thumbnail of Special of the week; Issue 13-70 "Great Decisions"
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
NDE are the national educational radio network presents special of the week. We continue with the series produced at W D E.T. Wayne State University in Detroit part six of eight in the 1970s. Great Decisions must be made in foreign policy. We talked with the Honorable William P. Rogers secretary of state first to negotiate major issues on which confrontation has led to stalemate. To share our responsibilities with other nations and regional groups while honoring our obligations as I just mentioned. Three to conduct international dialogue with a lower voice and in a measured tone. And for it to make clear that the United States will continue to play its proper role as a major world power in meeting its international responsibilities. That was the Honorable William P. Rogers secretary of state. We'll continue in a moment.
Great Decisions 1970 today. United States defense policy. The sixth in this eight week series focusing attention on the most critical issues of foreign policy facing the American government and people today. These programs produced by Wayne State University in Detroit now designed to provide a deeper understanding of international problems. Now here is your moderator dean of administration at Wayne State University Dr. Harlan Hagman. Mr. Secretary it is being said that the country is in a mood of new isolationism. Well the United States in the next few years drawback from its worldwide military and other commitments. No I don't think the fear that's been expressed about the United States entering a period of neo Isolationism is well-founded. It is true that we are reviewing our presence in other countries of the world to determine whether it's the size is necessarily consistent with present day realities.
But in terms of our commitments and I'm speaking now about our obligations under treaties there's no intention at all on our part of we needing or we now sing any of our treaty obligations in terms of our military presence abroad. It may be that we will reduce military presence in some areas as long as it doesn't upset the stability of the area just as we've done it in Thailand. But there is no tendency on the part of our policymakers and certainly President Nixon has no intention of entering a period of isolationism. It's not realistic in this day and age. United States is one of the major power in the world. And if we attempted to do that it would it would upset the stability that so essential to security in the world. Secretary what are the premises upon which current foreign policy is being developed. What new directions do you anticipate.
Well as stated. In categories I would say first to negotiate major issues of which confrontation is lead to stalemate. To share responsibilities with other nations and regional groups while honoring our obligations as I just mentioned. Three to conduct international dialogue with a lower voice and in a measured tone and forward to make clear that the United States will continue to play its proper role as a major world power in meeting its international responsibilities. Secretary we recognize of course that the United States is richest nation the world the most part awful in many ways is foreign relations however necessarily to be accompanied by military strength must diplomacy be backed up by military muscle. Well I think as a matter of theory it's not. But in practice it is as long is the way the
present world situation. Then it's important for the United States to have the necessary and necessary military strength to be credible. And obviously if we were very weak or even weak of these of the Soviet Union it would add to the instability in the world so as a practical matter. In present day reality we must maintain sufficient military power to make it clear to the rest of the world that we would not permit any enemy to take over areas of the world which are which would violate any of the treaty responsibilities which we have. For example I think NATO's contributed very measurably to the security of the world. And if we did not have the NATO's organization and not have sufficient military strength to make it clear to potential enemy that they cannot take over other countries in Europe it would be a
very unstable kind of situation so in practical terms it's necessary for us to maintain military strength. On the other hand of course as you know we're willing to negotiate as we are doing to see if it's possible to have some sensible Arms Limitation program. Though the United States is the most part of a whole nation in the world and recognizes the obligations of Har must it continue to play or must it ever play the role of world policeman or fireman to put out fires wherever they turn up. No I don't think that that's necessary I think that in terms of our basic position in NATO's structure and SEATO and so forth we do have to make it clear that that the United States military power stands behind our treaties. But in terms of attempting to solve all the problems in the world wherever they crop up I think
the answer is No. I think the best illustration of that is the current one involving Nigerian BFA. The United States. I think pursued a policy that was very wise. We made it clear to all concerned that we would contribute in large measure to the humanitarian aspects of that unfortunate conflict. Can the United States has contributed about 80 million dollars. Well more than i mean much more than any other nation in the world. We've contributed over half of all the food and medicine and it's been sent to that area. At the same time we did not meddle in the situation we did not take any part in the political political aspects of it. We indicated from time to time that if that if the parties felt that the United States could play a part that we would be willing to respond. But we did not volunteer. And I think the result has been that our programs and our policies in Africa have been very
