April 2010 Obama and Medvedev sign New START, signaling a renewed focus on arms control

2010

April 23-25, 2010 October 22-24, 2010 DartmouthTask Force Dartmouth Task Force on Russia-U.S. on Russia-U.S. Relationship Relationship Moscow, Russia Washington, D.C.

59 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Endnotes 1Alla Bobrysheva, Thanks for the Memories: My Years with 8 Philip D. Stewart, note, November 1999, quoted in the Dartmouth Conference (Dayton, OH: Kettering Founda - Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained , 185. tion, 2003), 25-26. 9 Harold H. Saunders and James Voorhees, “New 2 For a full history of the first 40 years, see James Voorhees, Approaches from a Rich Tradition: The 1990s,” Chap. 6 Dialogue Sustained: The Multilevel Peace Process and the in Dialogue Sustained , 275, 277. Dartmouth Conference (Washington, DC: United States 10 Saunders, Politics Is about Relationship , 7-8. For a Institute of Peace and Charles F. Kettering Foundation, full description of the evolution of this new thinking, 2002). Bobrysheva provides an inside view from a Russian see Harold H. Saunders, Chap. 8 in Sustained Dialogue: perspective of the origins and first four Dartmouth Transforming Relationships . . . Designing Change Conferences. Also see Denis V. Makarov, Igor Nagdasev, (forthcoming). Brian Cobb, and Philip D. Stewart, eds., When Citizens 11 Gennady I. Chufrin and Harold H. Saunders, “A Public Deliberate: Russian and American Citizens Consider Their Peace Process,” Negotiation Journal 9, no. 2 (April 1993): Relationship (Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press, 155-177. 2006). A Russian edition of this book was published simul - 12 Saunders, A Public Peace Process . taneously in Moscow. This book reports and analyzes 13 Saunders, “The Concept of Relationship,” Chap. 4 in the initial work of what was called New Dartmouth, Politics Is about Relationship . reflecting its emphasis on understanding the character of 14 and challenges to a citizen constituency for the relation - Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained , 285-286. The following ship and bringing these findings to the attention of the paragraphs draw on his account on pages 287-288 of these policy community. See also Harold H. Saunders, A Public exchanges on civil society. 15 Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained , 286. Ethnic Conflicts (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999; 16 Ibid., 288. paperback, 2001) and Politics Is about 17 Saunders, “Citizens Talk about the Russia-U.S. Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizens’ Century (New Relationship, ” Chap. 9 in Politics Is about Relationship . York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). 18 Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained , 290. 3 Bobrysheva, Thanks for the Memories , 23. 19 Gennady I. Chufrin and Harold H. Saunders, “The 4 Ibid., 28. Politics of Conflict Prevention in Russia and the Near 5 Norman Cousins, The Improbable : John F. Abroad,” The Washington Quarterly 40, no. 4 (Autumn Kennedy, Pope John, and Nikita Khrushchev (New York: 1997): 35. W.W. Norton, 1972), 13-16, quoted in Bobrysheva, Thanks 20 Saunders, A Public Peace Process , 82. for the Memories , 50. 21 Allison Stanger, The Dartmouth Conference, Task Force 6 Interview with Yuri Zhukov by Robert Nelson, 1989, on Political Relations, Moscow, January 19-21, 1989 quoted in Bobrysheva, Thanks for the Memories , 51. (Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation, n.d.), quoted in 7 Bobrysheva, Thanks for the Memories , 51. Voorhees, Dialogue Sustained , 235.

60 A Tribute to the Dartmouth Conference Participants by David Mathews

OR SOME TIME, the Kettering cians, experts, or foreign affairs professionals, FFoundation’s research has been focused can contribute to international peace. on understanding the role that citizens As Jim Voorhees reports in his history of the can play in our political systems. Norman Dartmouth Conference, Dialogue Sustained, Cousins, who was the the participants on both leading U.S. participant sides were often criticized. in the Dartmouth Confer- Officials sometimes ence and a member of opposed the meetings as Kettering’s board, had a interference in their vision of what could be domain. Editors decried accomplished: the “naiveté” of those Governments are not who spoke honestly with built to perceive large the other side and ex- truths. Only people can pected to hear something perceive great truths. other than a party line. Governments specialize in small and intermedi- It was also difficult to ate truths. They have to show evidence of success be instructed by their because there were few people in great truths. immediate and tangible The Dartmouth Conference has given the outcomes. Nonetheless, the Dartmouth pio- foundation a great opportunity to learn what neers persevered, demonstrating considerable people, acting as citizens rather than as politi- courage and commitment. On the U.S. side,

61 the stalwarts included David Rockefeller as whose differences can’t be mediated by a third well as Norman Cousins, and on the Soviet/ party or whose conflicts are not ready for Russian side, Yuri Zhukov, Georgy Arbatov, formal negotiation. Hal Saunders, Kettering’s Alexander Kornichuk, Vitaly Zhurkin, and director of international affairs, created these Yevgeny Primakov. Dialogues from the experience of the Dart - The Dartmouth Conference continues mouth Regional Conflicts Task Force in the to bring together citizens to grapple with the 1980s and, with Russian colleagues from that most serious and difficult matters in the task force, tested it in the 1990s in the decade- relationship between the United States and long Inter-Tajik Dialogue. A successful exper - Russia. The people who are involved in this iment in Tajikistan, the Inter-Tajik Dialogue work do not attempt to do the work of govern - demonstrated that citizens can join forces to ment. Their job, to the contrary, is to imagine design a peace process for their own country. what can be done without the constraints Everyone at Kettering is pleased to see of government to concentrate on immediate that the American and Russian participants problems. Dartmouth participants have in the Dartmouth Conference have assembled turned their imagination to identifying those for this 50th anniversary to reflect on and interests that the two nations share and point - draw lessons from their efforts. Dartmouth ing out ways the two might work together to has an important message to share with the benefit of each nation. a world where conflicts continue to erupt As a research institution, Kettering has around the globe and where violence is an used the Dartmouth experience to design a ever-present danger. Dr. David Mathews is the president of the Kettering new nongovernmental practice—Sustained Foundation. He was U.S. secretary of health, education, Dialogue—one that can be used by nations and welfare from 1975 to 1977.

