“What was stifled by Noriega, you have helped bring back to life. Democracy exists in Panama today because Panamanians voted for it, and each one of you has stood by them." Let me share it with you now. It's on White House stationery, and here is what it says: "As you struggle with the challenges of bringing peace, freedom and democracy back to Panama, I thank you for your selfless and outstanding performance. I know the fears and uncertainties of battle. Perhaps at no other time of the year is it more difficult to be away from home, family and friends than during this holiday season of hope and peace. Your cause is just. You bring the gift of freedom and the promise of peace and democracy to an oppressed people. Because of you, Panamanians are now free of the terrible tyranny of one man's evil rule. “Americans far from harm's way are inspired by your accomplishments. Some of your fellow service members have given their lives. We pray for those who have made the supreme sacrifice and for their loved ones who must shoulder the burden of a terrible loss. "You are very special in America's heart. You are in our thoughts and prayers. The holiday season magnifies your sacrifice and your contribution to peace and freedom in ways words can never adequately express. Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for a friend. Such is your gift and pledge to one another. Such is the honor you bring to your noble and dangerous profession. "As you continue to fight for freedom in Panama, remember that America is behind you heart and soul. You are our future and our pride. God bless you all." And it's signed, "George Bush." Every day that I'm in office as secretary of defense, my admiration increases for the men and women who have chosen to serve this nation. This thought is brought home to me each time I walk out of my door into the halls of the Pentagon. In the stairwell facing my office is a saying from the prophet Isaiah. It is a fitting reminder of what you mean to America. Isaiah said, “I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall i send, and who will go for us?" And Isaiah said, “Here am I. Send me." In the face of an unknown peril and in a dangerous world, each of you has answered, "Send me." I am proud to be with you all today. Published for internal information use by the American Forces Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. This material is in the public domain and may be reprinted without permission. UNIVERSI OF VIRGINIA tled by the dictate of the superpowers or to deny that the people with the greatest stake in the settlement of regional conflicts are the participants themselves. Indeed, it is our belief that solutions to regional conflicts will only be viable when they reflect the will and desires of the people who must live with those solutions. But the existence of nuclear weapons makes it important for the whole world, and particularly for the United States and the Soviet Union, to work to prevent those small conflicts that can contain the seeds of larger ones. It is a distinct honor to address this conference. There's a continuing need for dialogue between our two countries and our two peoples, and there is no more important topic than that of the superpowers and their role in regional conflicts. Today, regional conflicts remain one of the most important issues on the superpower agenda. Working toward solutions to regional problems of all types—political, economic, environmental and military—will be critical to stability and the reduction of tension worldwide. This subject occupies as important a place on the East-West agenda as nuclear arms control. Indeed, the two subjects are intimately connected. Finding solutions to regional conflicts is an essential part of the all-important task of preventing nuclear war. The disturbing frequency with which small wars have become big wars in the past gives caution to us all. As President (George) Bush has said: "The threats to peace that This is not to suggest that regional conflicts should be set After Detente Moreover, the record shows that regional conflicts played a great part in the development of the Cold War and, more recently, in the demise of detente and the downturn in our relationship in the mid-'70s. As President (Jimmy) Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has frequently said, SALT II was buried in the sands of the Ogaden (region of southeastern Ethiopia disputed with Somalia in fighting in the 1970s—Soviets first backed Somalian guerrillas, then the Ethiopian government). Whether it happened there or in the mountains of Afghanistan, in either case the basic point is the same: Even more than the massive buildup of Soviet military power under (Leonid) Brezhnev, it was the use of that military power directly in Afghanistan and indirectly in support of military interventions by Soviet allies in Angola, Ethiopia, Cambodia, El Salvador and elsewhere that spelled the end of detente. To put U.S.-Soviet relations on a more stable long-term basis, we need to find solutions to those problems and prevent new ones from developing. We have seen dramatic progress in arms control and in human rights in the Soviet Union. We are hopeful, as are the Soviet people, that perestroika and glasnost will succeed in the longterm. In the area of Soviet policy toward regional conflicts, there have also been some dramatic positive developments. However, I would be less than frank if I said that we were satisfied with what we see today. It is true that the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, as well as Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and Cubans from Angola, offers real promise of a more cooperative approach to these problems. Moreover, we have seen much evidence of progressive new thinking on the issue of regional conflicts. Key Soviet officials are repudiating past "adventures" like the invasion of Afghanistan and raising serious questions about Soviet interests in the Third World and the utility of military power there. Other Soviet authors have contrasted their own social prog. ress with the repressive policies being followed by some of their friends who proclaim a "socialist orientation." All of this, I hope, will bear fruit in the future. However, amid all the "new thinking" in the Soviet Union, there's a lot of "old policy" on 1 “We have seen dramatic progress in arms control and in human rights in the Soviet Union. ... In the area of Soviet policy toward regional conflicts, there have also been some dramatic positive developments. However, I would be less than frank if I said that we were satisfied with what we see today." regional conflicts. Some of the same areas that were problems in the '70s, Afghanistan in particular, remain significant sore points today. The Soviet