well received I talked to the foreign ministers 20 of them from Africa a few months ago and they were all very complimentary about the activity of the United States in the humanitarian effort in fields and also they were very appreciative of the fact that we had not tried to solve the problem because there were so many others who were involved try to solve it. And I think that the events of recent events have demonstrated the wisdom of our policy. Mr. Harvey Wheeler of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. Mr. Wheeler it been our habit in generations past to regard to world powers that one which could muster military muscle. Having a British fleet the biggest army in that sort of thing we have the United States now with the greatest military power in the world and yet it seems sometimes helpless to resolve problems about the world through that means. Is it possible that
you are suggesting a different definition for world power than the one we've had for generations past. Yes. Yes you can say that. Let's take an example that may help illustrate the changes that I think we can detect. While diplomacy ing in the old fashioned sense is dead and has been militarized. There is nonetheless a new kind of diplomacy and a new kind of balance of power struggle that has grown up the balance of power politics originally meant the struggle of complete nations against each other in which the national interests of the leading nations would be played out against each other in a series of clashes. That no longer
takes place in the way it did in the past and instead the balance of power struggles take place between the nations. In terms of the attempt of one nation to influence the internal structure of the other nations. And it was direction of this is found in the fact that in almost all of the great nations today we can identify two factions at the control of each of these nations. We talk about the hawks in the day and we discuss openly the fact that Russia is a nation that has its internal policy influenced by the shifting balance of power between its hawks and its doves. And as our hawks and doves inside United States look at Russia. Each of our internal factions will try to influence American policy and American action in order to effect the struggle between hawks
and doves that takes place inside Russia so that Russia's internal political order will structure itself and reorganize itself in a way to do actions that this particular faction inside America wants it to do and they in turn do the same thing with regard to earth. An example of this was when Khrushchev was chairman in Russia and Richard Nixon was vice president and Nixon and Kennedy were running against each other for the presidency of the United States. Vice President Nixon asked that the downed fliers that had been detained in Russia be returned. And it was obvious that it would have been a great coup for him and it would have led to a certain amount of popularity and increased prestige for him not only in the United States but throughout the world. Khrushchev refused to do so stating openly at the time that the reason he was not going to do it was because he wanted Kennedy to win rather than Nixon calculating that
the Kennedy administration if it won would be one that would more comport with what he wanted the United States to do. Well this is true in all of our relationships with all other countries. And that means that balance of power struggle now focuses not on nations as wholes but on the internal political orators of nations and to very interesting and curious thing to watch develop in this changing world. Twitter the United States is that the civilian control of the military. Do you believe that civilians are able to control the Pentagon for example or are the civilians able to control the military actions of a country such as ours which is a war in Vietnam. Well I think that technically civilians are in control but that I don't I don't think it makes any difference because the
idea of civilian control was an idea that developed in old fashion political regimes when men with uniforms on posed a potential threat to a government the way they do now in Latin America. And we were traditionally scared of the army taking over the government. And this tradition of civilian control developed in something like that context. Well I would not deny that the specter of Seven Days in May is a real specter in all modern large scale countries. But. That remote possibility aside the real development that we have to worry about is this development that Eisenhower mentioned the military industrial complex meaning that there is an establishment and the military there is an establishment in Washington and there isn't a static
establishment in the financial community and there is an establishment in the intellectual community and these circles are quite can grow and quite consonant with each other. So given the fact of that can grow and it really doesn't make a great deal of difference whether or not there's a civilian in charge of the military establishment or general. Mr Russell Barnes distinguished journalist and formerly the foreign news analyst for The Detroit News. All of our justification in the last few years for military spending has been on the basis of defense because by policy United States is not out to seek new territory and that sort of thing. But we do spend our military funds all over the world maintaining bases and maintaining troops. Do you feel that the basic defense of United States requires. And the statement of the maintenance of bases around the world.
