The Operational Code of Nikita Khrushchev Before and After the Cuban Missile Crisis

This study examines whether or not the Cuban missile crisis affected the belief system of Nikita Khrushchev to determine if he learned as a result of the event. Many scholars have suggested the two superpower’s relationship improved as a result of the crisis. These suggestions warranted a study of how the crisis affected Nikita Khrushchev to determine if his beliefs became more cooperative following the crisis. In this study, learning is defined as a statistically significant change in operational code beliefs. Changes in philosophical beliefs indicate diagnostic learning and changes in instrumental beliefs indicate simple learning. Khrushchev’s public speeches from before and after the crisis were analyzed and the Verbs in Context System (VICS) was used to create numerical data in order to determine if Khrushchev’s operational code changed as a result of the crisis. A difference in means test was performed from the VICS numerical data to determine if the mean scores of each belief were different at a statistically significant level. The results indicate that the majority of Khrushchev’s beliefs before and after the crisis were not significantly different. The stability of Khrushchev’s beliefs following the crisis can be attributed to retrospective rationality, his personality rigidities, and the doctrinal nature of the Marxist/Bolshevik belief system. The Operational Code: 3 The Cuban missile crisis is one of the most widely studied events of the 20 century and forty years later, it still interests scholars worldwide. This event has been used to evaluate crisis management, policy process, crisis decision-making, bargaining theory, and the use of nuclear weapons in foreign policy. In this research one of the main questions is what lessons the leaders and policy makers learned from the event. A number of studies, (Blight & Welch, 1989, Hopmann & King, 1980) have suggested that the crisis facilitated détente and sparked the beginning of arms agreements between the two superpowers, specifically with the signing of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ten months after the crisis. The development of a more cooperative relationship between the United States and Soviet Union following the crisis prompts speculation on how the crisis affected the beliefs of one of the main participants in the event, Nikita Khrushchev. In order to determine if Nikita Khrushchev’s beliefs changed and if he learned as a result of the crisis, his operational code will be examined to determine if changes in his instrumental and philosophical beliefs occurred. The Operational Code A key to understanding political leaders’ beliefs is their operational code. The operational code construct can be defined as “a political leader’s beliefs about the nature of politics and political conflict, his views regarding the extent to which historical developments can be shaped, and his notions of correct strategies and tactics” (George, 1969, p.197). Operational code has been used as a tool to evaluate leaders’ views of international politics. Nathan Leites (1951) conducted the first operational code analysis to determine how the Bolsheviks approached international conflict by analyzing their belief systems. Hired by the Rand Corporation, Leites (1951) sought to explain Soviet bargaining behavior, which perplexed Western policy makers. Operational code as The Operational Code: 4 defined by Leites is a set of beliefs that influence a leader’s perception of political events, which in turn influence the tactics and strategies they implement. Leites (1951, 1953) determined that consistent patterns of behavior in foreign policy could be found by examining ideology, socialization, and leadership pressures of policymakers and he focused on the cognitive, psychoanalytic, and psychocultural aspects of Soviet behavior. Many scholars found Leites’s method complicated; especially the psychoanalytical aspect, the construct therefore was rarely implemented in further research (Young & Schafer, 1998). Alexander George (1969) reformulated the operational code by excluding the psychoanalytical aspects and concentrating on cognition in order to decrease its complexity and increase its investigative potential as a tool for decision-making analysis (Young & Schafer, 1998). George derived a set of ten beliefs in the form of questions Table 1. Alexander George’s (1969) Ten Questions About Operational Code Beliefs Philosophical Beliefs 1. What is the “essential” nature of political life? Is the political universe essentially one of harmony or conflict? What is the fundamental character of one’s political opponents? 2. What are the prospects for the eventual realization of one’s fundamental political values and aspirations? Can one be optimistic, or must one be pessimistic on this score; and in what respects the one and/or the other? 3. Is the political future predictable? In what sense and to what extent? 4. How much “control” or “mastery” can one have over historical development? What is one’s role in “moving” and “shaping” history in the desired direction? 5. What is the role of “chance” in human affairs and in historical development? Instrumental Beliefs 1. What is the best approach for selecting goals or objectives for political action? 2. How are the goals of action pursued most effectively? 3. How are the risks of political action calculated, controlled, and accepted? 4. What is the best “timing” of action to advance one’s interest? 5. What is the utility and role of different means for advancing one’s interests? George (1969, 201-217) The Operational Code: 5 from Leites’s research and the answers to these questions comprise the operational code. The ten questions are further disaggregated into five questions that consist of philosophical beliefs and five questions that pertain to instrumental beliefs. According to George (1969), philosophical beliefs are defined as a leader’s view of international politics, such as the fundamental nature of politics as well as a leader’s perception of other political actors. Instrumental beliefs refer to political action regarding how a leader plans to achieve his political goals (George, 1969). These ten questions have become the basis for all operational code analysis (Young and Schafer, 1998). George (1979) further clarified operational code by expanding the philosophical and instrumental beliefs. George (1979) labeled the philosophical beliefs as “diagnostic” which guide the leader’s view of the political environment and help the leader diagnose the situation and instrumental beliefs as “choice” which guide the leader’s choices regarding the tactics and strategies he employs to achieve goals. Walker et al. (1998) made a theoretical change to the operational code construct when they studied Jimmy Carter’s operational code and determined that operational code beliefs do not necessarily remain stable over time or over issue area. Following the invasion of Afghanistan, Carter’s operational code reflected conflictual beliefs toward the Soviet Union; however, his beliefs toward human rights remained cooperative. Walker et al. (1998) found that Carter’s view of others (represented by his philosophical beliefs) underwent a greater change then his view of self (represented by his instrumental beliefs). In turn, Walker et al. (1998, p. 2) defined a leader’s operational code “as a set of alternative states of mind,” which permits the operational code construct more flexibility in its research applications. As a result, Walker et al. (1998) concluded that operational The Operational Code: 6 code could be utilized to determine if a leader learned because of a particular event or experience. Researchers, however, are limited in the number of options available to measure the belief systems of leaders. Unlike typical psychological analysis, it is difficult to study a political leader directly. Due to this, political science scholars have created new techniques to analyze the psychological characteristics of leaders “at a distance”. Most operational code analysis requires discerning political leaders’ beliefs through public and private statements, interviews, and memoirs. The use of the operational code as an analytical construct has primarily consisted of qualitative research with scholars combing through leaders’ statements in order to answer George’s ten operational code questions. Scholars such as Leites (1951, 1964), George (1979), and Hoagland (1978) have all studied the operational code of Khrushchev; however all of the studies have been conducted from a qualitative approach. Although qualitative studies are rich in detail they tend to be subjective, non-reproducible, have reliability concerns, and as a result, have produced a limited number of these types of studies (Young and Schafer, 1998). The Verbs in Context System A new quantitative at a distance approach to measure the operational code of leaders has been developed by Walker, Schafer, & Young (1998) referred to as the Verbs In Context System (VICS). The Verbs In Context System is a coding procedure that produces quantitative answers to Alexander George’s ten operational code questions by creating indices to evaluate a leader’s philosophical and instrumental beliefs. VICS examines representations of power by examining verbs in a leader’s rhetoric indicating that power refers to the different types of control relationships between self and others in the political universe (Walker et al., 1998). Walker et al. (1998) concentrate on verbs The Operational Code: 7 because they indicate action or the state of being of a subject. Transitive verbs are chosen because they convey actions that have an object; in other words, the action of the verb is transferred to the object directly. The steps involved in identifying and coding verb constructions require the researcher to first identify the subject as self or other, identify the tense of the transitive verb as past, present, or future and identif