• NOVEMBER 20, 2009
ARGUMENT PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

1989: The Lost Year

For Gorbachev and Bush Sr., it was 12 months of missed opportunities. The first in an FP series, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

BY DAVID E. HOFFMAN | NOVEMBER 4, 2009

Twenty years after the Berlin Wall came down, the end of the Cold War still inspires euphoria and triumphalism in the West. But even as we lift toasts once again to the victory of 1989, we should re-examine that momentous year. Documents, memoirs, and other evidence that have come to light suggest that for relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, it was also a time of missed opportunity.

COMMENTS (8) SHARE:
Digg
 
Facebook
 
Reddit
 
Bookmark and Share More...

The fall of the wall was a European earthquake, but in Washington and Moscow, miscommunication and suspicion meant the leaders were badly out of sync. While Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was eager to move on cutting nuclear arsenals, President George H.W. Bush was cautious and uncertain, and a promising moment slipped away.

Related

Today's Berlin Walls

The fall of the Berlin Wall united Germany and eliminated the Cold War's most potent symbol. Here are five barriers that continue to divide nations and disrupt lives today.

By Joshua Keating

It is always easier to identify a pivotal year in retrospect than as you are living through it. When he became president in 1989, after eight years as vice president, Bush was devoted to the ideals of prudence and good stewardship in public service. He and others in the Republican party, conditioned by their Cold War experience, did not see how quickly the world was changing around them. They remained wary of Gorbachev. By year's end, when the unexpected happened and the gates of the Berlin Wall were flung open, Bush faced pressures made even more intense by his early hesitation.

On Dec. 7, 1988, just weeks after Bush was elected and before he took office, Gorbachev made a stunning announcement at the United Nations: the pullback of 500,000 troops from Europe. It was a profound break from the past to make such a sizable one-sided withdrawal. Gorbachev said the Soviet Union would no longer hold the countries of Eastern Europe in its grip, another breathtaking change in approach. "Freedom of choice is a universal principle," he said. "It knows no exceptions."

After the speech Gorbachev met with President Ronald Reagan and Bush at Governors Island. Reagan, in the twilight hours of his presidency, was ebullient, but he did not discuss Gorbachev's remarkable speech in any detail, and they parted without having realized their goal of reducing the arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons. The hope for a 50 percent cut was bogged down in negotiations.

Bush was low-key, and Gorbachev sensed his hesitation. "We should take into account that Bush is a very cautious politician," Gorbachev told the Politburo. Two days after Bush's inauguration in January 1989, Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, said, "I think the Cold War is not over."

123NEXT
Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

JEROME DELAY/AFP/Getty Images

 

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor at the Washington Post and the author of the recently published book, The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy, from which this article is adapted.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (8)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GLOBALWONK

10:42 PM ET

November 4, 2009

Lost Year, Try Lost Decade!

I would certainly agree that President George H.W. Bush was cautious. It is his nature, and the tumultuous times required them.

What are your thoughts on the lost decade of the '90s when we left Russia swinging in the wind? Where was our post-Cold War Marshall Plan? I posted on this in 2007 at GlobalWonk.com, here is the link http://wp.me/p7Wq6-i

I think we missed huge opportunities with Russia and China in the nineties while we basked in the hyperpower, and unipolar debate.

James Patrick Miller
http://GlobalWonk.com
http://www.twitter.com/GlobalWonk

  REPLY
 

LUVMY91STANG

11:06 PM ET

November 4, 2009

My question is...

Why are people so obsessed with nuclear weapons? It's irrational really. They serve the still useful purpose of deterrent.

Our arsenals are much smaller now than they were during the fall of the Soviet Union. And why? Because "massive" retaliatory capability is no longer required. All that's required is a "sufficient" capability. They're not going to go away completely. Not ever. And nor should they.

  REPLY
 

GLOBALWONK

11:57 PM ET

November 4, 2009

Reply to LUV

LUV,

Completely agree. The Zero Nuke movement is not based in reality. It does not take human nature into account. What leader, of ANY country, is going to give up it's nuclear deterrent on the belief everyone else is going to do the same thing?

I don't care what type of inspection protocol you put in place, someone will cheat and keep a capability. And even if only ONE of them keeps ONE weapon, I want our country to have the means to deter them from ever thinking about using it against us.

I agree with maintaining a smaller, more capable stockpile (RRW anyone??). We should modernize our inventory and destroy those no longer needed. Even better if we could recycle the material into nuclear electricity generation.

I know the folks in academia, and think tank wonks will say I'm just not intelligent enough to see it. But it is not happening in my lifetime. With the record nuclear weapons have for keeping the peace, it probably should not happen in any lifetime.

James Patrick Miller
http://GlobalWonk.com
http://www.twitter.com/GlobalWonk

  REPLY
 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

5:08 PM ET

November 5, 2009

MAD is only useful as long as

MAD is only useful as long as it works, or if leaders use foresight instead of emotion. Plenty of people in both sides thought the bomb was a good idea; for instance, Castro and many of Kennedy's advisors both, and Mao. Also, despite the fact that most leaders are rational on that level, it doesn't stop a serious catastrophe from occurring (launching weapons based on a false alarm is one obvious example). And it also doesn't stop all-out retaliations during a conventional war. That the USSR and US were rational doesn't mean everyone will be. Also, both stockpiles costed enormous amounts of resources to build and maintain; the Soviet Union could have better used it on toaster ovens, and America could have spent that on improving our shitty schools and health care system (or just dropping taxes, considering it would have been a HW Bush year).

  REPLY
 

TEBUCKY

9:51 AM ET

November 5, 2009

bold headline, lack of substance

That's it? 1989 was a lost year because a nuclear reduction agreement wasn't signed until two years later? Germany was peacefully reunited in NATO, the USSR disintegrated with little violence, and a number of Eastern European countries became democratic. I'd say 1989 and its aftermath was anything but "lost."

  REPLY
 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

5:10 PM ET

November 5, 2009

Eastern Europe is no better

Eastern Europe is no better off economically, and in some places hardly better off politically. The Soviet periphery too suffered from the rapid and disorganized collapse (I don't see how Turkmenbashi was preferable to the Politburo).

  REPLY
 

GLOBALWONK

2:39 AM ET

November 8, 2009

Great Comment

Tebucky,

I couldn't agree with you more!

It is easy to Monday morning quarterback when you know the outcome of the game. These were seismic shifts in the geopolitical order. In previous times, they most certainly would have led to large scale conflict.

Best Regards,

Jim Miller
http://GlobalWonk.com

  REPLY
 

WILDTHING

2:17 PM ET

November 6, 2009

Obviously

Because he was so busy fantaciizing about being the one world super-ego and world domination think of anyone else!!

  REPLY
 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The Terrorists Among Us
  2. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. 5 Things to Be Thankful For This Year
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Nobel Peace Prize Also-Rans
  2. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  3. Think Again: God
  4. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  2. Afghanistan Is Not Making Americans Safer
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. Zardari in the Crosshairs
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. The Only Hope Left?
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY

  • THE CABLE

    How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit

    BY JOSH ROGIN



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • Why Sarah Palin is unlikely to be the future of the Republican Party.
  • What to drink on Thanksgiving: Napa cabernet.
  • How to score chicks on the Disney Channel.
  • GM Customers Give Back
  • Ron Paul Wins Lifelong Fight, Now May Be Forced To Vote Against Everything He Believes
  • Wonk Watch 11.20.09
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.