The basic defense of the United States depends on a considerable area of the world which is in the hands of free peoples and by free peoples I mean peoples who have the right and the power. It would have to decide what type of political and economic organizations they are going to live under. Well that's what we mean with the free world simply that the peoples have to have free choice. It's impossible for the United States to exist as a free nation if the remainder of the world is under the hands of in the hands of totalitarian systems. Because then the United States is driven back on what you call fortress America. We're back behind our own front tears and we have to die. Probably a form of
totalitarian government of ourselves you know order to defend ourselves if we are operating under force under fortress conditions. We always do that in time of war. So are the American. Freedom depends on maintaining preferably a preponderance of the world under control of free governments. Because if you allow the totalitarians whether whether communist are fascist to take over control of the most of the world's manpower and resources than they are in a position to crack the whip on the United States or Western Europe or the other free nations. So the strategists always in syste that we must keep a large part of the world free.
If we're going to keep ourselves free and that means holding large areas of the world. Free governments and since we are the only we are the superpower on the free world side. That means we have this defense job to do. Now we can fight in wrong places we can waste money but as a basic proposition we must keep as much of the world free as we can in order to keep the United States free. My argument has surrounded the ABM proposals in the United States some people saying that the ABM defense system is ineffective that is wasteful of funds that it puts the United States into a warlike posture. What do you think will be the resolution of the ABM controversy.
We tried to avoid the ABM as far back as the Kennedy administration. We tried to persuade the Russians not to deploy. The ABM systems meaning of course and I ballistic systems. We thought we had it because we realize that if we went into the ABM and the Russians went into the ABM it simply meant that each nation was going to spend billions of dollars. And he would end up in the same place. He would cancel each other out and you'd be no better off. And you are No. And I think Washington assume that the Russians agreed but then our satellite communication. You know it's flying over Russia. Reported back that the Russians were deploying the ABM around Moscow and around Leningrad. Now practically speaking that that meant that.
That if if they deployed their system and it was effective they could knock down our missiles coming in on Russia whereas we were open to Russian missiles coming in on the United States. So therefore they were in a position to blackmail us diplomatically. So when when they moved to deploy then then we moved to deploy. Now they're practically practically speaking I think we're what we're doing now. It's simply building up a bargaining point of leverage with the Russians. When we when we go into a salt strategic disarmament talks later this year at Vienna. If you will knock out your ABM we won't go ahead with our ABM. But if you don't go ahead with with your as we will with ours. So the ABM that the president has been talking about lately is I think a a a a bargaining point with the
Russians. But then of course it has the further selling point that it gives us area defense in the Western America against possible Chinese missile attacks. Mr. Henry Ashmore is executive vice president of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. MR. More is the equating of huge military expenditures with national security is a deliberate effort to dilute is the general populace do you think. I don't see many of villains in this picture it would be much simpler if we did I see more running at a time in history and the creation of vested interests simply by the passage of time. For example in the State Department now there's a whole generation of people professional diplomats many very good men who have a vested interest literally in the public policy we follow that took us into Viet Nam and they can't really change that policy without admitting that they've been wrong for the
last 15 years and it's very hard for anybody to do this human nature sort of runs against it. Same thing I think is true of the military and the same thing it's true. Very importantly you have a body of very senior politicians in the Congress who identify with the interest of the Armed Services and Foreign Policy interest of the kind that are related to it. So all of these people have it seems to me you have been trapped. By arrows some of their making and some of that preceded them. And we've got a almost an inability it seems to me and it's the most frightening thing I know about our foreign policy to really make any basic changes in it that even when it becomes seriously question as I think it now it is by people not of any ideological sense but some very conservative people in this country are very much concerned about the validity of our Asian policy which seems to be almost impossible to get any kind of action to change it it's almost like having a general going
toward running out of control. And I don't see that this is the work of any man or group of men conspirators. I would say in the case of President Nixon for example that is what I blame him for is essentially a negative attitude. I think he had a great opportunity to take some political risk to do it but to take a position of leadership and to demand some fundamental changes in direction of our policy. Now he decided not to do it it seems to me that in a sense that while he's making some modifications he isn't making any fundamental change. And the opportunity to do so may well be a little game with the passage of time. He's an astute politician. He made it he would argue I presume that he feels that he has done all that he felt it was right for him to do or all of he felt it was practically possible for him to do in the climate of opinion as he gauges it. But I
think we need some leadership and some both the leadership and I guess I miss my guess the American public opinion it could be mobilized to support a rather drastic change in foreign policy. Once again do Mr. Harvey wheeler. We don't either present President Eisenhower once warned of the dangers of a military industrial complex the United States do you regard. Such a complex as a danger. Do you guard it as a fact. I regard it as a fact. But I think that it is. It leads to misunderstanding. If one merely calls that day military industrial complex and stops at that. To speak of the military industrial complex calls to mind that a military establishment with a traditional picture of the man on horseback
and the corporation with the traditional picture of the malefactors of great wealth and so on. And that appears to me to be the wrong way of looking at the facts and the wrong way of assessing the threat. What appears to me to be the case instead is that a new kind of power is being developed and it's a kind of power that is not basically economic. It's not basically military I think it is in essence bureaucratic. And I would I would regard the threat that we call a military industrial complex as being a threat resulting from the development and exercise of this new form a new stage of power in American history. How do you figure that the Pentagon exerts too great an influence on foreign policy.
