The relationship between the United States and the former Soviet Union is extremely complicated, partly because the two countries have extremely different historical experiences. Before the end of World War II, the United States actually did not need to implement any foreign policy, but had two marine protections. For us, there is no problem of strong neighbors. Therefore, the foreign policy views formed by the United States at that time were partly isolationism and partly moralism. At that time, most Americans thought that the contingency of history made us lucky to be geographically far away from other countries, which also reflected our sense of moral superiority. At the end of World War I and during World War II, what the United States sought was to be able to return to its previous isolated position. At the end of World War I, President Wilson insisted that the United States should draw a clear line with concepts such as balance of power. At that time, we were considering establishing a world organization or even a world government. Most Americans believe that Americans have the responsibility to improve the world, not just control it. When President Truman went to the Potsdam Conference, he refused to meet the British Prime Minister in advance because he didn't want Stalin to think that we were colluding with Britain against the former Soviet Union. At the end of World War II, most Americans dreamed of playing the role played by the Non-Aligned Movement today, that is, acting as an arbitrator in the conflict between Britain and the former Soviet Union (it was thought at that time), taking a detached stance and implementing an independent foreign policy.
I mention all this because the conflict with the former Soviet Union is not a natural hobby of Americans, and the dispute with the former Soviet Union is not in line with the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
I have noticed that China has stated on the issue of Sino-Soviet relations that to improve relations, three conditions must be met first. America is not so systematic and clear. After all, the history of our country is shorter than that of any dynasty in China. Therefore, we didn't express our requirements in the same clear language. But I believe that, fundamentally, the problems facing the United States and China are exactly the same. If the former Soviet Union is willing to get along with other countries within its current borders, it can certainly try to make some specific arrangements. Otherwise, if we claim that we can solve the problem without making some major adjustments, it will not benefit anyone. It is not good for the United States, nor for those who trust the United States directly or indirectly. It is in this spirit that I want to talk about the current situation and make some comments on the eve of the summit. If we analyze the situation abstractly like a professor, people must give many reasons to explain why they are eager to think that a period of easing tensions is beneficial to all parties. In the west, people often attribute this to the personality of the new leader of the former Soviet Union. But I don't think it is necessary for the audience who have received some Marxist training to emphasize that objective conditions are more important than personality. It is impossible for a system like the former Soviet Union to produce a pacifist party general secretary. However, I think that the former Soviet Union may have the motivation to seek relaxation because the former Soviet Union society is facing some objective trends, at least in the abstract, which it must focus on. In my opinion, first of all, we must admit that the current government system relies too much on individuals and has not implemented the rotation system adopted by China in recent months and years. If this problem is not solved, there will inevitably be periodic leadership struggles. In order to solve this problem, there must be a stable period.
..... I think there are objective conditions for improving relations. In the nuclear age, many traditional views on this power are no longer applicable, which makes the problem more complicated. In the nuclear age, there is probably no victorious country or defeated country in the war, and everyone is a loser. But when the war ended, I couldn't remember the cause of the war. However, the situation is bound to change dramatically. All these reasons show that it is possible for the Soviet Union and the United States to reach a concrete understanding. But there are still some obstacles: first, many people in the United States tend to regard foreign policy as a branch of psychiatry. Therefore, they believe that the relationship between countries is the same as that between people. They like to treat symptoms rather than root causes. In the former Soviet Union, there was a problem that it was difficult for those who wanted to carry out economic reforms to adopt a flexible attitude towards foreign policy at the same time. So in the former Soviet Union, there may be a similar tendency, that is, we hope to establish a relaxed atmosphere without solving any problems we face. In the west, people often say that the overriding issue of our times is arms control. To some extent, arms limitation is of course important. However, it is also true that this is not the fundamental reason for eliminating international tension. The root of international tension lies in political conflicts and attempts to expand power and impose unilateral solutions. Therefore, I suggest that the summit must solve three basic principles and three identified fundamental problems: first, regional conflicts. As long as powerful countries can attack weak neighbors with impunity, there will be no peace. Brezhnevism cannot be carried out everywhere, and the principle that importing weapons will aggravate international conflicts cannot be recognized. Therefore, both sides must exercise restraint. As an American, I certainly think that the former Soviet Union is a more aggressive superpower. Second, in their mutual relations, the two superpowers must establish a code of conduct that reflects mutual constraints and show it in specific political arrangements. In other words, they should not threaten the spirit of peace or each other. The third point is the issue of arms control, which is equally important. This involves very complicated technical problems. I want to emphasize that it is easy to put forward some numerical relations, which sounds beautiful, but it is meaningless in fact. Today, people are talking about the proposal of the former Soviet Union that the two sides cut their nuclear weapons by 50%. However, in fact, both sides have more than 10,000 warheads. Without any defense force, a 50% reduction will not change the situation. If we used to destroy mankind 20 times, now we can only destroy 10 times without any fundamental progress.
