Moscow on the Potomac: the Soviet Embassy and Détente, 1969-1979
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MOSCOW ON THE POTOMAC: THE SOVIET EMBASSY AND DÉTENTE, 1969-1979 Michael V. Paulauskas A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved By: Donald J. Raleigh Louise McReynolds Chad Bryant Christopher R. Browning Donald M. Reid ©2012 Michael V. Paulauskas ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT MICHAEL V. PAULAUSKAS: Moscow on the Potomac: The Soviet Embassy and Détente, 1969-1979 (Under the direction of Donald J. Raleigh) This dissertation examines the role of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., in conducting superpower diplomacy during détente, the period from 1969 to 1979 when the superpowers attempted to normalize the Cold War. This work revolves around four major themes. First, it explores the critical role played by Soviet diplomats on the ground in determining the nature of Soviet-American relations. Second, it analyzes the relationships of key diplomats, arguing that personal diplomacy bolstered détente in its initial years, but ultimately could not guarantee the long-term improvement of Soviet-American relations. Third, it complicates current understandings of Soviet foreign policy in this period, as it functioned not simply as an expression of the Kremlin’s will, but as a complex bureaucratic process that frequently wreaked havoc on negotiations. In this sense, détente was not a monolithic policy undertaken by the Soviet government with a singular goal in mind, but rather a process negotiated by Soviet officials with different understandings of Soviet aims and strategies. Finally, by considering the expansion of cultural exchanges and trade negotiations during this period, it demonstrates the vital role played by economic and cultural interests in setting the parameters of détente. The first part of this dissertation focuses on the role played by Anatoly Dobrynin, who served as Soviet ambassador to the US from 1962 to 1986. It begins with a brief biography of Dobrynin and a study of the methods of diplomacy that made him an effective iii operator in Washington. In particular, it outlines the “Dobrynin school” of diplomacy, assessing the atmosphere promoted by Dobrynin at the embassy and his influence over a generation of young Soviet diplomats. Next, the dissertation explains the rise and fall of the backchannel, the site of secret negotiations for improved Soviet-American relations, and it describes the personal diplomacy established by Dobrynin and American National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. The second part of the dissertation serves as a case study of the embassy’s Cultural Department, showing how lower-level diplomats promoted the image of the USSR as a dependable great power with whom the US should develop friendlier ties. iv For Linda v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation bears my name, but it was completed thanks to the direct support of many others. Donald J. Raleigh, my advisor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has been an endless source of encouragement, advice, and inspiration. His dedication to my academic development has been boundless, and he provided invaluable aid in transforming my passion for Soviet foreign affairs into this dissertation. Research for this dissertation was made possible thanks to generous funding from the US Department of Education (Fulbright-Hays) and the Kennan Institute, which collectively allowed me to spend twelve months in Moscow, Russia, and a summer in Washington, D.C., doing the research in Russian and American archives that serves as the backbone of this project. A Pre-Dissertation Travel Award from the UNC Center for Global Initiatives made possible a month of pre-dissertation research in Moscow that proved critical to framing my research. I also owe a debt of gratitude for a Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowship from UNC for one year of Russian language study, as well as summer FLAS support from Duke University and the University of Pittsburgh. As an undergraduate at Temple University, several people bear responsibility for instilling a lifelong interest in foreign relations that expresses itself in this dissertation. Ruth Ost helped a lost music major find a home in the History Department, Jay Lockenour made Metternich and Bismarck come alive in the classroom, and Richard Immerman introduced me to the backchannel. Vladislav Zubok’s course on Soviet history ignited my interest in vi Soviet foreign policy, and I remain indebted to his willingness to share his vast wealth of knowledge on the topic. Several of my colleagues in the Department of History at UNC have shaped this dissertation, providing helpful feedback on my work and keeping me sane. They include