62 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

Morton Abramowitz 1989 Barry Blechman 1976 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Defense Policy Board, U. S. Department Harold Agnew 1988 of Defense (2002-2006) White House Science Counselor (1982-1989) Landrum Bolling 1974-1994 Madeleine Albright 1989 Director, Mercy Corps (2008-present) U.S. Secretary of State (1997-2001) Robert R. Bowie 1961 Lyndon Allin 2009-2010 Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Attorney Agency (1977-1979) Royal Allson 1979 Harry Boyte 1991-1992 Military Delegate to SALT I negotiations University of Minnesota Marian Anderson 1961-1962 John Brademas 1972 Opera Singer House Majority Whip (1977-1981) Phillip Angell 1972 Lawrence Brainard 1975 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chase Manhattan Bank Observer Ashley Brandenburg 2009-2010 Deana Arsenian 2009-2010 International Institute of Sustained Carnegie Corporation of New York Dialogue and Kettering Foundation Les Aspin 1988-1989 Melvin Brorby 1969 U.S. Secretary of Defense (1993-1994) Johnson Foundation Robert Barton 1974 Harrison Brown 1971-1976 U.S. Senate, Staff Manhattan Project; Editor, Bulletin of Irving Becker 1972-1976 Atomic Scientists Council on International Educational Exchange Zbigniew Brzezinski 1972-1976 Robert Bell 1990 Columbia University, National Security U.S. Senate, Staff Advisor (1977-1981) William Benton 1960-1961 John Buchanan 1986-1992 U.S. Senator from Connecticut (1949-1953) Congressman from Alabama (1965-1981) Barry Bergh 1972 Richard Burt 1989 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief U.S. START I negotiator (1989-1991) Observer Hugh Callahan 1988 Seweryn Bialer 1981-1989 Rapporteur Columbia University Kurt Campbell 1984-1991 Charles Bierbauer 2004 U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for University of South Carolina East Asia (2009-present) James Billington 1972 Robert Campbell 1977 Librarian, Library of Congress (1987-present) Indiana University Robert Blackwill 1987-1992 Ashton Carter 1987 U. S. Deputy Assistant National Security U. S. Undersecretary of Defense Advisor (2003-2004) (2009-present)

63 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

John Cavanaugh 2006 Norman Cousins 1960 Kettering Foundation Editor, Saturday Review of Literature Carl Chapman 1972 Arthur Cox 1969 Dartmouth College Consultant Samuel Charap 2009-2010 Russel Crouse 1960 Center for American Progress Playwright Stuart Chase 1960-1961 Harry Culbreth 1962 Writer (economics) Vice President, Nationwide Insurance Antonia Cheyes 1980-1992 Company Attorney; Endispute, Inc. Robert Daley 1988 Carolyn Chin 1988 Kettering Foundation Citicorp, White House Fellow Jonathan Dean 1987 Robert Chollar 1971 Union of Concerned Scientists President, Kettering Foundation Agnes DeMille 1960 Frank Church 1971 Choreographer U.S. Senator from Idaho (1957-1981) John Dickey 1960 Grenville Clark 1960 President, Dartmouth College Attorney, Author of World Peace through Hedley Donovan 1972-1979 World Law Editor, Time Inc. Alanna Cleary 2008 Edwin Dorn 2008 Kettering Foundation U.S. Undersecretary of Defense (1994-1997) Scott Clemons 2003-2006 Paul Doty 1961-1992 Mayor of Panama City, Florida (2008-present) Manhattan Project, President’s Science Brian Cobb 2002-2006 Advisory Committee (1953-1960), Kettering Foundation Harvard University Patricia Coggins 1976-2000 Milton Eisenhower 1971 Kettering Foundation President, Johns Hopkins University William Coleman Jr. 1981-1984 (1956-1967), Advisor to four Presidents U. S. Secretary of Transportation (1975-1977) Joshua Epstein 1987 James Collins 2003-2010 Brookings U. S. Ambassador to Russia (1997-2001) John Esp 2006 Mona Conolly 2003 Montana State Senator (2003-present) National Issues Forums Merle Fainsod 1969 Thomas Coughran 1962 Harvard University Executive Director, World Bank and George Feifer 1964 International Monetary Fund (1957-1961) Writer Harris Coulter 1960-1979 James Ferguson 1974 Interpreter President, General Foods Corporation

64 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

Bruce Feustel 2006 Thomas Graham 2009-2010 Consultant, National Council of Senior Director, U.S. National Security State Legislatures Council (2004-2007) George Fischer 1960-1961 Lester Granger 1962 Cornell University Advisor, U.S. Department of Labor Roger Fisher 1979 James Grant 1976 Harvard Law School Executive Director, UNICEF (1980-1995) Thomas Foley 1987 Donald Green 1979 Congressman from Washington State Chase Bank (1964-1994) Erwin Griswold 1961 Charles Frankel 1964 U.S. Solicitor General (1967-1973) Columbia University Gregory Grossman 1972 Peter Frelinghuysen 1972 University of California, Berkeley Congressman from New Jersey (1953-1975) Tim Grove 2003 Michel Fribourg 1972 Catholic Charities President, Continental Grain Leo Gruliow 1977 Buckminster Fuller 1964-1969 Current Digest of the Soviet Press Inventor, South Illinois University Darrell Hammer 1962 Richard Furland 1975 Indiana University Chair, Squibb Corporation Feri Hammer 1993 John K. Galbraith 1964 Joint East European Center Harvard University Lloyd Hand 1971 Richard Gardner 1976 U.S. Chief of Protocol (1965-1966) U. S. Ambassador to Spain (1993-1997) Robert Hanson 1981 James Gavin 1969-1971 Chair, John Deere Company (1982-1990) Major General; President, Arthur D. Little, Clifford Hardin 1976 Inc. (1960-1977) U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (1969-1971) Alexander George 1983 Ruth Hardin 1976 Stanford University Photographer James Giffin 1988 Roy Harrington 1979 President, U.S.-Soviet Trade Council John Deere Company (1981-1989) Particia Harris 1969-1971 Melinda Gilmore 2004 U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Kettering Foundation Welfare (1977-1980) Albert Gore 1986-1987 Harry Harvey 1969 U.S. Vice President (1991-1999) Conference Coordinator (1960-1965) Thomas Gouttierre 1986-2002 Mary Harvey 1960-1964 Dean, University of Nebraska, Omaha Saturday Review of Literature

