Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIV, Soviet Union

68. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, November 6, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Soviet Affairs

PARTICIPANTS

• Dr. Sergo Mikoyan of the USSR
• Llewellyn E. Thompson, Ambassador-at-Large, Department of State

The following are the highlights of a long conversation with Mr. Mikoyan:

I did not myself directly raise the question of Sino-Soviet relations, but Mr. Mikoyan volunteered the fact that everyone else he had talked to had raised this question. He said that the Chinese Communists were now pretending that all of their difficulties with the Soviet Union were attributable to Mr. Khrushchev which he said was, of course, not the case. He said that while they did not desire to quarrel with the Chinese, the Soviets would not abandon their positions of principle. He said this issue had really been decided by the American election. If Mr. Goldwater had been elected, he thought his Government would have been obliged to review and reconsider its policies. He indicated that one of the most strongly held Soviet policies involved was that of peaceful coexistence.

Mr. Mikoyan seemed convinced that the new regime would follow a more sensible and consistent policy in dealing with Soviet economic problems. He strongly implied that the economic reorganization would be along the lines of the Liberman proposals.² He said that Mr. Khrushchev had tried to solve all economic problems through organizational changes, but what was needed was to deal with substantive matters. He did indicate, however, he thought the bifurcation of the Party had been a great mistake and would be changed to the extent that it had been implemented. He said that the fact was that it was unworkable and the reform had by no means been fully carried out. He thought that the Government would try to do away with the duplication and overlapping that existed between Party and State organizations.

In discussing our own economy, I suggested that most Soviets did not understand the role of the regulatory agencies in our economy and that they would be well advised to make a study of this.

We discussed trade matters at some length and I explained that our trade relations with the Soviet Union were being seriously examined. He inquired whether, in the event that economic obstacles were removed, political questions would prevent the development of trade. I replied that obviously if the Soviet Union embarked on an aggressive policy along the lines advocated by Communist China, there would be little prospect of developing active trading relations. In this connection, I referred to the role of Congress and existing legislation. I said, however, that I thought we recognized that there would always be political matters on which we did not agree and that trade could be developed despite these differences if the overall attitude of both countries was one of attempting to resolve problems and not create new ones.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 2–3 USSR. Confidential. Drafted and initialed by Thompson and approved in S/AL on November 6. Dr. Sergo A. Mikoyan, the son of Anastas I. Mikoyan, was in the United States for a month-long stay under the auspices of the Social Science Research Council.
2. For text of Soviet economist Y.G. Liberman’s article on the role of profit earning capacity and profits in general in the Soviet economy, see Pravda, September 9, 1964.