Remembering the summit that almost ended the Cold War
Forty years after President Reagan and Soviet Premier Gorbachev met in Reykjavik, Iceland, CU 勒貊勛圖 historian Tom Zeiler sees the meeting as both a missed opportunity and an early step toward meaningful arms control
By all accounts, expectations were low in October 1986, when President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev arrived in Reykjavik, Iceland, for informal discussions on stalled nuclear weapons negotiations.泭
泭
At the time, the East and West were locked in a Cold War, and relations between Washington and Moscow remained frosty, says 勒貊勛圖 Department of HistoryProfessor Tom Zeiler, whose expertise is in U.S. diplomatic relations.
Just a few years earlier, the Soviet Unions military buildup, aggressive foreign policies and invasion of Afghanistan sparked alarm in the West. The U.S. countered with its own military buildup, support for anti-communist movements globally and aggressive rhetoric from the president, with Reagan referring to the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
Tom Zeiler, CU 勒貊勛圖 history professor whose expertise is in U.S. diplomatic relations, sees the Reykjavik summit as both a missed opportunity for meaningful arms control negotiations and an important turning point in Cold War relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Many historians see the early Reagan years as a third major reignition of Cold War tensions, Zeiler says.泭
泭
Still, the idea that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were headed for nuclear confrontation leading up to the Reykjavik summit, as popularized in advertisements for the new movie , seems a bit overblown, Zeiler says.泭
泭
I think thats an exaggeration, he says. The fear surrounding Ronald Reagans (hardline rhetoric) hadnt completely passed, but the real fear that the Cold War had restarted peaked around 1983, about three years prior to the summit.
泭
It was in 1983 that the Cold War nearly turned hot, resulting from failed communications between the two sides during the NATO . The U.S. failed to sufficiently inform their Soviet counterparts they were conducting nuclear exercises with their European allies, Zeiler says, leading the Soviets to ready their own arsenal for launch, believing war might be imminent. He calls that incident perhaps the greatest risk of a nuclear exchange after the .泭
By 1986, however, circumstances were changing.泭
泭
In the Soviet Union, several old-guard bureaucrats had died in rapid succession, clearing the way for a younger, energetic Gorbachev. More than just a change in personalities, Zeiler says Gorbachev represented a different approach to relations with the West. The gerontocracy was ending, he says.泭
泭
Arriving in chilly Iceland
Gorbachev and Reagan arrived in Iceland with differing priorities.泭
泭
For Gorbachev, the goal was probably simpler, Zeiler says. He wanted some form of disarmament and strategic parity. He needed to stop the arms race to focus on domestic priorities. His basic message was: Whether its 10%, 50% or 75%, lets move toward disarmament.
泭
Reagan arrived in Iceland with his own convictions. Although widely viewed as a hardline anti-communist, Zeiler says the president saw nuclear weapons as evil and a threat to humanity.
泭
Despite coming from opposite political systems, Zeiler says Reagan and Gorbachev shared important similarities. Both were effective communicators, both understood the power of political opinion and both were willing to think beyond traditional diplomatic limits.泭
泭
As the negotiations progressed over two days (Oct. 11-12), both leaders began making proposals that surprised even their own advisors.泭
泭
They both, for lack of a better term, escalated in their negotiations, Zeiler says. It became: I can outdo you. Youre serious about a 50 percent reduction? Well, are you serious about wiping out everything?泭
泭
At one point, Zeiler says both sides entertained the possibility of eliminating all nuclear weapons.泭
泭
He says the scope of the conversations was not fully understood at the time. Later declassified documents revealed just how close the two leaders came to potentially transformative agreements, he adds.
Forty years ago this month, President Ronald Reagan (left) welcomed Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to Hofdi House outside of Reykjavik, Iceland, for two days of intensive arms control negotiations. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Divided over Star Wars
Yet one issue repeatedly blocked progress: Reagans commitment to the missile-defense system known as (SDI).
泭
Its defenders envisioned a technology that could intercept nuclear missiles before they reached American soil. Critics mocked the proposal as unrealistic science fiction, earning it the nickname Star Wars after the popular movie.
