Reflections on East-West relations - transcript

I appreciate the opportunity to address this distinguished audience on the topic of East-West relations. The city of Berlin provides an especially appropriate setting for discussing this vital subject. No city expresses more poignantly the tragic division of Europe. No city points more clearly to the need for finding reasonable and effective ways to overcome this division.

Berliners know at firsthand the problems that a divided Europe has created and the difficulties of resolving them. With the Berlin Wall as a constant reminder, you have no illusions about finding easy solutions. You know only too well that a united will, fortitude, and patience are essential for a better future.

Berliners also know that there is reason for hope. The conclusion of the Quadripartite Agreement 13 years ago demonstrated that reasonable solutions can be found to some of the practical problems confronting the people of Berlin--despite seemingly insurmountable East-West differences. That agreement has been strikingly successful. Because of it, West Berliners today live more securely, travel more freely, and enjoy closer contacts with their friends and relatives in East Berlin and in the German Democratic Republic than was possible 13 years ago.

Berliners, thus, have reason for optimism. You know that some improvement in the lives of individuals and families has been achieved here. You realize that further improvements are both needed and possible. And you can remain confident that additional progress, when and as it emerges, will foster the trust needed to attain the wider peace--in an environment of justice and freedom--that we all seek.

As Berliners, all of you know that the development of better relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic also involves human relations at its very core. As in the case of your divided city, there is a need to find practical solutions to the painful problems resulting from a divided German nation. This is bound to be a protracted process that will have its frustrations as well as successes. A fundamental task for all of us is to keep in mind the humanitarian goal of this process and not allow it to be subordinated to other objectives.

The people and the Government of the United States welcome the development of closer ties between East and West Germany. President Reagan specifically endorsed this objective in his September address to the UN General Assembly. Constructive dialogue between the two German states is obviously of great importance to the well-being of the German people, and we in the United States are ready to do whatever we can to encourage it. Americans share the hope of the German people that a process of peaceful evolution will ultimately lead to a reunified and democratic Germany in a Europe that has been freed of its barbed wire and imprisoning walls.

The Need for a Constructive

U.S.-Soviet Relationship

As everyone by now recognizes, the relationship between my own country and the Soviet Union is a matter of vital importance to the future of Germany--indeed, the future of the entire world. It is now nearly 40 years since the conclusion of World War II. During this period, Europe has enjoyed the blessing of peace--a condition that the political and military unity of the West has made possible. It is a disconcerting fact, nevertheless, that we in the West and the Warsaw Pact in the East find ourselves burdened with permament garrisons and growing stockpiles of armaments. Not only is the cost of this commitment of men and materiel high in economic terms but so, also, is the spiritual and psychological cost of persistent tension.

The logic of the situation clearly requires that we work with the Soviet Union to establish a more harmonious relationship. I can assure you that President Reagan and his Administration attach the highest priority to that goal. As we Americans and our European friends ponder the state of the world and lay plans for a better future, every civilized impulse tells us that a constructive relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union must be the focus of our concern.

Last January, the President described at some length America's policy toward the Soviet Union, and he reiterated our basic policy in his recent address to the UN General Assembly. What the President keeps stressing is the urgent need to establish a good working relationship with the Soviet Union--a relationship marked by greater cooperation and understanding. It is this point--America's commitment to a realistic, productive East-West dialogue--that I, too, wish to emphasize this evening. I know that our European allies share this commitment.

Relations between countries are a highly complex and sensitive matter. Governments, unfortunately, do not always behave calmly and rationally. They are run by individuals who, like each of us, share the frailty of human nature. To some degree, incomplete understanding is an inherent part of life itself. We find it among members of the same family, between employers and their workmen, between pastors and their parishioners, between teachers and their students. Opportunities for misunderstanding are all the greater among governments of sovereign countries, being separated--as they usually are--by differences of language, history, and culture as well as by geography. I have found that, even in day-to-day life, it is very difficult to re-establish trust between individuals once it has broken down. I convey no secret in saying to you that Soviet-American relations are currently in a difficult phase--a phase in which the gigantic task of building trust and confidence has become essential and is being undertaken.

