We're
approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible
political invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily
today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because
democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression.
Yet optimism is in order because day by day democracy is proving
itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic
to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism
have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But
none -- not one regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections.
Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates the
truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is that
the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an
opposition party were permitted because everyone would join the
opposition party....
Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent
restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that
it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their
nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or
imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the
Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world--would look
very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the
democracies that invaded Afghanistan or suppressed Polish Solidarity
or used chemical and toxin warfare in Afghanistan and Southeast
Asia.
If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of
unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our
terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, antinuclear
demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own
protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see
totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict
around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human
spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a
hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening
accommodation with totalitarian evil?
Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or
even that it was imminent. He said, "I do not believe that Soviet
Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the
indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have
to consider here today while time remains is the permanent
prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and
democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."
Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as
well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now
at a turning point.
In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a
great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the
economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political
order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West
but in the home of Marxism- Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the
Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human
freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep
economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has
been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of
what it was then.
The dimensions of this failure are astounding: a country which
employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed
its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private
sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the
brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the
arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output
and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables.
Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the
Soviet system pours its best resources into the making of
instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic
growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a
heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political
structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society
where productive forced are hampered by political ones.
The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us.
Wherever the comparisons have been made between free and closed
societies -- West Germany and East Germany, Austria and
Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam -- it is the democratic
countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their
people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our time is
this: of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern
world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist
world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces face east to
prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line, the
Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.
The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an
uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the
new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of
the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying
thread running through the intellectual work of these groups --
rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to
subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the
realization that collectivism stifles all the best human
impulses....
Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of
ideas and systems must continue and that this is entirely consistent
with relaxation of tensions and peace.
Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own
constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the
international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a
process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant
transformation.
We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there
has been and will continue to be repeated explosion against
repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not immune
to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that has no
peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very
repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it,
if necessary, by force.
While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must
not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete
actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction
that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the
inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among
other things, guarantees free elections.
The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the
infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions,
political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own
differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for
genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy
already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and
historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or
worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who
would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to
purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent
newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for
land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want
government repression of religious liberty, a single political party
instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of
democratic tolerance and diversity.
Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training and
assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of course, it
also has promoted the use of violence and subversion by these same
forces. Over the past several decades, West European and other
social democrats, Christian democrats, and leaders have offered open
assistance to fraternal, political, and social institutions to bring
about peaceful and democratic progress. Appropriately, for a
vigorous new democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany's political
foundations have become a major force in this effort.
We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of our
allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal. The
chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and Democratic
party organizations are initiating a study with the bipartisan
American Political Foundation to determine how the United States can
best contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy now
gathering force. They will have the cooperation of congressional
leaders of both parties, along with representatives of business,
labor, and other major institutions in our society. I look forward
to receiving their recommendations and to working with these
institutions and the Congress in the common task of strengthening
democracy throughout the world.
It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation -- in both the
public and private sectors -- to assisting democratic
development....
What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term --
the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism
on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which
stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And
that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as
we move forward with our zero-option initiative in the negotiations
on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third
reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.
Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be
clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used,
for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in
the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and
ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs
we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.
The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a
little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph
over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the
Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British
contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual
liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.
I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West
about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the
plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This
reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of
the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As the rescuers
moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she'd stored behind the
staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was
barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a
taste of it. She came around immediately and said, "Here now --
there now, put it back. That's for emergencies."
Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go
to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new
age is not only possible but probable.
During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was
incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about
Britain's adversaries, "What kind of people do they think we are?"
Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the
British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for
allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that
mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we
think we are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom
and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their
freedom as well."
Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an
election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed. But
he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily, knowing
that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of
any single leader. History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator
will ever know. And he left us a message of hope for the future, as
timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the
Commons nearly twenty-seven years ago, when he said, "When we look
back on all the perils through which we have passed and at the
mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and deadly
designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future?
We have," he said, "come safely through the worst."
Well, the task I've set forth will long outlive our own generation.
But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now begin a
major effort to secure the best -- a crusade for freedom that will
engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake
of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people
are at last free to determine their own destiny. |