Union and its allies continue to supply large amounts of sophisticated military equipment to countries like North Korea, Nicaragua and Libya, which threaten their neighbors and support international terrorism. continuing provision of modern weaponry by the Soviet Union only increases the military capabilities of this irresponsible regime. Recent Soviet arms deliveries have included advanced fighter aircraft and advanced surface-to-air missiles and radars. The range of these aircraft and missiles extends well south of Seoul and threatens both civilian airliners and U.S. reconnaissance flights that monitor North Korean compliance with the armistice agreement that halted the fighting on the Korean peninsula 36 years ago. Soviet deliveries of less sophisticated military equipment such as artillery, trucks and armored personnel carriers over the last two decades have helped maintain North Korea's significant military advantage over the south and contributed to the continued tension in Korea. There are disturbing signs that North Korea may be in the process of developing a nuclear weapons capability, raising even more questions about the purpose of Soviet military support to this irresponsible government. This pattern of behavior raises some fundamental questions about the extent to which “new thinking' truly guides the Soviet approach to regional conflicts. Does the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and other countries reflect a recognition that the peoples of these countries are entitled to governments of their own choosing? Or does it simply reflect a decision to pursue the same ends by different, less costly and less controversial means? dollars per year, even though the U.S. has long since ceased its much smaller military aid to the resistance forces. In all, since 1980, Soviet bloc military aid to Nicaragua has totaled more than $3 billion, permitting that country to become the most thoroughly militarized country in Central America. Indeed, while the military capability of the resistance is receding, Nicaragua maintains a military force much larger than the armies of all of the Central American democracies combined. Nicaragua continues its support for insurgents in Honduras and El Salvador despite (Nicaraguan President Daniel) Ortega's promise to stop shipping arms to the FMLN. For example, on Oct. 18, Honduran authorities captured a truckload of assault rifles, grenades and explosives from Nicaragua that were destined for the Salvadoran guerrillas. President Ortega yesterday announced that he was suspending the cease-fire, despite restraint by the United States and by Nicaragua's neighbors. In sum, the backing that Soviet bloc military assistance provides for Nicaraguan policy remains a serious impediment to peace in the Western Hemisphere and the resolution of conflicts there. Soviet Aid to Allies In Afghanistan, Soviet military aid is pouring in to the Najibullah regime at the rate of more than $250 million per month, dwarfing all the assistance received by the mujahedeen from all sources. New weapon systems, like the powerful Scud missile, have been transferred to that regime in the largest airlift of arms and materiel in Soviet history. The whole world, including the United States, applauds (Soviet) Foreign Minister (Edvard) Shevardnadze's condemnation of the war and of the secrecy of the decision-making process that brought it about. Yet, at the same time, the details of this massive ongoing Soviet military assistance to Afghanistan remain unpublicized in the USSR. While the foreign minister criticizes the invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet military aid furthers the same objective of imposing an unwanted regime on the people of that country. In Nicaragua, while we have been assured that direct Soviet military aid has stopped, East bloc and Cuban military aid continues at a rate of a half billion Low Key, High Danger North Korea provides a less publicized, but perhaps even more dangerous, story. North Korea has repeatedly demonstrated flagrant disregard for commonly accepted norms of international behavior, and the Change of Heart or Strategy? Unfortunately, today the weight of evidence still appears to support the latter conclusion, which is all the more ironic at a time when the Soviet Union is facing up to the need to bring greater openness and democracy into the political process at home, with a boldness that has captured the world's imagination. It is our belief that the solution of many regional problems “The solution of many regional problems would benefit from a greater infusion of glasnost, if it is fair to interpret that term as implying outcomes that are based ... on the desires of the peoples involved, expressed through open political processes. This is true for several reasons. First, because it is right." would benefit from a greater infusion of glasnost, if it is fair to interpret that term as implying outcomes that are based, as far , peoples involved, expressed freely through open political processes. This is true for several reasons. First, because it is right. People should have a right to determine their own destinies, not to have them imposed by one superpower or another or even by both acting in concert. Having been involved in formulating U.S. policy toward the Philippines during the last years of the (Ferdinand) Marcos regime, I can say from my own personal experience that the commitment of the United States to democratic solutions runs very deep. We have supported such outcomes, even at some risk, not only in the Philippines but elsewhere in Asia, in Latin America and throughout the world. A second reason we favor democratic outcomes is that we believe that governments that enjoy true popular support are less likely in the long run to provide opportunities for outside military intervention and that governments that are genuinely open to popular criticism are less likely to engage in military aggression. It is no accident, I believe, that two of the Soviet allies whose foreign behavior cause us the most concern today, North Korea and Cuba, have perhaps the most unreconstructed Stalinist regimes in the world today and most decisively reject the ideas of glasnost and perestroika. We hope, and indeed we believe, that this apparent contradiction between the new principles that the Soviet Union is applying at home and some of the regimes that it is supporting abroad can best be resolved through more open debate about foreign policy. For example, it will be a very positive development if public scrutiny in the USSR of Soviet arms transfers and military assistance increases. As Foreign Minister Shevardnadze has noted: “'The shortage of democratic culture, vestiges of an elitist awareness, have given rise to a certain 'silent zone' around