65 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

Mark Hatfield 1971 Les Ihara Jr. 2004-2006 U.S. Senator from Oregon (1964-1994) State Senator, Hawaii Gabriel Hauge 1961 Joseph Iseman 1993 Assistant to the President for Economic European Council Affairs (1953-1960) Paul Jabber 1979 Rita Hauser 1977 University of California, Los Angeles President, The Hauser Foundation, Terry Jack 2006 Member of the Brookings Commission Gulf Coast Community College on the Middle East (1975-1977) Elmore Jackson 1976 John Hennessey 1972 Rockefeller Foundation Dartmouth College Oren Jarinkev 1969 William Hewitt 1974 Rapporteur Chair, John Deere Company (1969-1982) Jim Hoagland 1979 Joseph Johnson 1961 President, Carnegie Endowment for Washington Post International Peace (1950-1971) Harold Hodgkinson 2008 Demographer Nancy Johnson 1988 Congresswoman from Connecticut Virginia Hodgkinson 2006-2008 (1983-2007) Georgetown University David Jones 1984-1992 Richard Holbrook 1989 Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff (1978-1982) Special U.S. Representative for Afghanistan and (2009-present) Barbara Jordan 1988 Congresswoman from Texas (1973-1979) Alan Holiman 1988 Rapporteur Vernon Jordan 1977 Advisor to President Bill Clinton Kenneth Holland 1969 (1991-1998) President, Institute for International Education Peter Juviler 1961 Mark Hopkins 1969 Hunter College Milwaukee Journal Arnold Horelick 1984-1992 Robert Kaiser 2000-2008 Washington Post RAND/UCLA Norris Houghton 1962 Philip Karber 1990 BDM Corporation Dramatist, Vassar College Robert Howe 1987 Mark Kasoff 1977 RAND Staff Jacob Hurewitz 1979 Richard Kaufman 1972-1974 Columbia University Vice President, Chase Bank; Staff William Hyland 1981-1985 Donald Kendall 1972-1976 Editor, Foreign Affairs Chair, PepsiCo (1971-1986)

66 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

George Kennan 1960 Robert Leiken RCTF U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1952) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace George Khlebnikov 1961-1988 Flora Lewis 1982-1984 United Nations, Chief of Interpretation New York Times (1950-1983) Mary Lindamood 1988 Brendan Kiernan 1988 Kettering Foundation Rapporteur James Linen 1969 Robert Kingston 1991 President, Time-Life, 1960-1969 Kettering Foundation Estelle Linser 1969 George Kistiakowsky 1969-1971 Assistant Coordinator of Manhattan Project, President’s Science Dartmouth Conference Advisor (1953-1960) Francis Lloyd 1964 Helen Kitchen 1984-1988 University of Chicago Center for Strategic and International Affairs Jan Lodal 1979 Philip Klutznick 1994 Senior Staff, National Security U.S. Secretary of Commerce (1980-1981) Council (1980s) Elizabeth Koontz 1964 Robert Lodgson 2003 National Education Association Citizen Larry Korb 1992 Eric Lohr 2009-2010 U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense American University (1981-1985) Richard Lombard 1969-1988 Nancy Kranich 2003 Kettering Foundation Board of Trustees American Library Association Marvin Lamborg 1977 Carl Long 1972 Dartmouth College Director, Kettering Laboratory Arthur Larson 1960-1969 Frank Long 1964 Cornell University Executive Assistant to the President (1957-1958) William Loos 1960-1961 Nathalie Latter 1988 World Peace Union Interpreter Stephen Low 1984-1987 Jim Leach 2006 U.S. Ambassador, Director Foreign Service Congressman from Iowa (1977-2007) Institute (2005-present) Richard Leghorn 1960 Edward Luck 1979 Colonel, Consultant to the President on UN Assistant Secretary General (2008-present) Disarmament (1955-1956) William Luers 1988 Robert Legvold 1979-2009 U.S. Ambassador; President, Museum of Columbia University Modern Art (1986-1999) Robert Lehman 1986-1989 Robert Lundeen 1984-1991 Chair, Fetzer Foundation Chair, Dow Chemical (1982-1986)

67 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation United States Name Participation

Gordon MacDonald 1974 Edward Meyer 1989-1992 Dartmouth College Army Chief of Staff (1979-1983) Thomas Malone 1971-1976 James Michener 1964 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Writer (1946-1994) Harry Middleton 1988 Anthony Mango 1988 Director, LBJ Library (1980-2002) Interpreter Arthur Miller 1969 John Marcum 1987 Playwright University of California at Santa Cruz William Miller 1976 Hans Mark 1988 U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1979-1981) Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics Jacqueline Mitchell 1979 and Space Administration (1981-1984) Interpreter Jonathan Matheny 1987 Felix Morlion 1972 U.S. Department of Defense Reverend, Pro Deo University David Mathews 1981-2008 Milton Morris 1988 President, Kettering Foundation Joint Center for Political Studies Mary Mathews 2008 Louis Morton 1972 Citizen Dartmouth College Charles Mathias 1979-1988 Philip Mosley 1960-1962 U.S. Senator from Maryland (1969-1987) Columbia University Jack Matlock 1997-2009 Robert Moskin 1969 U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1987-1991) Foreign Editor, Look magazine Robert B. Mayner 1962 Robert Muller 1972 Governor of New Jersey (1954-1962) United Nations Weir McBride 1976 Cyril Muromcew 1988 Kettering Foundation Interpreter Gordon MacDonald 1972 Franklin Murphy 1964-1969 Dartmouth College Chair, Times-Mirror Company (1968-1980) Donald McHenry 1984-1987 Robert Nelson 1988-1992 Ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981 Christian Science Monitor Madeline McWhinney 1991 Robert Neumann 1983-1997 Elliott & Co. U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (1966-1973), Margaret Mead 1961-1962 Morocco (1973-1974), Saudi Arabia (1981-1983) Columbia University Waldemar Nielsen 1960 Dennis Meadows 1972 Ford Foundation Dartmouth College Lauris Norstad 1972 Constantine Mertvagos 1979 Supreme Allied Commander, Europe Interpreter (1956-1963)

