|
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.
|
|