our nation's diplomatic center. The caste-like exclusiveness of some of its workers, false defensiveness and excessive secrecy, the complete absence of information about its inner life and the artificially implanted assumption of infallibility have contributed greatly during the years of stagnation to the alienating of people from foreign policy and foreign policy from the people." Still Waiting In all, we're still awaiting a new Soviet policy toward regional conflicts that fully complements its new thinking-a new policy that shows the same flexibility and good sense as recent Soviet arms control efforts, a new policy that is prepared to apply abroad some of the very principles with which the Soviet government has been pioneering at home. We must act quickly and comprehensively. As Secretary (of State James) Baker reminded us in his recent speech to the Foreign Policy Association: "With the spread of missiles more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship, the superpowers must put the same emphasis and expend the same energy on solving regional conflicts as they have toward arms control. Where do we go from here? The first step in dealing with regional conflicts is for both the United States and the Soviet Union to recognize each other's common interest in the solution of these conflicts by peaceful means, as well as the basic principles on which we believe regional conflicts should be solved. For our part, as an island nation whose markets and resources are often found overseas, we believe that we have important and growing interests abroad. These interests include alliances with more than 40 nations and strong bonds with many others. Regional conflicts threaten these friends and allies and hold an unhealthy possibility for escalation. The United States believes that regional conflicts should be resolved on the basis of selfdetermination, independence and democracy. We believe that by promoting freedom and selfdetermination, we build what is ultimately the most secure foundation for peace as well. Ultimately, peace and freedom are inseparable. We do not favor any sort of spheres-of-influence schemes that some armchair strategists espouse. Dividing the world into spheres of influence won't end superpower competition; the dividing line itself would become the crucial point of contention. "Swapping' influence in one country for advantage in another is as illegitimate as it is impractical and impossible. We think the Soviet Union would agree with us on that point. “The United States believes that regional conflicts should be resolved on the basis of self-determination, independence and democracy. ... By promoting freedom and self-determination, we build what is ultimately the most secure foundation for peace. Ultimately, peace and freedom are inseparable." Second, all industrialized nations should join together in taking precautions not to export materials or technologies that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or missiledelivered weapons. The proliferation of these weapons and technologies has already progressed to a dangerous level. By the year 2000, it is anticipated that over a dozen Third World countries may be able to deploy nuclear weapons. Many more nations will have chemical weapons, like those used in the Iran-Iraq war, and a dozen developing nations will have a ballistic missile delivery capability. Together, the United States and the Soviet Union must work toward correcting or reducing the scope of this challenge to peace. Resolving Differences Finally, and in my view most important, we have to realize that the superpowers are not the primary cause of regional conflicts. Such conflicts arise out of ethnic strife, historic animosities, poverty, famine and uneven levels of political and economic development. Thus, the fundamental solutions to regional conflicts won't be found in armaments or even in arms control. To dampen regional conflicts, we must ultimately deal with their causes, most importantly through efforts to promote economic and political development. There is a broad range of actions that we can and do take to achieve those purposes. One is through bilateral and multilateral economic assistance to developing countries. We and our allies provide massive amounts of such assistance, and we would welcome the Soviet Union joining that effort. Even more important are the markets that we provide for the new products of developing countries, and we would hope, as Soviet economic restructuring succeeds, to see the Soviet Union play a greater role as well. But the most important things we have to contribute, I believe, are two basic ideas. One is that the route to economic development lies not through government control of economic activity but through freeing the creative energies of individuals. The second idea is that democracy and openness are not obstacles to economic development as was once commonly argued, but to the contrary, are often necessary for it. Those countries that in the past gave up fundamental freedoms in the belief that they would develop faster most often ended up with neither freedom nor prosperity. When the government controls the economy and the government is not open to criticism, the economy does not work. These two ideas are old and familiar ones to the Western democracies, and they seem to be borne out by the experience of the newly developing countries. If I understand the terms correctly, the words perestroika and glasnost incorporate a Soviet recognition of these two fundamental truths. When, in the past, we have suggested to developing countries that we believe they can find useful lessons in our experience, we were often accused of ethnocentrism and parochialism. If today, in fact, the United States and the Soviet Union can agree in broad terms about what works, that is bound to have a positive effect on the rest of the world. I believe there is a connection, for example, between the declining support for violent revolution in the Philippines and the awareness in that country of the abandonment of classical Marxism in the Soviet Union. Ladies and gentlemen, the future is fraught with difficult problems requiring increased U.S.-Soviet cooperation on issues from arms control to air pollution. To solve them, we must not let the current improvement in our relations be again buried in the quicksand of regional conflicts. We must instead pursue dialogue, the kind of dialogue that this conference is working to promote, the kind of dialogue to which (Soviet) President (Mikhail) Gorbachev referred when he said: “Dialogue between people Published for internal information use by the American Forces Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. This material is in the public domain and may be reprinted without permission. |