Dr. Bernard Lown

Dr. Bernard Lown, 65, a Harvard University cardiologist, invented the lifesaving heart defibrillator and introduced use of the heart drug lidocaine. With Soviet physician Yevgeny I. Chazov, he founded International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

Q: What inspired you and Dr. Chazov to found an international movement of doctors favoring disarmament? A: We are told enormous distortions and lies concerning the arms race and the Russians, and the next morning we wake to face another dose of them. In any other area, the public would reject it. But on this issue the American public is impervious to what has happened before. You scratch any American, professor or garbage-truck driver, and they’ll give you the same exact answer on the issue of the arms race: “You can’t trust the Russians.” This attitude has become a state religion in the United States. As long as this mentality prevails, we cannot move toward disarmament.

By 1978 we had to face this truth: We had more missiles than ever. There was SALT I, the ABM treaty, SALT II--yet we were more threatened than ever. I asked myself, what is it that we must learn from the previous decade? We must begin a dialogue with the Soviets, and bring that dialogue to public comprehension.

I had dealt with Dr. Chazov for about 15 years, so I decided to write him a letter. The letter said: “Look, here’s the problem: You and I have been concerned with the issue of sudden death. Sudden cardiac death is not what’s threatening us, but sudden nuclear death. You and I have got to get together.” I went to Moscow in April of 1980 to pursue further discussion. He thought it was an enormously charged political issue. He said: “We’re going to be attacked; it’s going to be tough; they’re going to try to divide us. You’re a scientist; you’re a doctor; you’ve reached world fame. Why do you need such an attack?” I said, “I don’t need it, but our children and grandchildren need it.” He came back the next day and said, “OK, let’s work together on it.” Q: What has your group accomplished? A: We have set ourselves the goal to change the policies of both governments. We have succeeded in regard to the Soviet Union. We have brought an enormous amount of information to the Soviet Union on the nuclear issue. Before our public dialogue commenced, no Russian dared say the Soviet Union was now vulnerable to nuclear incineration. Along came Chazov, and what did he do? He stated that nuclear war would destroy the Soviet Union, that there was no defense. There was no cure. So what do you opt for? Prevention. Q: There was no awareness in the Soviet Union of the sort that has fueled the U.S. anti-nuclear movement? A: It did exist subliminally, but not the way it did in the United States. In the Soviet Union, I would say it began in February, 1981, when Chazov went on “Studio 9,” a popular TV program, and for 40 minutes talked about the mutual nuclear threat. That sent shock waves throughout the Soviet Union. The last Saturday in December, 1985, I was on Soviet television. (TV commentator Valentin) Zorin was interviewing me and Chazov. It was a one-hour program; it was watched by 150 million people. This is something that we have been able to do in the Soviet Union over and over, but not in the United States. Not on a national network, for long, intelligent discussions about all the facts. Q: It costs the Soviets little to have you on TV. What about achieving progress on concrete disarmament measures? A: We began in 1982 to urge a comprehensive nuclear test ban, a moratorium. Here we have had negotiations for 25 years, more than 7,000 sessions, and what has happened? We have more arms. Obviously, the process has failed. So we have said we want deeds. We want reciprocating initiatives. What should be the first initiative? That should be a comprehensive test ban. And the Russians at first resisted the idea. But on July 29, 1985, they decreed a unilateral testing moratorium and invited the United States to join--an invitation the United States ignored. Q: The Soviet moratorium was set to expire Dec. 31. Is it true you had a hand in persuading Gorbachev to extend it? A: On Dec. 18, I met with Gorbachev for three hours. At that meeting I argued for an extension. He was a little startled. My argument was that the American people needed more time to compel the U.S. government to join the ban. Gorbachev said, “If it hadn’t happened in the first six months, why would it happen later?”

And I answered, “Because you people, the Soviets, are inept.” He said, “What do you mean?”

“You know nothing about propaganda,” I said. “Propaganda is American. We call it public relations.”

So he laughed. He said: “This is the first time anybody accused us of being poor propagandists. But you’re right.”