Steps for Improving the

East-West Climate

I would like to comment this evening on several steps that all of us in the Western community--both Americans and Europeans--could take to promote such an auspicious development. These steps would, I believe, contribute to improving the East-West climate and allow relations to develop on a sounder basis than has been the case in the recent past.

The first step I would stress is the need on all sides to soften the rhetoric concerning East-West relations. A strident rhetoric cannot contribute to building the bridge of trust that is needed between NATO countries and those of the Warsaw Pact. It is particularly important that the United States, being a thoroughly self-assured nation, extend to the Soviet Union the constructive attitude, the civility, and the consideration that are necessary for a useful dialogue. I, of course, hope that the Soviet Union will behave in a similar fashion.

I also believe that political leaders and journalists throughout the West need to exercise greater self-discipline and avoid rhetoric that tends to exaggerate Western differences with regard to East-West relations or that arouses unrealistic public expectations of what can be quickly achieved or paints a gloomier picture than is warranted by the actual state of affairs. All of us, of course, are concerned with the problem of East-West relations and may wish to voice our views; but we need to do that in ways that avoid exciting public passions or run the risk of feeding opinions that harm the cause we all support. The time has surely come for calm and dispassionate discussion of East-West relations--not only between East and West but also among ourselves.

The second point I would make is that we must look forward rather than to the past. By this I mean that we should not expect East-West relations to revert in the future to the policies and ways that we associate with the detente of the 1970s. History rarely repeats itself that precisely, nor should we expect that. We must learn from the past but not seek to duplicate it. Improved relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, which I believe will come, will be a new historical phase in this relationship and may well assume new forms.

It would be naive to expect that the difficulties of recent years can simply be skipped over and that the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union can be resumed at the point at which it began to deteriorate. One reason for occasional differences between Americans and Europeans is that our peoples have not evaluated the results of detente in exactly the same way. Europeans saw benefits from the process of detente, as did the American people. What Americans also saw, however, and what Europeans may have underestimated while emphasizing the positive results, was the accompanying Soviet pattern of military adventure and neglect of human rights. From an American perspective, our national interests being of global scope, the balance of good and ill resulting from detente was definitely less favorable for us than for Europeans who could see the beneficial results much more directly than the regrettable elements of Soviet behavior.

Europeans need to recognize that Soviet behavior over the past decade--ranging from its enormous arms buildup at a time when American defense outlays were actually declining to its intervention in Afghanistan and Poland--could not leave America unaffected. Those who fail to see this have little understanding of the American people or of the role that the United States must, of necessity, play in today's world. No American administration, whether Republican or Democratic, could have closed its eyes or reacted in a perfunctory manner to such a series of deplorable Soviet actions.

Nonetheless, and this is my third point, we must, at the present time, begin building the foundation for a new stage of East-West relations. Perhaps the best way to do this is to seek immediate progress on limited, specific issues and not become disheartened by the formidable difficulties encountered in seeking large and comprehensive agreements. As in the case of Berlin, we have to look at the entire agenda of outstanding issues and decide which of them--no matter how minor--may be conducive to early agreement. Progress on a range of such specific issues can contribute to building the trust and confidence necessary for more ambitious efforts. To be sure, it is eminently desirable that constructive dialogue proceed simultaneously in all areas of East-West relations; and yet, it may be that significant progress on the crucial arms and security issues can take place only as psychological attitudes improve--especially among the governing authorities of the East. And while we in the West would like to see East-West problems resolved quickly and thoroughly, history warns that sweeping international agreements that lack underpinnings of precise definition and mutual trust can, in the long run, do more harm than good.

My fourth point is that there are today at least two areas in which we can soon take such modest steps--the area of personal exchanges and of cooperation in other nonpolitical matters. My visits to the Soviet Union and my dealings with Soviet citizens have convinced me that maintaining direct communication and learning as much as possible about one another are essential to improving governmental relations. I recall, going back to the 1960s, a diatribe against the United States by a Moscow official to which I made no reply beyond frowning; but when he loudly boasted that the Soviets were more successful than Americans in controlling smoke from electric power stations, I promptly remarked: "Thank you for pointing this out, because we must, indeed, learn from you." That simple human sentiment proved sufficient to pave the way for the thoroughly civilized conversation between us that followed.

I firmly believe that it is to the advantage of both East and West to strengthen student exchange programs; improve cooperation in scientific, cultural, and commercial endeavors; and seek, whenever possible, to bring citizens together. It is, after all, the Soviet side that has built walls across Europe, and it is in our interest to show that we welcome contacts between our peoples.

My fifth point relates primarily to us in the Western community. NATO is clearly a stronger alliance now than it was 2 or 3 years ago. I, nevertheless, believe that we must seek a closer consensus in the West on the subject of East-West relations. It is true, of course, that our differences are often exaggerated. We must honestly recognize, nevertheless, that our viewpoints have differed at times and to some degree still do. Given our democratic traditions and the difficult times in which we lieve, that should not be at all surprising. But as we work at improving the East-West relationship, it is essential that we in the West have a clearer understanding of where we want to go in our relations with the East and what specific policies are most likely to lead us there.

In addition to clarifying how we in the West envision the new era which we may be entering and how we can handle East-West relations most effectively, it is highly important, from an American viewpoint, that we make progress on such troublesome issues as defense burdensharing and ways of dealing with security problems outside Europe. We also need to ponder whether Western preoccupation during the past year or two with reaching an arms control agreement may not have led us to neglect efforts to reach better understanding with the Soviet Union on other political issues. Reduction of nuclear and other lethal weapons is obviously a matter of very great importance, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking that it is a sufficient condition for the maintenance of peace.

Reaching a broader consensus in the West is necessary because the truth of the matter is that none of us can improve the East-West relationship acting alone. We in the United States should not be expected to do it by ourselves. The effort must be a joint one so that we can minimize future misunderstandings within the alliance as well as misperceptions of our unity by the East. And once we arrive at a firm consensus, we will need to be more patient, as well as more consistent, in the pursuit of our jointly reached policies than we have been, at times, in recent years.

My sixth and final point is that we in the Western democracies, unlike the closed socities, must see to it that our people understand that the maintenance of our economic, military, and moral strength is the best guarantee we can have of peace in our times. We must see to it that our people accept the need for firm and unified defense policies as well as for measures directed toward reducing East-West tensions. Just as Berlin could not have survived the past 40 years if it had stood alone, neither could the West have survived if it had been weak or divided. By making it impossible for the Soviet Union to intimidate us, the NATO alliance has provided Europe with the longest period of peace in our century. Western solidarity has been the key to all our past progress in the relationship with the East, and I am confident that it will so remain in the years ahead.

Some well-meaning individuals in my country, as well as here in Western Europe, have put forward simplistic proposals for relieving East-West tensions--among them, unilateral disarmament by the West or an instantaneous freeze on deploying new nuclear weapons. Such proposals are dangerous to the cause of peace and must be decisively refuted by responsible political leaders in North America and Western Europe. I fear that some of our citizens, particularly among young people, overlook the complexities in the East-West relationship. Western policies undoubtedly deserve public scrutiny, but they must not become the subject of hasty experimentation. The real challenge facing the West is not that of deciding whether to be red or dead but the far more difficult one of assuring that these never become our alternatives.