I believe that a government has a moral responsibility to protect its people. I think the most effective arms control is to link offensive forces with defensive forces. Such arms control may at least lead to nuclear war, and even if there is a war for some reason, it is most likely to reduce casualties. I believe that this kind of arms control can be achieved if we adopt the negotiation method that I can call the people of China, and if we clearly clarify the basic factors of stability in political and strategic relations.
Now, I want to talk briefly about China's role in world peace and the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. China and the United States re-establish relations, first contact and then establish relations, because both countries realize that it is impossible to establish a safe world without understanding each other's views. The United States is very concerned about the integrity, independence and development of China, not because it is an anti-Soviet action, nor because we have reached an agreement in this regard, but because a country with such a history, scale and importance cannot be excluded from the international balance. A few years ago, some Americans said that the United States would play the so-called China card. This is ridiculous. China is not a card that the United States can play. China is a living reality and must be treated as such. As long as China is independent and strong, its own weight will contribute to global balance. In this sense, China's independent foreign policy is in the interests of the whole world. Now, people sometimes speculate on the possible improvement of Sino-Soviet relations and the possible impact of this improvement on US-Soviet relations. I want to share my views on this issue with you. The extreme tension between China and the Soviet Union is not in the interests of the United States, and war is even less in the interests of the United States, because it will intensify the entire international situation. As China returned to the 1950s, it was not good for the United States to become a close ally of the former Soviet Union. However, in the end, Beijing decided these issues not on what is good for the United States, but on what is good for China. I think the interests of China and the United States in this respect are very similar. Extreme tension can't be in China's interest, an alliance with the former Soviet Union can't be in China's interest, and a conflict with the United States, an ally of the former Soviet Union, can't be in China's interest. China should establish its position between these two extremes. As for the United States, history has put it in such a position that it must defend the independence and integrity of many friendly countries in the world, otherwise there can be no balance. With the development of history and the strength of other countries, the burden on the shoulders of the United States will be reduced, and many Americans will welcome this. Americans certainly welcome any opportunity to ease tensions. When I served in the government, I participated in the implementation of the relaxation policy of the Soviet Union. I still think this policy is correct, as long as it is based on realism and leads to real restraint, not just a formalistic declaration. As I have said, I think there are objective conditions for making progress. Whether we can make progress depends on whether we have certain conditions. What politicians can do is to maintain dialogue and ensure that the people of the world understand what peace is. As far as China and the United States are concerned, a strong and developing China is in the common interest. Those of us who came to China in the early 1970s will certainly admire the courage and imagination shown by the China government and the people of China in adapting to the changing situation and undertaking the grand and lofty task of modernizing 654.38 billion people. As far as China and the United States are concerned, it is very important to maintain dialogue, so as to understand each other's views on the world and the necessary conditions for peace. Each party has its own opinions and pursues its own interests independently. The two sides share the same interests on some fundamental principles, but there are differences on some strategic issues. There is no disagreement on the issue of peace. Regarding the question you asked me about the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, I can only say that it has always been a very profound question. There is a good opportunity, but if we think we can seize it through slogans, we are deceiving ourselves. If we are willing to work hard for this, I think we can achieve long-term peace, which is beneficial to people all over the world. In this process, the relationship between the United States and China will play an important role.