I said: “Do everything you can to publicize the ban. Hammer away at the message. You haven’t done it.” Q: The Reagan Administration continued testing , and the Soviets have extended the moratorium until Aug. 6. How do you assess the U.S. response? A: It cannot have but the most profound adverse implications. It means that the arms race will become mean. It means that U.S. social life will become mean and more repressive. And more homogenized. Less questioning. So it is a very frightening period, and the American people are completely impervious.

Q: Has your defense of the Soviet test ban prompted accusations that you are a Soviet dupe? A: Absolutely. As a medical scientist, it is very difficult for me, who is always praised for his work, to suddenly be criticized for his work. I’m not a politician who takes a lot of criticism. I’m used to being praised by my colleagues, by my students. The work I have done in cardiology is very good. Millions of lives are being saved because of the work I have done. So this is all a new role. Q: What is it about our political culture that makes it so difficult to argue for rapprochement with the Soviets? A: The ignorance of the American people about the Soviet Union is appalling. Many people are not aware that we and the Soviets fought as allies during World War II. Nearly every Russian knows who Reagan is. Nearly every Russian knows (Defense Secretary Caspar W.) Weinberger and (Secretary of State George P.) Shultz. How many Americans know who the foreign secretary of the Soviet Union is? We know nothing of their culture, nothing of their life style. Not only that: When you go to the Soviet Union, you find the friendship of the Soviet people toward Americans is extraordinary. Q: Do you believe the Reagan Administration has helped reinforce Cold War stereotypes? A: Oh, surely. That’s what Gorbachev was asking me--how does one reconcile the “Spirit of Geneva” with “Rambo,” with “Rocky IV” and with ABC’s planned miniseries “Amerika”? He said, “We are not just treated as bad guys, but as evil and diabolical people who come off sounding like Nazis.” Q: But many Americans believe the Soviets are like Nazis. We needn’t review all of Soviet history to come up with a long list of human rights abuses. A: Sure. But my response comes at several levels. My basic one is: Look, the Russians have a society that is different from ours. That does not justify our destroying both of our societies. If you want me to change Soviet society as a precondition for us having nuclear disarmament, then we should just go blow ourselves up now and forget about it. So the first answer to you is that we cannot change their society, they cannot change ours. Nuclear weapons are the common enemy of us all. The question is not communism or capitalism, but these genocidal weapons. Q: Do you agree with British historian E. P. Thompson, who argues that a lessening of the arms race will lead to more freedom in the Soviet Union? A: Yes. But I also think that, with a reduction in the arms race, America will become a freer society. How can we be free when we divert $300 billion to arms but throw sick people out of our hospitals? Is that freedom? Freedom to be sick? My opinion is that the repressive aspect that exists in the Soviet Union will become reduced if the arms race is reduced. It is very painful, but if you feel in danger, you naturally take repressive measures. Look at the history of the United States. What did we do in World War II to the Japanese-Americans? We put them in concentration camps--this to patriotic citizens. When danger lurks, civil liberties go out the window. I think that with Gorbachev, with a whole new generation of highly educated people, there is a new opportunity. This new generation wants to catch up with the late 20th Century, provide more abundance for its people, get rid of alcoholism and a good deal of the suffocating bureaucracy. They are looking inward, not outward, not toward expansionism. And we are not permitting this. Q: What is your reaction to the Soviets ‘ handling of the Chernobyl disaster, and does their handling of it serve as a warning that the United States could not trust them to comply with an arms control pact? A: I believe, as does most of the world, that the Soviets were slow in releasing all the information necessary. But there were several reasons. Among them was that the Soviets apparently did not at first comprehend the seriousness of the problem. In no way does that mean that I justify their response. I condemn bureaucracy and secrecy wherever it exists. If anything, Chernobyl should encourage the need for even speedier negotiations. People will now say again that you can’t trust the Russians. But we don’t have to rely on trust when the Russians’ own self-interest is so much at stake. Does anyone really believe the Russians are any less interested than we are in guaranteeing their survival? Those who just do not want to reduce our nuclear arsenals will always find an excuse. Chernobyl will only be their latest.