OCTOBER 4, 1983

HOW DOES OUR FOREIGN POLICY SERVE MORAL ENDS?

HOW CAN AMERICA CARRY FORWARD ITS ROLE AS A HUMANE EXAMPLE
AND CHAMPION OF JUSTICE IN A WORLD IN WHICH POWER IS STILL
OFTEN THE FINAL ARBITER? HOW DO WE SECURE BOTH OUR EXISTENCE
AND OUR VALUE? HOW DO WE RECONCILE ENDS AND MEANS, PRINCIPLE
AND SURVIVAL?

THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY:

THEY ARE BEING POSED AGAIN TODAY, AS THEY SHOULD. BUT

THEY REQUIRE MORE THAN SIMPLE ANSWERS AND EASY SLOGANS.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT POLICY WITHOUT MORAL PURPOSE
IS LIKE A SHIP WITHOUT A RUDDER, DRIFTING AIMLESSLY FROM
CRISIS TO CRISIS. A POLICY OF PURE CALCULATION WILL BE
EMPTY OF BOTH VISION AND HUMANITY. IT WILL LACK NOT ONLY
DIRECTION BUT ALSO ROOTS AND HEART. AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS
HELD THE VIEW THAT AMERICA STOOD FOR A MORAL PURPOSE ABOVE
AND BEYOND ITS MATERIAL ACHIEVEMENTS.

BUT WE MUST RECALL, AS WELL, THAT POLICY IS THE ART

OF THE POSSIBLE, THE SCIENCE OF THE RELATIVE. WE LIVE

IN A WORLD OF 150 SOVEREIGN STATES, PROFOUND IDEOLOGICAL

DIFFERENCES, NUCLEAR WEAPONS. OUR POWER IS ENORMOUS, BUT

IT IS STILL FINITE. A TRULY MORAL POLICY MUST RELATE ENDS

TO MEANS AND COMMITMENTS TO CAPABILITIES, AMERICA, TO

BE TRUE TO ITSELF, MUST KEEP ITS EYES ON DISTANT HORIZONS;

WE MUST ALSO KEEP OUR FEET PLANTED FIRMLY IN REALITY. WE

MUST LEARN TO DISTINGUISH MORALITY FROM MORALIZING. WE

MUST REMEMBER THAT THE INVOCATION OF LOFTY PRINCIPLES HAS

LED, IN OUR HISTORY, AS FREQUENTLY TO ABDICATION AS TO

OVERCOMMITMENT. EITHER TENDENCY WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR

INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND OUR WELL-BEING.

THE CHALLENGE OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IS TO LIVE

UP TO AMERICA'S MORAL PROMISE WHILE FULFILLING THE PRACTICAL

NEEDS OF WORLD ORDER. HOW WE MEET IT WILL DETERMINE THE

PEACE AND PROGRESS OF AMERICA AND OF THE WORLD.

3

AMERICANS ALWAYS HAVE BELIEVED THAT THIS COUNTRY
HAD A MORAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT TRANSCENDED ITS GEOGRAPHIC,
MILITARY, OR ECONOMIC POWER. UNIQUE AMONG THE NATIONS
OF THE WORLD, AMERICA WAS CREATED AS A CONSCIOUS ACT BY
MEN DEDICATED TO A SET OF POLITICAL AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
THEY BELIEVED TO BE OF UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY. SMALL
WONDER, TEHEN, THAT SANTAYANA CONCLUDED THAT: "BEING
AN AMERICAN IS, OF ITSELF, ALMOST A MORAL CONDITION."

BUT THIS IDEALISM HAS ALSO BEEN IN CONSTANT TENSION
WITH ANOTHER DEEP-SEATED STRAIN IN OUR HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE.
SINCE TOCQUEVILLE, IT HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY OBSERVED TAHT
WE ARE A PRAGMATIC PEOPLE, COMMONSENSICAL, UNDOGMATIC,
AND UNDOCTRINAIRE, A NATION FO PRACTICAL ENERGY, INGENUITY,
AND SPIRIT. WE HAVE MADE TOLERANCE AND COMPROMISE THE
BASIS OF OUR DOMESTIC POLITICAL LIFE. WE HAVE DEFINED
OUR BASIC GOALS--JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, AND PROGRESS--
IN OPEN AND LIBERTARIAN TERMS, ENLARGING OPPORTUNITY AND

4

FREEDOM RATHER THAN COERCING A UNIFORM STANDARD OF
CONDUCT.

