"We Need Continuity"

America's envoy offers his views on a tense relationship

When U.S. Ambassador Arthur Hartman, 57, strode into Moscow's wedding cake-style foreign ministry last week, it was not a courtesy call. He was there to protest the renewal of mysterious microwave beam transmissions directed at the U.S. embassy. On other occasions, however, the 6-ft. 3-in. Hartman makes it his business to keep the lines of communication open with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and other top officials. Hartman, who worked closely with Henry Kissinger during the Nixon and Ford Administrations, has provided his first on-the-record interview to an American correspondent in Moscow, TIME Bureau Chief Erik Amfitheatrof. Excerpts:

Q. How are U.S.-Soviet relations now?

A. We were making a modest improvement in the relationship during the spring and summer. Bilateral talks were held on an agreement on exchanges, and the opening of consulates in New York and Kiev. Then came the shooting down of the Korean plane, and we found ourselves objecting not only to the outrageous action itself but to the way Soviet leaders tried to blame us for what was clearly a major mistake on their part. They decided to exploit the tragedy to build up an atmosphere of tension that they could then use to influence the debate on an entirely different issue, namely the deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe. They felt that this tension would favor their purpose in trying to delay or avoid U.S the deployment. I think they've failed in this, and frankly it's hard to understand the purposes of Soviet policy at this moment. They seem to want a limit in medium-range missiles in Europe, but they haven't been negotiating seriously enough to get such a limit.

Q. How angry is the Kremlin over U.S. action in Grenada?

A. Soviet leaders reacted in a very low key. After all, we went to rather extraordinary lengths to make sure their people were evacuated safely. They of course tried to take advantage of the early world reaction, but as the world learned what had been going on in Grenada there was less to take advantage of.

Q. What is Moscow up to in the Middle East?

A. The Soviets have made a major and very dangerous military commitment to Syria. This week they have begun to take political steps, and we hope they will follow their words, which are that they would like to see a calming of the Palestinian situation and successful talks among the Lebanese.

Q. Is the country still in a period of post-Brezhnev transition?

A. It took Khrushchev and Brezhnev some time to acquire the great power they finally did exercise when they were well entrenched in their positions. Andropov has had only a year, and it certainly appears that he is not in good health. So I would say we are seeing a form of transition.

Q. How long will the U.S.-Soviet chill last?

A. We shouldn't have a thermometer out all the time to take the temperature of the relationship. We are in a long-term rivalry that is going to take much of our talent and resources to meet--and when I say us, I mean not only the U.S. but all the Western powers. It is important to us, while we indicate the unacceptability of certain kinds of behavior to the Soviets, to stay engaged in a dialogue to see whether it is not possible to achieve a greater amount of stability in the dangerous and overmilitarized world we are all in.

Q. How seriously should we take Andropov's warning that events have "finally dispelled" any chance for improved relations?

A. It is wrong for us to be constantly looking at the statements that are made by Soviet leaders. First of all, we have got to understand our own interests. We have to proceed then to develop our own long-term policies. This Administration has been doing that in building our economy and our defenses and, at the same time, offering to negotiate on the important issues that face our two countries. If the Soviet Union chooses not to negotiate, we have to have an alternative. And that alternative is our own strength and the ability of the U.S. to pursue a policy with continuity.

Q. Has the occasional blunt attack on the Soviet system by the President or by a U.S. official contributed to the deterioration?

A. I would like to see the level of rhetoric on both sides reduced. On our side, this is happening.

Q. After the Korean tragedy, some conservatives suggested that you head home and [Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoli] Dobrynin return to Moscow.

A. I think that's plain foolish. The idea of having diplomatic relations is to be able to communicate. And the time when you dispense with diplomatic relations is when you have given up on the idea of communication and when you are seeking other means to settle your problems. I don't like a world in which we're seeking other means to settle our problems.

Q. What has been the domestic effect of recent Soviet claims that NATO is preparing to attack their country?

A. It is difficult for us to sound opinion. I am sure, however, that after a period of propaganda by the authorities in this country saying there is this danger, many Soviets will believe it. On the other hand, there is a kind of tom-tom system that operates here, and people do get their opinions from other sources, at least the opinion-makers in this system do, and they may have some doubts as to whether what is being put out as the official line is the whole truth.

Q. What must we do on our side to develop longterm, stable relations?

A. First of all, since we are a democracy, we must have a public that understands the challenge that faces us in dealing with the Soviet Union. It is the rivalry of two systems based on completely different principles and values. We should not have to re-educate our people every few years on what this challenge is, because that will just mean swings in public opinion and in policy. What we need more than anything else is a policy that combines strength with continuity. We need the ability to engage the Soviets in a positive dialogue to see whether it isn't possible to reach some solutions through negotiation. That is a long-term process. It requires the help of both major political parties in our country. We can't just go from one mood to the other in our relations with the Soviet Union. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.