68 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

Sam Nunn 1986 Lloyd Reynolds 1961 U.S. Senator from Georgia (1972-1997) Economist, Yale University Lana Oleen 2006 Walter Roberts 1971-1972 State Senator, Kansas (1988-2002) Founder, National Center for John Oakes 1962 Atmospheric Research Editor, New York Times Editorial Page (1961-1976) David Rockefeller 1962-1988 Robert Oakley 1996-1997 Chase Manhattan Bank U.S. Ambassador (1979-1988) William Rogers 1982-1985 Don Oberdorfer 1997 U.S. Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, 1976-1977 Washington Post , Columnist Martha Olcott 1996-2009 Lucy Rojansky 2010 U.S.-Russia Business Council Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Alberto Olivas 2008 Matthew Rojansky 2009-2010 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Maricopa Community Colleges Donald Paarlberg 1979 Alan Romberg 1989-1994 Council on Foreign Relations Special Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs (1958-1961) Jay Rosen 1992 Leslie Paffrath 1964-1969 New York University President, S.J. Johnson Foundation Walt Rostow 1960-1988 Rosemary Park 1969 Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (1964-1968) Vice Chancellor, University of California, Los Angeles William Ruckelshaus 1972 Samuel Pisar 1971-1974 Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1973) Attorney, Author Susan Purcell 1985-1990 Eugene Rumer 2008-2010 National Defense University Council on Foreign Relations William Quandt 1987 Katie Runella 2006 Kettering Foundation National Security Council (1972-1980) Howard Raiffa 1972 Phillips Ruopp 1976 Kettering Foundation Harvard University George Rathjens 1972-1975 Stella Russell 1969 Vice President, Norton Simon Massachusetts Institute of Technology James Read 1971-1979 Benjamin Rutherford 1987 Arms Control Specialist Vice President, Kettering Foundation Leonard Reiser 1972 Harrison Salisbury 1981-1986 Writer, New York Times journalist Dartmouth College Roger Revelle 1972 Hal Saunders 1981-2010 U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (1976-1980) Harvard Population Center

69 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of United States Name Participation Name Participation

Harold Scott 1976 Walter Slocombe 1986 President, U.S.-Soviet Trade Council U.S. Undersecretary of Defense (1994-2001) (1975-1979) Louis Sohn 1961-1962 Hugh Scott 1974 U.S. Delegate to Law of the Sea U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania (1959-1977) Convention (1972-1984) Herbert Scoville Jr. 1979 Stephen Solarz 1979-1989 Arms Control Agency (1963-1969) Congressman from New York (1975-1993) Brent Scowcroft 1981-1988 Howard Solomon 2009-2010 U.S. President’s National Security Advisor National Security Council (2009-present) (1975-1977 & 1989-1993) Helmut Sonnenfeldt 1972-1977 Pat Scully 1993 Counselor of the U.S. Department of Kettering Foundation State (1974-1977) Stephen Sestanovich 1996 John Sprat 1990 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Congressman from South Carolina Stephanie Sharp 2006 (1982-present) Kansas State Legislator (2002-2007) Allison Stanger 1988 Kate Sheaffer 2003 Rapporteur White House Staff in Clinton Administration Maxwell Stanley 1969 Danielle Shepherd 1972-1976 President, Stanley Engineering (1936-1980) Council for International Educational Frederick Starr 1979-1997 Exchange Founder and President, Central Asian Max Sherman 1988 Caucasus Institute Dean, LBJ School for Public Affairs Herman Steinkraus 1962 (1983-1997) Founder and President, Bridgeport George Sherry 1961-1988 Brass (1928-1962) UN Secretariat, Interpreter Philip Stewart 1972-2010 Marshall Shulman 1964-1976 Ohio State University, Conference Coordinator (1972-present) Special Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State C. Vance (1976-1978) Shepard Stone 1961-1964 Norton Simon 1964-1969 Ford Foundation Founder and President, Hunt Foods John Stremlau 1979-1995 (1945-1993) Vice President, Carter Center (2006-present) Paul Simon 1986-1987 Bernard Sucher 2009-2010 U.S. Senator from Illinois (1985-1997) Citibank, Moscow (2003-2010) Joseph Sisco 1977 Howard Swearer 1985-1987 U.S. Undersecretary of State (1974-1976) President, Brown University (1977-1988) Randa Slim 1991-2000 James Thomas 2004 Kettering Foundation Kettering Foundation Board of Directors

70 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation United States

Maxine Thomas 1992 Jerome Wiesner 1960 Kettering Foundation Science Advisor to Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Harold Todd 1990 Commandant, Air War College (1985-1989) David Williams 1979 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Paul Tsongas 1979 Agricultural Service (2003-2007) U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (1979-1985) Taylor Willingham 2003-2004 Galina Tunicks 1972-1974 Texas Forums Interpreter John Wilson 1977 Morris Udall 1972 Vice President, Chase Bank Congressman from Arizona (1961-1991) William Winter 1991-2008 Cyrus Vance 1985-1987 Governor of Mississippi (1980-1984) U. S. Secretary of State (1977-1980) Debi Witte 2003 Ed Verona 2008 Kettering Foundation President, U.S.-Russia Business Council (2008-present) Sylvan Wittwer 1977-1979 Michigan State University George von Streeruwitz 1979 Robert Wood 1972 Observer President, University of Massachusetts Christopher Wagner 2008-2009 (1970-1977) Sustained Dialogue Campus Network George Woodwell 1974 Wallace Wakefield 1997 Brookhaven National Laboratory George Mason University Sterling Wortman 1974 William Walker 2004 Vice President, Rockefeller Foundation Citizen Daniel Yankelovich 1984-1988 Wallace Warfield 1992-1995 Yankelovich Group George Mason University Herbert York 1977 Ted Warner 1986-1992 Physicist, Ambassador to Test Ban RAND Negotiations (1979-1981) Paul Warnke 1975-1976 Charles Yost 1971-1979 Director, Arms Control and Disarmament U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Agency (1976-1980) (1969-1971) Larry Welch 1992 Thomas Zamostny 1979 Air Force Chief of Staff (1986-1990) Assistant Rapporteur Charles Whalen 1979 Barry Zorthian 1969 Congressman from Ohio (1966-1979) Time, Inc. Paul D. White 1964 Mortimer Zuckerman 1988-1989 Cardiologist Publisher, US News & World Report

