As we enter into another cold war, it might be a good time to reflect on the “good friction” that melted the ice from the first cold war. Too often when we encounter those we disagree with, we either avoid them or shout over them. We don’t make the effort, patience, and courage it takes to have an honest, candid and sometimes messy discourse, and seldom do we listen with empathy.
When Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, he inherited a political mess. As much as he believed in communist ideals, he could see that it wasn’t working properly. Yet, to move the country forward, he understood he needed to rally the support of the communist hardliners.
At this point, Russia and the United States were in the middle of their long-running Cold War. Much of the world was split between countries aligned with the West versus those controlled by the Eastern bloc. It was capitalism versus communism and neither side wanted to back down. Four decades of growing distrust between the two nations had resulted in tens of thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at each other. We were an insult away from annihilation.
Gorbachev’s counterpart was Ronald Reagan, who in 1985 had just been sworn in for his second term as US president. He had a history of opposing communism. During the most fevered peak of McCarthyism in the 1950s, he had been on a mission to root out communist influence in the Screen Actors Guild, the organization he led.
The future of mankind rested on the shoulders of these two men who had every reason to distrust each other. Mutually assured destruction was a real possibility.
To avoid this outcome, the two leaders decided to meet to discuss opportunities to limit the arms race. However, the run-up to their first meeting in Geneva was disastrous.
They suffered from dissent within their ranks. Their diplomats had a hard time even agreeing on what they wanted to get from the meeting. The Soviets rejected most of the US proposals. And Reagan’s team declared that they were having “real trouble establishing a dialogue” with their Russian counterparts.
This wasn’t helped by America announcing the first test of their new “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative (a network of laser-armed satellites in outer space designed to disable first strike capabilities of incoming nuclear missiles). Then going on to rebuff the Soviet’s offer of a temporary ban on underground nuclear tests.
Sadly, this set the tone for the first summit.
It was tense. Gorbachev kicked things off by accusing the United States of failing to trust them. He went on to blame America’s ruling class for ramping up fear and making his nation uneasy. Reagan wasn’t going to let that lie, so he countered with his accusations of Soviet aggression and paranoia.
Things didn’t look good.
Then something surprising happened. Instead of proceeding with the planned agenda, the two leaders suddenly left their advisors behind to take a private walk, with just their interpreters, along the shores of Lake Geneva. They then continued this private conversation for another hour with a fireside chat in a lake house nearby.
Upon their return, the mood at the negotiating table was different. A Soviet spokesperson commented that a “good atmosphere” prevailed during the remainder of the sessions.
So what led to this sudden departure from a detailed schedule that had taken months to plan?
“The President, I think, felt at a certain point in the meeting that it was a desirable time for the two to continue their talks alone,” presidential spokesman Larry Speakes said. Reagan believed that if they were to break down this wall of mistrust between the two nations, they first had to forge a better personal relationship.
And this forging began the day after Gorbachev came to power when Reagan wrote a private letter that was hand-delivered by then-Vice President Bush. In this letter, Reagan writes, “You can be rest assured of my commitment to work with you.” Which prompted Gorbachev to write, “I attach great importance to the exchange of letters, which has started between the two of us.”
These weren’t just platitudes nor pleasant formalities normally shared by two world leaders. The content of these often lengthy letters revealed a very candid, robust, and, at times, contentious exchange of misgivings, grievances, and differing points of view about controversial topics ranging from the war in Afghanistan, to the positioning of American “nukes” in military bases bordering the USSR, all the while being a forum to debate the tenets of communism versus democracy. They would often question the decision of the other while defending their own decisions.
Yet, each letter began and ended with a reminder of the intent behind this frank discourse - a shared desire for a better and safer future for both countries. Before this first summit, a dozen such letters had already been exchanged, allowing the two men to build a strong enough rapport where they felt comfortable “going it alone” without their advisors.
Reagan wrote to Gorbachev, “In Geneva, I found our private sessions particularly useful. Both of us have advisors and assistants, but, you know, in the final analysis, the responsibility to preserve peace and increase cooperation is ours. Our people look to us for leadership, and nobody can provide it if we don’t.”
Historians often attribute the success of the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty to the difficult negotiations made during the four summits between Reagan and Gorbachev. But what is often overlooked is the candor, vulnerability and rapport shared in these personal letters that lay the groundwork of trust for these summits.
They started as adversaries and ended up as close friends. Building rapport requires some good friction in the form of time, effort, courage, and in this instance, 40 personal letters written over 40 months.
In his autobiography, Reagan writes: “As I look back on them now, I realize those first letters marked the cautious beginning on both sides of what was to become the foundation of not only a better relationship between our countries but a friendship between two men.”
Building the type of rapport these two leaders nurtured takes a healthy dose of “good friction.” Good friction involves effort, patience, and courage from both parties. In this ever-polarizing world that is fueled by rapid communication and instant gratification, what can we learn from handwritten letters, meandering walks, and fireside chats?
The Greek philosopher Epictetus said, 'We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” When’s the last time we spent 5 minutes “listening” to someone we disagree with? Maybe it’s time to not only reach across the aisle but to match our ever faster speed of communication with the often more time-intensive need for empathy.
[Content Credit: National Archives and Dave Birss]
Good Friction Builds Rapport - The Secret Ingredient That Melted The First Cold War - Forbes
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment