Read Online Beyond Peace by Richard Nixon - Free Book Online Page A

are at stake.
    The new buzzword in the American diplomatic community is enlargement. After containing communism for forty-five years, we are told that our goal now should be to enlarge free-market democracy. This begs the question whether what works for us will work for others with different backgrounds, but even given that limitation, the concept is acceptable only if it is conditioned on American self-interest. This is not opportunism. Kim Holmes puts it well: “The U.S. does not violate its own ideals by pursuing its own interests. We should support democracy abroad when it is in our interests to do so, which fortunately is more often than not.”
    But defending our interests is not enough by itself to mobilize American support for American foreign policy initiatives. After our rather belligerent exchanges in Moscow in 1959, Khrushchev was trying to appear reasonable as we sat together at a lavish state dinner in the Kremlin. He pointed down the table to one of his vice premiers and said, “Comrade Koslov is a hopeless communist.” There is no question but that in foreign policy Americans are, at times, hopeless idealists, which is a source of great strength and a potential weakness.
    No one would question that our vital interests were involved in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. But American Presidents invariably clothed our interests in idealistic rhetoric. World War I was not simply a war to defend our interests against imperial Germany’s aggression. It was a “war to end war” and to make the world safe for democracy. World War II was not just a war to defend U.S. interests against Nazi and Japanese aggression. It was a war to extend four great freedoms to all people. The Cold War was not just a war to defend our interests against aggressive communism. It was a war to defend and extend freedom and democracy in the world. No war more seriously involved our vital interests than the Persian Gulf War. But even then, the practical objective of defending our access to oilresources was coupled with the idealistic goal of preserving the independence of Kuwait and advancing the cause of democracy.
    As realists, we do not want to become involved in foreign ventures unless our interests are threatened. As idealists, we insist that what is right for us must also be right for others. Bill Safire properly observed, “America will not defend with its lives what it cannot defend with its conscience.”
    Enlargement is a tricky word. In photography, a negative can be enlarged to a three-by-five snapshot or a wall-size mural. Based on the record so far, the present administration is aiming for wallet-size. Some officials clearly believe that the United States overextended itself during the Cold War, particularly in Vietnam, one of its major battles. They tend to resist American involvement, except in humanitarian activities that have overwhelming public support. They have yet to face up to the fact that it will at times be necessary to use American power and influence to defend and extend freedom in places thousands of miles away if we are to preserve it at home. It is a role that will require global vision and big plays from this President and every successive one in the era beyond peace.
    In his Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy vowed “to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Even during the Cold War, such a policy was praiseworthy but unrealistic. Then, as now, world peace was threatened by several enemies of liberty. We cannot afford to fight them all at once. Since the Cold War, the choices about how and when to fight for peace and freedom have become even more complex.
    We must begin by asking ourselves what kind of world we want, now that we have peace. Ideally, all nations should have free economic systems, free political systems, and an unfailing commitment to