71 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Valery Abarenkov 1989 Grigori Baklanov 1988 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Editor, Znamya Anatoly Adamishin 2008-2010 Yuri Balagurov 1974 Ambassador to (1994-1997) Vice Chair, USSR State Bank Dmitry Agrachev 1989 Petr Barabolya 1992 Interpreter Major General of Justice Sergei Akhromeyev 1989 Vladimir Baranovsky 1986-1987 Marshal of USSR, Chief of Institute of World Economy and International General Staff (1984-1988) World Relations, Academy of Sciences Namik Akhundov 1988 Alexander Barchenkov 1988 Central Committee of Azerbaijan Interpreter Communist Party Geli Batenin 1986-1992 Valentina Alekseeva 1993 Colonel General, General Staff Moscow Yuri Baturin 2003-2004 Vladimir Alkhimov 1979-1981 Cosmonaut Board Chair, USSR State Bank Spartak Beglov 1961-1972 Nikolai Amelko 1992 Head, Novosti Press Agency Admiral, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yuri Beketov 1987 Vassilly Andreev 1971 Captain, General Staff Foreign Trade Division, Vladimir Belous 1992 Anatoly Anikin 1974-1975 Major General Institute of World Economy and International Igor Belyaev 1969-1983 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Deputy Director, Institute of Africa, Revold Antonov 1979 Academy of Sciences Institute of World Economy and International Grigory Berdennikov 1991 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alexey Arbatov 1972-1992 Valentin Berezhkov 1979 Deputy USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Georgy Arbatov 1971-1992 Igor Blishchenko 1969 Director, USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Moscow State Institute of International Ivan Artobolovsky 1961 Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Nikolai Blokhin 1964-1974 Boris Asoyan 1984-1987 Oncologist Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Genrikh Bobovik 1989 Vladimir Averchnev 1992 President, Soviet Peace Committee Russian Embassy, D.C. Igor Bobovkov 1992 Vladimir Babak 1986-1988 Expert, Supreme Soviet Institute of World Economy and International Yuri Bobrakov 1969-1979 World Relations USA Institute, Academy of Sciences

72 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Alla Bobrysheva 1960-2000 Fydor Burlatsky 1981-1983 Staff, USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Soviet Association of Political Science Alexander Bochever 2000 Oleg Buyanov 1983 Institute of Europe, Academy of Sciences Soviet Peace Committee Konstantin Bochkarev 1969 Victor Bydanov 1993 Propagandist Baltic Foundation for Foreign Policy Aleksey Bogaturov 2008-2010 Oleg Bykov 1960-1989 Rector, Moscow State Institute of Institute of World Economy and International International Relations World Relations, Academy of Sciences Radomir Bogdanov 1975-1989 Nikolai Chervov 1986 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Colonel General, General Staff Larisa Bogoraz 1993 Alexander Chicherov 1982-1983 Moscow Helsinki Watch Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Mikhail Bondarenko 2006 Georgy Chistyakov 2006 Duma Representative from Kostroma Russian Orthodox Priest, Librarian Alexander Borisov 2008 Viktor Chkhikvadze 1960 Russian Orthodox Priest International Law Expert Boris Borisov 1974-1977 Igor Chubais 2008 Chair, USSR Chamber of Commerce University Peoples’ Friendship Stanislav Borisov 1976-1984 Gennady Chufrin 1988-2008 Deputy Minister of Finance Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Victor Borisyuk 1993 Andrei Chuklinov 1993 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Moscow Pedagogical University Genrikh Borovik 1987-1992 Marina Chumkova 1985 President, Soviet Peace Committee Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Alexander Bovin 1983 Ignat Danilenko 1989 Head, Main Political Administration Anna Boykova 1964-1969 of the Army 1st Vice Chair, Leningrad Soviet Vladimir Danilov 1992 Evgeny Breus 1988 Colonel General, Supreme Commander of the Interpreter Commonwealth of Independent States Forces Karen Brutentz 1989 Yuri Davidov 1989-2000 Central Committee of the Communist Party USA Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, International Department Apollon Davidson 1977-2000 Ilya Bulychev 1986 Institute of History, Academy of Sciences Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Petr Deinekin 1992 Evgeny Bunimovich 2003-2008 Colonel General, Supreme Commander Moscow Duma Commonwealth of Independent States Air Forces

