President Reagan: Speech to the House of Commons, June 8, 1982.
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.
Source
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World
history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall May 1998