AMERICA HAS BEEN MOST EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONALLY WHEN
WE HAVE COMBINED OUR IDEALISTIC AND OUR PRAGMATIC TRADITIONS.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE IDEALISTS WHO LAUNCHED A NEW
EXPERIEMENT IN HUMAN LIBERTY. BUT THEY WERE ALSO SOPHISTICATED
MEN OF THE WORLD; THEY UNDERSTOOD THE EUROPEAN BALANCE
OF POWER AND MANIPULATED IT BRILLIANTLY TO SECURE THEIR
INDEPENDENCE.

FOR A CENTURY THEREAFTER, WE DEVOTED OUR ENERGIES TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CONTINENT, CONTENT TO INFLUENCE
THE WORLD BY MORAL EXAMPLE. SHIELDED BY TWO OCEANS AND
THE BRITISH NAVY AND BLESSED BY A BOUNTIFUL NATURE, WE
CAME TO BELIEVE OUR SPECIAL SITUATION WAS UNIVERSALLY VALID,
EVEN FOR NATIONS WHOSE NARROWER MARGIN OF SURVIVAL MEANT
THAT THEIR RANGE OF CHOICES WAS FAR MORE LIMITED THAN OUR
OWN. WE DISPARAGED POWER EVEN AS WE GREW STRONG; WE TENDED

5

TO SEE OUR SUCCESSES AS THE PRODUCT NOT OF FORTUNATE
CIRCUMSTANCES BUT OF VIRTUE AND PURITY OF MOTIVE.

AS OUR POWER GREW, WE BECAME UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ITS
USES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPATIENT WITH THE COMPROMISES
OF DAY-TO-DAY DIPLOMACY. OUR RISE TO THE STATUS OF GREAT
POWER WAS FEARED AND RESISTED BY MANY AMERICANS WHO FORESAW
ONLY A PROCESS OF DEEPENING INVOLVEMENT IN A MORALLY QUESTIONABLE
WORLD.

IN THE EARLY DECADES OF THIS CENTURY WE SOUGHT TO RECONCILE
THE TENSION BETWEEN IDEALS AND INTERESTS BY CONFINING OURSELVES
TO HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS AND RESORT TO OUR BELIEVE IN THE
PREEMINENCE OF LAW. WE PIONEERED IN RELIEF PROGRAMS; WE
CHAMPIONED FREE TRADE AND THE CAUSE OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT.
WE ATTEMPTED TO LEGISLATE SOLUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS--
WE EXPERIEMTNED WITH ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION, JUDICAL
ARRANGEMENTS, TREATIES TO ABOLISH WAR, NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION,
COLLECTIVE SECURITY SYSTEMS.

7

WHELMING MATERIAL SUPERIORITY. AND WE FACED AN ANTAGONIST
WHOSE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND ACTIONS ON THE WORLD SCENE
EXPLICITLY THREATENED THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OUR MOST
CHERISHED PRINCIPLES.

IN A PERIOD OF SEEMINGLY CLEAR-CUT, BLACK-AND-WHITE
DIVISIONS, WE HARBORED FEW DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF
OUR TRADITIONAL APPROACH. WE SAW ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AROUND
THE WORLD--WHICH WE HAD SOLVED SUCCESSFULLY IN OUR OWN
COUNTRY--AND SOUGHT TO OVERWHELM THEM WITH THE SHEER WEIGHT
OF RESOURCES, OFTEN WITH STARTLING SUCCESS. WE PROJECTED
OUR DOMESTIC EXPERIENCE OVERSEAS AND ASSUMED THAT ECONOMIC
PROGRESS AUTOMATICALLY LED TO POLITICAL STABILITY. AND
IN THE PROCESS, WITHOUT MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO
DO SO, WE WERE TRYING TO SHAPE THE WORLD TO OUR DESIGN.

OUR POSTWAR POLICY WAS MARKED BY GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS:
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE AND JAPAN, THE RESISTANCE
TO AGGRESSION, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DECOLONIZATION.

BUT WE NO LONGER LIVE IN SO SIMPLE A WORLD. FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, WE CAN NEITHER
ESCAPE FROM THE WORLD NOR DOMINATE IT. RATHER WE, LIKE
ALL OTHER NATIONS IN HISTORY, MUST NOW CONDUCT DIPLOMACY
WITH SUBTLETY, FLEXIBILITY, PERSISTENCE, AND IMAGINATION
IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE AND FORWARD OUR NATIONAL GOALS.