泭
Zeiler says that, with the passage of time, historians have come to understand the depth of Reagans commitment to the program.泭
泭
Historians didnt know it then, but looking back at Reagan now, he deeply, deeply held that this (SDI) was the key to life on Earth by making nuclear weapons obsolete, he says. He sincerely thought SDI offered a way out of the nuclear dilemma.
泭
Zeiler says that belief distinguished Reagan from many of the hawks within his own administration.泭
泭
Unlike hardline advisors such as Paul Nitze or Richard Perle, Reagan wasnt focused solely on strategic advantage, he says. He believed, at a fundamental level, that SDI could protect humanity from nuclear war.
泭
For Gorbachev, however, SDI presented an entirely different problem. Zeiler says the Soviet leader feared that if the United States developed an effective missile shield, it would gain a decisive military advantage, rendering Soviet nuclear weapons irrelevant and upsetting decades of strategic balance.泭
泭
Why should I trust that this system is really intended for peace simply because you say so? Zeiler says, describing the Soviet leaders perspective. Gorbachev was willing to let the United States continue to develop the technology in a laboratory setting but drew the line at actual deployment of the technology, he says.泭
泭
Ultimately, negotiations collapsed over the issue, which Zeiler says today is all the more ironic because SDI was nowhere near ready for deployment in 1986 or the years immediately following.
泭
Zeiler says the disappointment following two days of intensive negotiations was tangible. He says Reagan was visibly frustrated and Gorbachev appeared stunned and discouraged. Around the world, observers wondered whether the two leaders had squandered a unique opportunity.泭
泭
It did seem at the time like, Wow, this was a big dealand then they walked away, Zeiler recalls. They had a chance to end things and they gave up.
Laying new groundwork
However, in retrospect, Zeiler says the summit was not an abject failure. He says it transformed the nature of future U.S.-Soviet negotiations, with both sides recognizing that substantial reductions in nuclear weapons were possible. Zeiler says the discussions that started in Iceland created momentum that continued long after the summit ended.
泭
Within a year, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the , which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. Additional agreements followed.
泭
Meanwhile, other developments on the world stage would outpace traditional U.S.-Soviet diplomacy. Three years after the Iceland summit, the Berlin Wall fell, leading to a reunification of East and West Germany in 1990. Within five years, the Soviet Union itself dissolved.泭
泭
Those developments have fueled an enduring debate among historians: Who deserves credit for ending the Cold War?
泭
Was it Ronald Reagan? Was it Gorbachev? Was it a combination? Zeiler asks rhetorically. His answer is that both leaders played essential roles.
Expectations at the outset of the Reykjavik summit were modest. However, Reagan and Gorbachev each made major proposals for reducing nuclear weapons during the talks, which ultimately collapsed over disagreements over the U.S. SDI missile-defense system. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Gorbachev, in Zeilers view, may deserve special recognition because he challenged the very system he led and paid a political price for doing so. However, Reagans contributions were also important.泭
泭
I think Reagan set the table and made it possible for Gorbachev to do the work, Zeiler says.泭
泭
He says the Reykjavik summit also demonstrated something broader about diplomacy: the importance of personal relationships. Historians often focus on ideology and geopolitics, but Zeiler argues that leaders themselves matter. From Roosevelt and Churchill to Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, personal chemistry has often influenced world events.泭
泭
Theyre human beings, Zeiler says of politicians. Some of them just say, I get that guy.
泭
He says that dynamic appears to have existed between Reagan and Gorbachev. Despite major disagreements, the two leaders developed a mutual respect for one another. In 1988, Reagan visited Moscow for his fourth and final summit with Gorbachev, where he publicly distanced himself from his earlier description of the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
泭
1986 as a turning point
Looking back on the October 1986 Reykjavik summit, Zeiler sees it as both a missed opportunity and as an important turning point.泭
泭
For decades following the end of World War II, the Cold War had been defined by confrontation and suspicion. Zeiler says the Reykjavik summit revealed something new: two adversaries exploring how to move beyond it.泭
泭
When some people today describe the Reykjavik summit as a moment when the world stood on the brink of war, Zeiler disagrees. It was the opposite, he says.
泭
The Reykjavik summit alone did not end the Cold War, but Zeiler says it might have been the moment when leaders from both sides finally began to imagine that it could end.泭
Did you enjoy this article?泭泭Passionate about history?泭