Yes put it another way. The Pentagon by virtue of the requirements that became paramount during the Cold War. I was thrust into policy formation or diplomacy. Because after the atomic bomb and with the inauguration of the Cold War it was necessary to give defense considerations the first priority. And this meant that the development of the so-called hardware approach and that manned in turn that diplomacy gave way to military strategy and the calculation of foreign policy. So there has been a militarized nation of foreign policy during the Cold War and characteristic of the Cold War. Is it possible that with our great military power our force we can bring to bear if we choose that we are led to
engage in basically the old battleship diplomacy of the 19th century rather than a diplomacy of persuasion accommodation and the like. That would be my I would agree with that statement. It's curious the extent to which during a time namely a time when we say that wars are impossible or big wars and during this period of thermonuclear age and the impossibility irrationality of war we have tended to resolve almost all of our foreign policy issues through resort to arms more. We ask the secretary of state Mr. William P. Rogers about his hopes for peace in the world. Well I think we always have to have hope. But the world may be peaceful. And certainly those of us in the next administration do have that hope. It has to be couple with realism however. And I suppose
realism requires us to say that is going to continue to be trouble in many areas of the world. We would hope that because of the realisation on the part of the two major powers that they now have the nuclear potential of destroying each other regardless of which starts the conflict that the potential for world conflagration is diminished and if mankind can be sensible enough to recognize the importance. Working together the interdependency that exists in the world today it's possible in the years to come there may be some way to work out a peaceful solution to the problem of the world. I must say it is somewhat discouraging though because a lot of the problems that exist in the world provide leaders in the area with political potential they exploit the problem for political purposes. And sometimes you have the impression that they are more concerned about their own
political future than they are the welfare of the people in the area. And I would hope that as time goes on that the public will become more aware that that's happening to them. In most cases if the problems could be solved in a sensible way peaceful way. Everyone bet would benefit to such a considerable extent that all the arguments about principles and justice and fairness and all that would be long forgotten. Great Decisions 1970. Program number 6. The United States defense policy. Our moderator Dr. Harlan Hagman dean of administration at Wayne State University had as his guests the Honorable William P. Rogers United States secretary of state. Mr Harry I wish more a vice president of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. Mr Russell Barnes distinguished journalist and former foreign news analyst for The Detroit News. And Mr. Harvey Wheeler of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions. Join us next week for a discussion on
the Middle East. Great Decisions 1970 as produced by Wayne State University in Detroit in cooperation with the Foreign Policy Association and the ARS special of the week. Thanks w d e t Wayne State University in Detroit for their series Part 7 next week. This is ne R. The National Education already on network.
Series
Special of the week
Episode
Issue 13-70 "Great Decisions"
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-td9n7b6x
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-td9n7b6x).
Description
Description
No description available
Date
1970-00-00
Topics
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:29:53
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 69-SPWK-467 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Special of the week; Issue 13-70 "Great Decisions",” 1970-00-00, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-td9n7b6x.
MLA: “Special of the week; Issue 13-70 "Great Decisions".” 1970-00-00. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-td9n7b6x>.
APA: Special of the week; Issue 13-70 "Great Decisions". Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-td9n7b6x