WE CAN NO LONGER IMPOSE OUR SOLUTIONS; YET OUR ACTION
OR INACTION WILL INFLUENCE EVENTS, OFTEN DECISIVELY. WE
CANNOT BANISH POWER FROM INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, BUT WE
CAN USE OUR VAST POWER WISELY AND FIRMLY TO DETER AGGRESSION
AND ENCOURAGE RESTRAINT. WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE RESOLUTION
OF DISPUTES THROUGH NEGOTIATION. WE CAN HELP CONSTRUCT
MORE EQUITABLE RELATIONS BETWEEN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING
NATIONS AND A WIDER COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG ALL NATIONS.
AND WE MUST CONTINUE TO STAND FOR FREEDOM AND HUMAN DIGNITY
IN THE WORLD.

9

THESE GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED. BUT THEY SUMMON A DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF MORAL CONVICTION THAN THAT OF A SIMPLER PAST.

THEY REQUIRE THE STAMINA TO PERSEVERE AMID AMBIGUITY AND ENDLESS EXERTION, THE COURAGE TO HOLD FAST TO WHAT WE BELIEVE IN WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT AT ANY ONE TIME OUR HOPES ARE LIKELY TO BE ONLY PARTIALLY FULFILLED.

CLEARLY WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR VALUES AND OUR PRINCIPLES; BUT WE RISK DISASTER UNLESS WE RELATE THEM TO CONCEPTS OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND INTERNATIONAL ORDER THAT ARE BASED NOT ON IMPULSE BUT ON A SENSE OF STEADY PURPOSE THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE LONG TERM.

THIS IS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN MORALITY AND PRAGMATISM. WE CANNOT ESCAPE EITHER AND STILL REMAIN TRUE TO OUR NATIONAL CHARACTER OR TO THE NEEDS OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY. OUR CAUSE MUST BE JUST, BUT IT MUST PROSPER IN A WORLD OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS AND COMPETING WILLS. WE CAN ACHIEVE NO POSITIVE ENDS UNLESS WE SURVIVE, AND SURVIVAL HAS ITS

10

PRACTICAL NECESSITIES. NEITHER MORALISTIC RHETORIC NOR  
OBSESSION WITH PURE POWER POLITICS WILL PRODUCE A FOREIGN  
POLICY WORTHY OF OUR OPPORTUNITY OR ADEQUATE FOR OUR  
SURVIVAL.

PEACE, HOWEVER CRUCIAL, CANNOT BE OUR *ONLY* GOAL. TO
SEEK IT AT ANY PRICE WOULD RENDER US MORALLY DEFENSELESS
AND PLACE THE WORLD AT THE MERCY OF THE MOST RUTHLESS.
MANKIND MUST DO MORE, AS TACITUS SAID, THAN MAKE A DESERT
AND CALL IT PEACE.

THERE WILL BE NO SECURITY IN A WORLD WHOSE OBSESSION
WITH PEACE LEADS TO APPEASEMENT, BUT NEITHER WILL THERE
BE SECURITY IN A WORLD IN WHICH *NO* TOUGH RHETORIC AND
THE ACCUMULATION OF ARMS IS THE SOLE MEASURE OF COMPETITION.
WE OWE OUR PEOPLE A CONVINCING JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR
EXERTIIONS; WE CAN SPARE NO EFFORT TO BEQUETH TO FUTURE
GENERATIONS A PEACE MORE HOPEFUL THAN AN EQUILIBRIUM OF
TERROR.

THE TASK OF FOREIGN POLICY IS TO FIND THAT BALANCE

11

BETWEEN COMPETING ENDS AND BETWEEN ENDS AND MEANS. THE PROBLEMS OF TIMING, METHOD, AND FEASIBILITY IMPOSE THEMSELVES ON ANY CONSCIENTIOUS POLICY DECISION. THERE ARE CERTAIN EXPERIEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE TRIED, NOT BECAUSE THE GOALS ARE UNDESIRABLE, BUT BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE WOULD BE SO SEVERE THAT NOT EVEN THE MOST ELEVATED GOAL CAN JUSTIFY THE RISK.