73 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Andrey Dementiev 1988 Yuri Fedorov 1972-1992 Editor, Yunost Moscow State Institute of International Igor Demyanchuk 1985 Relations, Russian Foreign Ministry USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Petr Fedoseyev 1985 Yuri Denisenko 1979 Academy of Sciences Interpreter Aleksey Fenenko 2008-2010 Anatoly Dobrynin 2000 Institute for International Security Ambassador to Washington (1962-1986) Rashid Feyzuhanov 2009-2010 Alexander Drozdov 2008 Federation Council Editor, newspaper Rossia Igor Filin 1988-1991 Yuri Drozdov 1992-1994 Soviet Peace Committee Federation of Peace Alexander Filonic 1992 2000 Federation of Peace Ambassador to Washington (1987-2000) Leonid Fituni 1987 Vladimir Dvorkin 1992 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Ministry of Defense Igor Fomin 1964 Nina Dzavakhishvili 1972 (unknown) Director, Institute of Experimental Morphology Babadzhan Gafurov 1961 Igor Efimov 1989 Director, Institute of Peoples of Asia Central Committee of the Communist Party Vladimir Gantman 1972-1984 of the Soviet Union, Information Department Institute of World Economy and International Vasily Emelyanov 1974 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Soviet Peace Fund Vitali Ganzha 1986 Dmitry Ermolenko 1974-1975 Colonel, Ministry of Defense Moscow State Institute of International Sergei Garasimov 1961 Relations, Russian Foreign Ministry Film Producer Anatoly Ermolin 2006 Mahmud Gareev 1996 State Duma Deputy Four-Star General, Served in Afghanistan Genady Evstaf’ev 1991 Ekaterina Genieva 2004-2008 Political Consultative Council Director, Library for Foreign Literatures 1981 Gennady Gerasimov 1981 Central Committee of the Communist Novosti Press Agency Party of the Soviet Union, Information Sergei Gerasimov 1964 Department Film Producer Yevgeny Fedorov 1964-1981 Peter Gladkov 1991 Explorer, Meterologist USA Institute, Academy of Sciences 1972 Anatoly Glinkin 1982-1991 Editor, Mezhdynarodnaya Literatura Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Timofei Fedorenko 1993 Alexander Gogitidze 1984 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Foreign Ministry

74 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Nikolai Goncharov 1961 Mirza Kartlin 1977 Vice President, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences Latvian Ministry of Education Viktor Goncharov 1985-1987 Alan Kasaev 1997 Institute of General History, Academy of Sciences Nezavisimaya Gazeta Valentin Gorodnov 1987 Alexander Kashirin 1974 Institute of General History, Academy of Sciences Moscow State Institute of International Svetlana Gorokhova 2003-2008 Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Library for Foreign Literatures Valentin Kassatkin 1984 Leonid Gozman 2008 Ambassador Union of Right Forces Party Albert Kauls 1988 Andrei Grachev 1989 Chair, Adazi Agro-Industrial Firm, Latvia Central Committee of the Communist Party Nikolay Kaveshnikov 2000 of the Soviet Union, Ideology Department Institute of Europe, Academy of Sciences Anatoly Grigoriev 1992 Irina Khakamada 2006 Expert, Naval Headquarters Party, “Our Choice” Vassily Grigoriev 1995 Oleg Kharkhardin 1975-1992 Major General, Ministry of Defense Soviet Peace Committee Lev Gromov 1976-1977 Anatoly Khasanov 1989 Institute of World Economy and International Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences World Relations, Academy of Sciences Anton Khlopkov 2009-2010 1972-1984 Energy and Security Center Director, Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Georgi Kim 1983 Boris Grushin 1988-2000 Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Sociologist, Pollster Yuri Kirshin 1992 Yuri Gryadunov 1997 Major General, Federation of Peace Ambassador to Jordan Sergei Kishilov 1989 German Gvishiani 1975 Institute of World Economy and International Chair, State Committee on Science World Relations, Academy of Sciences and Technology Aleksandr Kislov 1975-2000 Boris Ivanov 1961-1992 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lev Klochkovsky 1985 Ivan Ivanov 1988-1989 Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Council of Ministers Vladimir Kokorev 1987 Yuri Ivanov 1992 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Andrei Kokoshin 1983-2000 Sergei Karaganov 1989-2000 Deputy Director, USA Institute, Institute of Europe, Academy of Sciences Academy of Sciences Alexander Karev 1960-1961 Igor Kolchevsky 2003 Head of USSR Baptist Church Ministry of Internal Affairs Viktor Karpov 1969 Georgy Kolesnikov 1971 Foreign Ministry Director, Hydrophysical Institute

75 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Leonid Kolevatov 1993 Vladimir Krasnikovsky 1993 Moscow Helsinki Watch Center for Public Opinion Research Igor Kolshevsky 2004 Victor Kremenyuk 1984-2000 Ministry of Internal Affairs USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Stanislav Kondrashev 1988-2000 Zinaida Kruglova 1977 Izvestia Chair, Soviet Friendship Societies Alexander Konovalov 1989-1991 Alexander Krutov 2004 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Moscow City Duma Boris Konstantinov 1964 Vladimir Kubaidze 1988 Chemist Director, Machine Tool Association Yuri Kopelinski 1977 Evgeny Kutovoy 1982-1983 Market Research Institute, USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Ministry of Foreign Affairs Georgi Kuznetsov 1991 Vladimir Koretsky 1971 Vice President, Peace Committee Director, Institute of Law, Academy of Sciences Irina Lagunova 1960 Viktor Korgun 1986-1989 Radiologist Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Valentin Larionov 1991-1992 Alexander Kornichuk 1960-1971 Major General Writer, Khrushchev protégé Marklen Lazarev 1985 Yury Koroloyov 1985 Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Vladimir Lebedev 1987 Andrei Kortunov 1986-2000 Ministry of Foreign Affairs USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Yuri Lebedev 1991 Irina Kosareva 2006 Novosti Press Agency (unknown) Viktor Leciovsky 1977 Nikolai Kosolapov 1982 UN Association in the USSR Institute of World Economy and International Genadi Lednev 1991-1992 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Institute of World Economy and International Yuri Kostko 1974 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Institute of World Economy and International Yuri Legeev 2000 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Director, Sona Ventures Mikhail Kotov 1964-1977 Voldeman Lein 1975-1977 Soviet Peace Committee Minister of Food Industry Viktor Kovanov 1961-1964 Viktor Linnik 1979-1988 Surgeon Pravda Commentator Oleg Kovtunovitch 1983 Gregory Lokoshin 1986 Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Peace Committee Evgeny Kozhokin 2008 Anton Lopukhin 2004 Institute for Strategic Research Association of Young Leaders Daniel Kraminov 1964-1969 Anatoly Lugashev 1988 Editor, Za Rubezhom Colonel, Ministry of Defense

