It is not at all clear why President Mitterrand should have undertaken the trip to Moscow at this stage. It is, of course, true that the Soviets had been pressing the invitation on him ever since he came to office three years ago. But that only raises the question as to why the Soviets have been so keen to arrange a summit with him. After all, they know that his stand on issues of vital concern to them such as the deployment of Cruise and Pershing-II missiles in Western Europe, Afghanistan and human rights does not suit them and that no French president in the last 25 years has endorsed the US position on nuclear weapons as forcefully as he has. The invitation to him and his acceptance of it might have made some sense if the Kremlin was interested in a summit between President Reagan and Mr Chernenko. For it is just possible that Mr Mitterrand could have paved the way for such a meeting. But they have not been interested in such a summit for understandable reasons. For one thing, President Reagan faces an election in a few months and is thus hardly in a position to negotiate a long-term agreement. For another, he is not even interested in opening talks on the issue of freezing the development of anti-ballistic and anti-satellite missiles which is of critical importance to the Soviets. On their own side, Mr Chernenko has yet to consolidate his position and acquire sufficient knowledge of intricate defence and foreign policy problems. And there have been reports that he is not in good physical health. As the Soviet spokesman put it candidly, the Soviets “want to see France talk and act independently in Europe and the world” but they can have no illusion that President Mitterrand’s definition of independence coincides with theirs.
As was only to be expected, President Mitterrand did not mince his words. At a dinner in his honour, he spoke out frankly on the Soviet policy on deployment of nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Poland and human rights. Indeed, he went so far as to say that the West was concerned over Mr Sakharov’s health. This is something which western leaders generally avoid during their visits to the Soviet Union; they do not name names. This embarrassed his Soviet hosts so much so that in its report Pravda cut out the inconvenient references in Mr Mitterrand’s address. The two facts – the references in Mr Mitterrand’s speech and their omission from Pravda report – speak for themselves. The visit has not been productive of results at least in the political field. Perhaps as a result of it the Soviets will step up their purchases in France in order to reduce the trade deficit that Paris has been running. But that could not have been the inspiration behind the trip.