Eric Steinhart, Edward Geist, Rosa Magnusdottir, Adrianne Jacobs, Marko Dumančić, Jenifer Parks, Gary Guadagnolo, Dan Giblin, Zsolt Nagy, and Ricky Law. Portions of this project were presented at the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies Conference in 2010 and 2011, the Southern Conference on Slavic Studies in 2007, 2010, and 2011, and the Cold War Cultures conference in Austin in 2010, with feedback from discussants and audience members that influenced my views. I am indebted to the members of my dissertation committee, Louise McReynolds, Chad Bryant, Christopher Browning, and Donald Reid, who took the time to read and provide outstanding comments on my dissertation. During my research, I received aid from numerous archivists, who were eager to help me find materials on a topic that remains difficult to access. Liudmila Ivanovna Stepanich at RGANI stands out for her willingness to point me in productive directions and keep me entertained with rich stories from her life. I also thank the staff at AVP RF, who helped me access as much declassified material as possible on such a sensitive topic. Svetlana Savranskaya at the National Security Archive lent vital aid, especially in dealing with the Carter period. In Moscow, I met dozens of colleagues from other universities, who provided indispensible assistance in developing this project. In particular, Dina Fainberg, Rachel Applebaum, and Jeremiah Wishon shared their research on various aspects of Soviet diplomacy, helping to shape my own conclusions. vii My fiancée, Emily Baran, has heard the same stories and corny jokes from my research on multiple occasions, yet she continues to smile at them, all the same. She has read this dissertation more than once, and her editing, recommendations, and encouragement have been a central component of its success. Without the unconditional love and support of my family, I never would have been able to complete this project. Whether on the phone or at home in Pennsylvania, my father, Vince, provided a welcome refuge from the academic world, whether we spent an afternoon fishing on the river or talking about the Phils. When we shared a house in Chapel Hill, my sister, Sandy, caught a first-hand glimpse of a graduate student simultaneously taking comps and writing grant applications, and she remained an oasis of calm in an otherwise chaotic world. My grandmother, Edith Atkins, never fails to make me smile, and her care packages gave me a boost when I needed it. My mother, Linda, always had an open ear and a shoulder to lean on when I needed advice, and this dissertation is dedicated to her memory. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter INTRODUCTION ………..................................................................................................1 Historiography on Détente and Soviet Foreign Policy............................................7 Sources ..................................................................................................................22 Methodology .........................................................................................................28 Overview of Chapters ...........................................................................................30 I. “THE BEAR THAT WALKS LIKE AN AMERICAN”: SOVIET AMBASSADOR ANATOLY F. DOBRYNIN AND THE DOBRYNIN SCHOOL OF DIPLOMACY………………..………..32 Anatoly Fedorovich Changes Professions ……………………………………….35 Mr. Dobrynin Goes to Washington ………………………………………………42 The Cuban Missile Crisis …………………………………………………………45 The Backchannel after the Cuban Missile Crisis …………………………………52 “My Favorite Bolshevik” …………………………………………………………59 Diplomatic Chameleon …………………………………………………………...68 The Public Face of Anatoly Dobrynin ……………………………………………76 The Dobrynin School of Diplomacy ……………………………………………...81 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..94 II. CONFRONTATION AND APPREHENSION: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BACKCHANNEL, 1969-1971 ……...……97 ix The Big Issues ……………………………………………………………….....102 Meeting of the Minds ……………………………………………….………….104 Getting to Know You .…………………………………………….……………109 Talking in Circles on Vietnam …………………………………………………120 The Advent of Triangular Diplomacy ...……………………………………..…128 1969 in Review ...………………………………………………………………137 Conclusion...……………………………………………………………………148 III. THE BACKCHANNEL BECOMES OPERATIONAL, 1970-71 ...…………..153 Repeatedly Rebooting the Backchannel………………………………………..155 The Semenov Affair ……………………………………………………...……174 Camp David ..…………………………………………………………………..183 “A Neuralgic Point”.……………………………………………………………190 “Bureaucrats have been foiled” ……………………………………………..…197 Conclusion ..……………………………………………………………………205 IV. PERSONAL DIPLOMACY AND THE PINNACLE OF DÉTENTE, 1971-72 ..……………………………208 “You’re a Dirty Old Man” ..……………………………………………………213