OncethePresident’sannualreviewbecameestablished,itproducedsome
ofthemostthoughtfulgovernmentalstatementsofforeignpolicy.Tooursorrow
wenevermanagedtogetacrossitsbasicpurposeofraisingfundamental
questionsandexpressingaphilosophy.Tryaswemight,themediawouldcover
onlythesectiononVietnam,probingforhotnewsorcredibilitygaps,ignoringthe
remainderasnotnewsworthy.In1973weraninto anotherproblem.Thereport
wasissuedinearlyMay,afterayearofChineseandSovietsummitsandclimactic
Vietnamnegotiations;thedatewehadchosenweeksearlierforreleaseofthe
reportcamefourdaysaftertheresignationofHaldemanandEhrlichman.
Nevertheless,thereportsperf ormedausefulfunction.Theyservedasrough
guidestothebureaucracy.Theywereunusuallycandid.Theywereinvaluablein
conveyingnuancesofchangetoforeigngovernments.AsIwillshowinvarious
chapters,changesinattitudetowardChina,indefensepolicy,intheMiddleEast
andelsewherewereoftenforeshadowedinthePresident’sannualreports.
ThePresident’sfirstreport,publishedonFebruary18,1970,statedbluntly
that“ouroverallrelationshipwiththeUSSRremainsfarfromsatisfactory.”In
Vietnam,“tothedetrimentofthecauseofpeace,”theSovietshad“failedto
exertahelpfulinfluence ontheNorthVietnameseinParis”andborea“heavy
responsibilityforthecontinuationofthewar”becauseofitsarmssupplyofNorth
Vietnam.IntheMiddleEast,thereportchargedthat“wehavenotseenonthe
Sovietsidethatpracticalandconstructiveflexibilitywhichisnecessaryfora
successfuloutcome”;evenmore,thereportnoted“evidence…thattheSoviet
Unionseeksapositionintheareaasawholewhichwouldmakegreatpower
rivalrymorelikely.”(ThiswouldbeprovedtrueintwoMiddleEastcrisesduring
1970.)
ThesejudgmentsreflectedtherealitythattheSovietUnionwasimmobile
in1969.But,almostimperceptibly,therewerethebeginningsofaslow
movementforward.Theforeignpolicydecisionsofanylargestateemergefroma
complicatedpatternofbureaucratic,domestic,andinternationalpressures;the
Sovietbureaucracyandpolicyprocessareespeciallytortuous.In1969theSoviets
hadtocontendwithanewUSAdministration,whichisalwaysamassive
analyticalproblemforSovietleaders,andwe,inaddition,werechanging
procedures.Operatingonabroadfrontinsimultaneousnegotiations,for
example,maynothavebeenmerelyunfamiliartotheSovietadministrative
process;itmayhavestraineditscapacity.Eventhoughtheapparatusishuge,it