76 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Vladimir Lukin 1986-2000 Alla Masevich 1964-1971 Ambassador to U.S. (1992-1994), Human Astronomer, Academy of Sciences Rights Commissioner of Russia, Duma Lem Masterkov 1971 Ombudsman (2004-present) Institute of World Economy and International Viktor Lukshin 1992 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Federation of Peace Michael Matskovsky 1993 Fyodor Lukyanov 2008-2010 International Center for Human Values Editor, Rossia I Globalnaya Politika Vikenty Matveev 1974 Viktor Maevsky 1961 Izvestia Commentator Pravda Commentator Anne Mavity 1993 Anatoly Makarov 1987 National Democratic Institute for Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Affairs Denis Makarov 1993-2010 Aleksandr Medvedev 1985 Moscow Pedagogical University Foreign Ministry Robert Makaryan 1988 Michael Medvedev 1993 Institute of World Economy and International Moscow High School #69 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Vsevolod Medvedev 1991 Igor Malashenko 1991 Operational Strategic Studies Center Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Leonid Mendelevich 1989 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dina Malysheva 2009 Institute of World Economy and International Andranik Migranyan 2009 Institute for Democracy and Cooperation World Relations, Academy of Sciences Merab Mamardashvili 1988 Konstantin Mikhailov 1988 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Philosopher Valeri Manilov 1991 Lev Mikhailov 1974-1977 Soviet Peace Committee Lieutenant General, Ministry of Defense Robert Markaryan 1986-1988 Sergo Mikoyan 1985-1989 Editor, Latinskaya Amerika Institute of World Economy and International World Relations, Academy of Sciences Mikhail Milstein 1975-1991 Sergey Markedonov 2009-2010 General, USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Institute of Political and Military Analysis Isaak Mintz 1961-1964 Sergey Markov 2003-2006 Historian Institute for Political Research Irina Mirnaya 2003-2008 Vladlen Martynov 1981 Center for Civic Education Institute of World Economy and International Sergey Mironenko 2008 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Russian State Archives Marina Martynova 1985 Mark Mitin 1961-1964 Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Editor, Voprosy Filosophy Alexander Masevich 1961-1964 Sergei Molodtsov 1961 Physicist, Space Expert International Law & UN Expert

77 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Grigori Morozov 1971-1983 Nikolai Orlov 1964-1972 Institute of World Economy and International Market Research Institute, Ministry of World Relations, Academy of Sciences Foreign Trade Arkady Moshes 1997 Vladimir Oryol 1986-1988 Institute of Europe, Academy of Sciences Peace Committee Vladimir Moskalenko 1986-1996 Fyodor Ovcharenko 1971 Institute of Oriental Studies, Academician, Public Figure Academy of Sciences Sergei Oznobishchev 1992 Nikolai Mostovets 1961-1981 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Central Committee of the Communist Party Emil Pain 2008 of the Soviet Union, U.S. Department Ethnopolitical Center Andrey Motkov 2000 Vladimir Pavlichenko 1974-1975 Institute of Europe, Academy of Sciences Soviet Pugwash Committee Vano Muradelli 1960 Vladimir Pechatnov 1988 Composer Soviet Embassy, D.C. Igor Nagdasev 2003-2010 Valeri Pekshev 1976-1984 Center for Civic Education Deputy Chair, USSR State Bank Vitaly Naumkin 1986-2010 Nikolai Peterski 1964 Director, Institute of Oriental Studies, Institute of World Economy and International Academy of Sciences World Relations, Academy of Sciences Valery Nemchinov 1988 1971-1987 Institute for Space Research Director General, UN Geneva Office (1993-2002) Aleksandr Nikitin 1986-1992 Center for Political and International Studies Yuri Pinchukov 1991 Institute of World Economy and Vyacheslav Nikonov 2008-2010 International World Relations President of Fund, Politika Alexandr Piskunov 1992 Iosif Noneshvili 1974 Supreme Soviet Secretary, Georgian Writers Union Sergey Plekhanov 1988-1989 Vladimir Nosenko 1983-1986 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences Oleg Pleshov 1989 Institute of Oriental Studies, Aleksei Obukhov 1984 Academy of Sciences Ministry of Foreign Affairs Boris Polevoi 1960-1977 Vsevolod Oleandrov 1979 Writer USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Aleksander Popov 1989-1994 Dmitri Olshansky 1992 Institute of Oriental Studies, Center for Political and International Studies Academy of Sciences Vladimir Orel 1989 Veniamin Popov 2008-2010 Vice President, Soviet Peace Committee Ambassador for Islamic Issues (2003-2006)

78 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Nina Popova 1961 Leonid Serebriannik 1988 President, Soviet Friendship Society Soviet Peace Committee Vladimir Pozner 2004 Valery Shageyev 2008-2010 TV Host Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yuri Prikhodov 1971 (2006-present) Vice Chair, Soviet Chamber of Commerce George Shakhnazarov 1985-1987 Yevgeny Primakov 1971-2008 Soviet Political Science Association Russian Prime Minister (1998-1999) Viktor Shein 1986 Andrej Pritvorov 1985 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Nikolai Shishlin 1985-1989 Zoya Pushkareva 1960-1961 Central Committee of the Communist Party Professor of Chemistry, Urals Institute of the Soviet Union, Information Department Anatolij Reznikovsky 1985 Boris Shmelev 2008 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Institute of Economics, Academy of Sciences Andrej Rokrovsky 1985 Nikolai Shmelev 1988-2000 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Stanislav Rodionov 1989 Valentin Shteinberg 1977 Space Research Institute Institute of History, Latvian Sergei Rogov 1984-2000 Academy of Sciences USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Vladimir Shubin 1987 Modest Rubenstein 1960-1964 Central Committee of the Communist Party Institute of World Economy and International of the Soviet Union, International Department World Relations, Academy of Sciences Constantin Shumeiko 1961 Boris Runov 1974-1984 Publicist, Soviet Trade Unions Deputy Minister of Agriculture (1976-1989) Andrei Shumikhin 1979-1990 Natan Rybak 1972-1975 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Writer 2004 Leo Rytov 1987 TV Host, Freedom of Information Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Vladimir Shustov 1988-1989 Abid Sadykov 1961 Ministry of Foreign Affairs President, University Anatoly Shuvalov 1974 Roald Sagdeev 1984-1989 Institute of World Economy and International Space Research Institute World Relations, Academy of Sciences Konstantin Sarkisov 1984 Viktor Sidenko 1981 Institute of Oriental Studies, Central Committee of the Communist Party Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, International Department Georgy Schukin 1976 Andrey Sidorov 2008-2010 Soviet Purchasing Commission Alexander Schweitzer 1964-1984 Nodari Simomia 2000-2008 Interpreter Academic, Advisor to Academy of Sciences

