Abstract
Mikhail Gorbachev deliberately concluded his interview with Time Magazin? back in September 1985 by stating that foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy. He told his American audience, who had great difficulty in believing him, that he had ‘grandiose’ plans of domestic reform. He then asked what the foreign policy implications of these plans were, and he ended with a teasing ‘I leave the answer to you.’1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Time Magazin?, 9 September 1985, p. 29
Stephen Cohen, Alexander Rabinowitch and Robert Sharlet, eds, The Soviet Union Since Stali?, London, Macmillan, 1980.
George Feifer, ‘Russian Disorders’, Harpe?’, February 1981, pp. 53 and 54.
Ibid. The quotations within the extract are from Feifer’s friends.
Michael S. Vozlenski, Nomenklature; The Soviet Ruling Clas?, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1984, and Konstantin Simis, ‘The Gorbachev Generation’, Foreign Polic?, no. 59, Summer 1985, pp. 3–21.
See Leslie Gelb, ‘What We Really Know about Russia’, The New York Times Magazin?, 28 October 1984. He labelled the view ‘the Horelick—Bialer muddle-down thesis’, and analyzed some of its possible sources (pp. 82–3).
This argument was presented many places, but most comprehensively in Soviet Leadership in Transitio?, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution, 1980.
Edward Crankshaw, Krushne?’s Russi?, Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1959, pp. 90–1 and 130.
S. Frederick Starr, Red and Hot: The Fate of Jazz in the Soviet Union, 1917–198?, New York, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 321.
The USA officially linked immigration with most-favoured-nations treatment, but the pattern of emigration makes it perfectly obvious that the Soviet Union followed a linkage policy of its own — and this was with arms control progress.
The central argument for an American-centred policy is that a Germany and Japan that became independent would be dangerous for the Soviet Union. ‘German revanchism’ (a desire for reunification) and ‘Japanese militarism’ pointed to those dangers.
Vestnik ministerstva inostrannykh del SSS?, no. 3, 10 September 1987, in Foreign Broadcast Information Services, Daily Report: Soviet Unio?, 3 November 1987, p. 89.
‘We Will Astonish You’, New Perspectives Quarterl?, Spring 1987, p. 34.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Carl G. Jacobsen
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hough, J.F. (1989). The Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy. In: Jacobsen, C.G. (eds) Soviet Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11341-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11341-5_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-11343-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-11341-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)