Secretary
of State Madeleine K. Albright finally understood the need to repair
relations enough to extend the hand of friendship to Russian leader
Boris Yeltsin and to establish rapport with possible successors, Moscow
mayor Yuri Luzhkov, Governor Alexander Lebed and reform party chief
Gregory Yavlinski on her recent visit. But, as usual, she tried to have
it both ways. She promised not to amend the anti-missile defense treaty
but also said America might proceed with an anti-missile defense, reiterated
that U.S. power would continue to be projected throughout the globe,
and indicated specifically that she was considering committing troops
into ally Serbia.
Russians call this American "hegemony"—or acting like it owns the world
and has the right and power to tell everyone else what to do. To Americans,
Russia still appears dark and dangerous and is (if one follows the media)
in financial trouble because it insisted upon turning its economy over
to the Mafia as second best to communists, who also still are in place.
Democracy is weak and might even select an extreme nationalist next
year. Yet, Russia still has 20,000 intercontinental missiles with nuclear
warheads and President Yeltsin likes the West, although he has recently
become annoyed about unilateral U.S. actions about his borders, especially
Iraq. Today, former Reagan defense chief Caspar Weinberger charges that
the Clinton Administration is on the verge of squandering this historic
opportunity to win Russia to the West, placing the United States in
deadly peril. The new prime minister, Yegevany Primakov, is an old communist
who prefers alliances with China and India to counter American expansion.
Ronald Reagan is often pictured as the classic cold warrior, brandishing
nuclear arms and marines to demand democracy everywhere. Ranting that
the world will not bend to one’s own fancies was not his way. Mr. Reagan
was a realist; he set priorities. The Soviet Union was the primary problem
in the world and its vast supply of intercontinental nuclear weapons
was what made it so. Under Leonoid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin
Chernenko, the President recognized that confrontation was inevitable
and that he must (and did) rebuild American military forces. After Mikhail
Gorbachev took power in 1985, he recognized that, with the deteriorating
domestic and Eastern bloc positions of the Soviets and Mr. Gorbachev’s
reasonableness, it was possible to advance the cause for honorable peace
by forcing him to compete on expensive high-technology ballistic missile
defenses, by keeping other U.S. military spending high, and by opening
dialogue. The ultimate result was the end of the Soviet Union and the
cold war.
The reason for Mr. Reagan’s success was that he made the tough choices.
He even compromised his second priority, reducing the power of the American
domestic bureaucracy, to achieve his prime goal, and also developed
closer ties to China, a nation he did not like—both much to the dismay
of most of his close supporters. But that is what great leadership does.
Unlike later day self-styled Reaganites, he did not war against every
world wrong but accommodated to control the greater evil. Some even
maintain he would confront Russia today. But would Ronald Reagan really
want to rile the only country that can annihilate the U.S.? Did he enjoy
the cold war that much, the man who trusted Gorbachev? China is more
aggressive and is much more prickly in taking offense. America’s historic
friendship with Taiwan is a continuing source of friction. Democracy
is non-existent and human rights nil. China is even still communist
and has invaded neighbor India and is threatening the Philippines over
disputed islands. It supports sinister North Korea in its dispute with
the U.S. over its nuclear capacity. It even does not have much of an
aggressive missile force, only 19 of them, although it did threaten
that one could reach Los Angeles when the United States sent a naval
task force into the Taiwan Straights.
Ronald Reagan would probably pick on the weaker and more aggressive
opponent and build relations with the stronger one. That is why his
one invasion was against Grenada, a country with a population of only
90,000, not even the size of a decent little city. That thinking would
have one befriend the nation with the 20,000 missiles and confront the
one with 19. Russia, India, Japan, South Korea and the islands would
be needed to offset China’s land masses. Every other conflict would
fit into that strategy of cultivating Russia, except one. President
Reagan made implementing a strategic defense initiative (SDI) the first
part of the first priority. Contrary to Ms. Albright, the anti-ballistic
missile defense treaty that prevents creating SDI must be renounced,
and this must provoke Russia. But it is essential not to let that dissuade
building close ties with Russia, no matter how difficult that is in
the short run. And dissembling does not help.
Getting sucked into the Balkans against Russian ally Serbia does not
fit at all, no matter how obnoxious is Slobodan Milosevic. The problem
is that the United States has considered Kosovo part of Serbia and even
supporters of tougher action (such as Morton Abramawitz) admit that
"any solution to the continuing crisis (which he calls ‘the second tar
baby’ of the region) will require a long-term Western commitment, the
dimensions of which are not clear and the domestic political support
for which is dubious." Former Army strategist Henry Summers simply says,
"Kosovo spelled backwards is Vietnam," and urges withdrawal before it
is too late. Top American diplomat in Bosnia, Jacques Klein, approvingly
says the United States will be there "permanently." Yet, Col. Summers
says the Balkans have "no strategic significance whatsoever" for the
U.S. If there is any interest there, surely it is Europe’s.
When American Marines in Lebanon were caught in an untenable strategic
position, with no clear course of extraction, President Reagan brought
them home. Bosnia and Kossovo today seem to fall in the same category.
But what about Saddam Hussein? While it is true that Iraq is little
potatoes, only having the population of a mid-sized U.S. state, it is
an important trading partner of Russia. The Reagan principle to apply
here, as he did, is to allow local allies to take the heat. Today, Iraq
has no weapons that threaten the United States. Indeed, neighbor Iran
is the danger, expected to have intercontinental nuclear weapons in
five years or less. In Afghanistan, President Reagan used indigenous
forces to supply arms and armies and in Nicaragua he also let local
peoples do the fighting. American allies Turkey and Israel know what
is needed and have the will to act if really needed. All the U.S. has
to do is give the needed support to its surrogates.
Ronald Reagan was smart. He picked on little guys, not big powers. He
had others fight for him. When he made a mistake in committing troops,
he took them out before it became a morass. He built his power but he
spoke softly to those who could destroy his homeland, at least those
capable of some trust. Courageously setting priorities and forcing all
else to fit, while carrying a big stick and shield--that is the Reagan
lesson for today.
Donald
Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman
for the American Conservative Union.