79 DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE • 1960-2010

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Sergei Sinitsin 1984 Anton Surikov 1992 Ministry of Foreign Affairs USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Victoria Siradze 1975-1976 Boris Surikov 1988 Chair, Foreign Affairs Commission, Major General, USSR Ministry of Defense Supreme Soviet Viktor Surikov 1992 Vladimir Sirotinsky 2006-2008 Institute of Strategic Studies Institute for Small Business Development Mefody Sveshnikov 1969 Alexander Skakov 2008 Chair, Soviet Foreign Trade Bank Institute for Strategic Research Vladimir Sytenko 1992 Sergei Slipchenko 1987 Supreme Soviet Ambassador Nikolai Talensky 1961-1964 Vladimir Smirnov 1992 Major General, General Staff Assistant to the Russian Prime Minister (1992-1993) Pavel Tarabaev 1975 Institute of World Economy and International Nikolay Sofinsky 2008-2009 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Ministry of Foreign Affairs Evgeny Tarabrin 1984-1986 Vasily Sokolov 2000 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Sergei Tarasenko 1984 Andrey Sorokin 2006-2008 USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs Publisher Viktor Tatarnikov 1981 Stanislav Sorokin 2008 Major General, General Staff of the Army Institute of the Economy, Academy of Sciences Grigor Ter-Grigoryan 1971 Victor Starodubov 1984-1989 Writer, Armenian Peace Committee Lieutenant General, Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Tikhomirov 1987 International Department Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Gleb Starushenko 1987 Timur Timofeeyev 1984-1985 Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, U.S. Department Gennady Stashevsky 1987 Arms Control Department, Ministry Alexei Treshnikov 1964 of Foreign Affairs (unknown) Anatoly Stepunin 1974 Genrikh Trofimenko 1974-1989 Institute of Soviet-American Relations USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Georgi Sturua 1986-1988 Vladimir Trukhanovsky 1969 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Moscow State Institute of International Mikhael Sturua 1974 Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Journalist Georgy Trusevich 1972 1989 Deputy Chair, Foreign Trade Bank Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vladimir Tulinov 1987 Abdulkhakim Sultygov 2008-2010 Central Committee of the Communist Party Party of the Soviet Union, Secretariat

80 PARTICIPANTS

Participants Period of Period of Name Participation Name Participation U.S.S.R./Russia

Alexander Tutkevich 1988 Viktor Yakunin 1996 Interpreter Ambassador to Pakistan (1998-2003) Ludmilia Ulitskaya 2008 Victor Yesin 2008-2010 Good Book Foundation, Writer Colonel General, Strategic Rocket Forces Andrey Urnov 1984-1985 Sergei Yutkevich 1960 Central Committee of the Communist Party Cinema Director/Producer of the Soviet Union, International Department Andrei Zagorsky 1996 Mark Urnov 2004 Moscow State Institute of International Political Scientist Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Boris Vaganov 1974 Rector, Foreign Trade Academy David Zahrobyan 2009-2010 Political Scientist Vladilen Vasev 1984 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vasili Zaichikov 1961-1964 All-Union Society for Political Knowledge Alexander Vasiliev 1987 USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Yuri Zaitsev 1985 Institute of World Economy and International Alexey Vassilev 1985 World Relations, Academy of Sciences Institute of Africa, Academy of Sciences Ilia Vekua 1974 Mikhael Zakhmatov 1971-1975 President, Georgian Academy of Sciences USA Institute, Academy of Sciences Evgeny Velikov 1984-1986 Yuri Zhukov 1961-1987 Director, Kurchatov Institute of Science Pravda , Political Commentator Secretary, Public Chamber of Russia Vitaly Zhurkin 1971-2008 (2009-present) Director, Institute of Europe, Academy of Vladimir Vinogradov 1996 Sciences (1987-1999) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yuri Ziemel 1977 Alexander Vladimirov 1991 Director, Electro-Machine Plant Major General, Ministry of Defense Valentin Zorin 1988 Rans Vladimirsky 1969 Political Observer, TV Interpreter, Moscow News Leonty Zubailov 2004 Evgeny Volk 1992 Moscow Pedagogical University Expert, Supreme Soviet Neil Zubkov 1976-1977 Viktor Volsky 1985-1987 Soviet Peace Committee Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Yuri Volsky 1985 Andrei Zubov 1997 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2000 Irina Zvyagelskaya 1983-2010 Soviet and Russian Ambassador to UN Moscow State Institute of International (1990-1994) and U.S. (1994-1998) Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pyotr Yakovlev 1985 Leonty Zybailov 2003 Institute of Latin America, Academy of Sciences Moscow Pedagogical University

81 © Copyright 2010 by the Kettering Foundation

The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation, chartered in 1927, that does not make grants but welcomes partnerships with other institutions (or groups of institutions) and individuals who are actively working on problems of communities, governance, politics, and education. The interpretations and conclusions contained in The Dartmouth Conference: The First 50 Years , unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the author or authors and not necessarily those of the foundation, its directors, or its officers.

Director of Communications David Holwerk Editors Paloma Dallas Melinda Gilmore Copy Editor Lisa Boone-Berry Design and Production Long’s Graphic Design, Inc. Timeline Photos AP/Wide World Photos

The participants of the Dartmouth Conference would like to thank these individuals and organizations for their support over the last 50 years:

Carnegie Corporation of New York Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum The Ford Foundation The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur George Gund Foundation Foundation

The William and Flora Hewlett James S. McDonnell Foundation Foundation The Meadows Foundation U.S. International Communication Agency Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread David Rockefeller

Charles F. Kettering Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation

Lilly Endowment Inc. Soros Open Society Institute

Robert Lundeen Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace

Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation United States Institute of Peace

82