I have dwelt on the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union because it is vital that we do what we responsibly can to improve our relationship. But in the interest of a balanced perspective, I must also note that despite America's disagreements with the Soviet Union, contacts between our two countries continue to take place on many levels. The September meetings of President Reagan and Secretary Shultz with Foreign Minister Gromyko have been the most visible of these contacts. Others take place routinely. I myself meet from time to time with the Soviet Ambassadors in Berlin and Bonn to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Without doubt, we in the United States have been deeply concerned over last year's withdrawal of Soviet negotiators from the crucial talks on nuclear weapons in Geneva. But the suspension of these talks did not discourage us from hoping that they will soon be resumed or from persisting in efforts to find common ground in other areas. And we have actually made some progress--for example, in technically improving prompt communication between our two governments.

There are other hopeful signs. The Conference on [Security- and Confidence-Building Measures and] Disarmament in Europe is continuing to function in Stockholm; the Vienna talks on reducing conventional forces are still in progress; and the Conference on Disarmament is still pursuing its work. Most important of all, as announced a few days ago, the difficult process of negotiating verifiable arms control agreements with the Soviets will soon be resumed. To be sure, all these are slow-moving and, at times, disheartening negotiations; but we must remain patient and persist in our attempts to improve East-West relations. President Reagan set an example in his address to the UN General Assembly when he suggested periodic consultations by senior Soviet and American experts on regional problems as well as the institutionalizing of periodic ministerial meetings to discuss the entire agenda of issues between the United States and the Soviet Union. Chairman Chernenko's recent comments suggested some sympathy with the President's approach and contributed to further useful diplomatic conversations.

I assure you that the United States is prepared to discuss with the Soviet Union all arms control topics, including weaponry in outer space as well as strategic and intermediate-range nuclear systems. My government will persevere in its resolve to move dialogue with the Soviet Union in a constructive direction. The obstacles to progress are many; the reasons for overcoming them are, therefore, all the more compelling.

Shared Ideals

Let me close these reflections on East-West relations by referring once again to your wonderful city. Berlin is not only a city of brave and determined people; it also embodies the things we Americans believe are worth defending. I personally cherish my ties to Berlin. I come here often, not only because of the attractions offered by this metropolis; I come here to work and to refresh the spirit.

Berlin is a city to which Americans easily relate. You have traditionally drawn energetic people from all parts of Germany and given them a chance to prove themselves. Rank and status are less important her than energy and talent. These are values that Americans share and admire.

We are, therefore, working closely with Berliners, the Federal Republic [of Germany], and our British and French allies to help ensure that the Western sectors of Berlin remain a significant force in the modern world. There are exciting possibilities here in the realm of science and technology, business enterprise, urban planning, and social and educational innovation. We see our task as not only defending the city but cooperating with you in these areas to keep Berlin a vibrant and attractive world capital. We recently joined Berliners in establishing a committee to promote new ways of cooperation between us--particularly in the areas of economic interchange, dealing with urban problems, and expanding student exchanges. We rejoice in Berlin's recent economic recovery; we are confident and optimistic about your future; and we assure you of our determination to play a positive role--at your side--in the city's development.

In American eyes, progress always requires a firm basis. At present, the position of the allies in your city is inevitably intertwined with the unique status of Berlin and the city's security. We regard our function here as being, in effect, trustees of the German nation. We do not consider present divisions of this city as permanent. Until the day when both parts of Berlin and Germany are reunited in freedom, the presence of the allies in Berlin provides the irreplaceable foundation for the well-being of this city.

Maintaining that foundations inevitably imposes some burdens for all concerned. I well know that the training of troops in your forests and other circumstances arising from our presence are not always easy to contend with. But you can be sure that Americans will remain sensitive to your concerns and that we will do everything possible to minimize the difficulties we sometimes cause in the process of defending the security and freedom of this city.

Allow me to say, in conclusion, that peace and freedom are inseparable from us in the West. The heroic example of the citizens of Berlin during the airlift of 1948-49 showed that peace and freedom can be preserved even under the most difficult circumstances. There is good reason to believe that they will be fully preserved in our world today and handed down to the generations that follow us.

COPYRIGHT 1985 U.S. Government Printing Office
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group