Senator Hatfield argues that our nation has reached one of the neutral points in human history when it is best for all if we forgive and become reconciled. In general, I agree with the senator. We are at one of those hinges of history when we must seek creative responses. We must declare an end to the cold war between East and West. And we must be reconciled so that, instead of looking for every opportunity to “contain” each other, we will learn to trust and work together for the common good.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and not everyone shares the goal of reconciliation. Like individuals, nations can be motivated by pride, power, greed, or vindication. Thus, the means to achieving a more peaceful relationship between the superpowers become increasingly important. At best we have only limited resources to satisfy near-infinite needs presented by the economically devastated Soviet bloc as well as continued Third World poverty. And at worst we face power structures that are deliberately oppressive and evil. Prudence and a degree of realism represent the path of wisdom and usually accomplish the greater good.
Senator Hatfield recognizes this difficulty of living in a world where wickedness abounds. Therefore, he tempers his call to reconciliation by urging a prudent partnership in seeking good. Though he does not spell them out, he surely must feel the tensions of certain questions that every responsible citizen of the world must have:
• Where does Mikhail Gorbachev really stand? Is he really a democrat? Does he place high value on freedom of speech, press, and religion? Does he stand for human rights and justice? Or is he at heart a Communist who simply sees that the ideology of Marx and Lenin will not work without significant revisions? Or is he a super-patriotic Russian, willing to sacrifice communism or freedom in order to hold the modern Russian empire intact? In any case, these matters are measured in degrees rather than in absolutes. If the real Gorbachev would stand up, we could be more sure of the direction we should take in our relationships with him and his nation.
• Will Gorbachev survive? Is our policy towards the Soviet Union keyed too closely to the political fortunes of one man? Instead of gearing our national policy to the survival of one leader, perhaps we ought to construct our foreign policy in accord with more fundamental changes in the Soviet Union, irrespective of what power for the moment remains in authority. The Soviet military, for example, is strongly patriotic and pro-Russian. If the empire begins to disintegrate, would the military allow this to take place? Would it stand behind Gorbachev (assuming that he, himself, is opposed to the oppression of other nations)? Or as a last desperate move to maintain the integrity of their nation, would they take control?
• What about the Communist party? Will tens of thousands of party hacks, supported by the police and the KGB, permit power to slip from their hands? If matters come to the point that the Soviet empire is in danger of dissolving, would we not see a coalition of older party stalwarts and the military join forces to save the union?
• Can Gorbachev really keep the antiquated and graft-ridden Soviet economic system from collapse? In the end, would he, himself, not call in the police, KGB, and the army to save his nation from chaos and thus turn his nation back from perestroika and glasnost?
• Can Gorbachev find sufficient support within his own nation to pursue a partnership that would deal effectively with the constantly increasing threats from smaller powers to tear apart the world and devastate millions of people? Are the American people prepared to work with a Soviet Union that may not be disposed to allow freedom to other nations within its present borders? These delicate questions demand an exceedingly difficult judgment call.
Senator Hatfield is right. We need to change our stance of the last 40 years to meet the new situation. We need to stop the proxy wars that bring unutterable destruction to smaller nations and divert our resources disproportionately to the military. Certainly we need to spell out for Mr. Gorbachev our common interests and frame patterns by which we could work together to accomplish mutual goals. It would be unutterably tragic for all humankind if we did not take advantage of this rare window of opportunity that is ours at the end of the twentieth century.
