1981:128 1987:139

ICBM's

1981:1,054 1987:1,000

Bombers

1981:376 1987:315

Tanks

1981:12,821 1987: 14,296

7980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

_Ш

ARMY NAVY Ш AIR FORCE И OTHER*

'includes expenses for joint services and for the office of secretary of defense

Defense outlays for all services, including the secretary's office,have increased by $89 billion, or nearly 45%

SPACE-BASED MISSILES

RENEWED ARMS TALKS

As part of his plan to increase U.S. military strength, President Reagan also proposed the development of a new space-based defense, known as the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"). This system would be able to shoot down Soviet missiles before they could reach the United States. Critics, in­cluding the Soviets, argue that the plan can never be completely effective and fear that development of space-based missiles will only escalate the arms race.

Despite sharp differences on arms control, the two nations reopened arms talks under the Reagan administration. Progress, however, was slow. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) were begun in 1982 but ended when the Soviets walked out a year and a half later in response to the NATO deployment of Pershing missiles in West Germany.

178 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

THE MIDDLE EAST

U.S. RESPONSIBILITY

In 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union resumed arms control talks in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss medium-range, long-range, and space-based missiles.

Progress toward arms reduction was finally reached in 1987, when President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev signed a tentative agreement to limit inter­mediate-range nuclear forces (INF) in Europe.

Since 1947, conflicts arising out of rivalry between the two superpowers have dominated world affairs. In recent decades, however, global power has become somewhat less polarized as other nations and regions have gained power and influence. Both the Soviet Union and the United States acknowledge a degree of dependence on the Middle East, which supplies most of the world's oil. The delicate conflicts of this region have become an important focus of American foreign policy.

The United States has become involved in Middle East conflicts for several reasons: First, the United States wants to protect the world's oil supply. Second, it wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Israel, its most reliable ally in the region. Third, the United States wants to limit the influence of the Soviet Union in the area.

These interests are difficult to secure. By supporting Israel, the United States may anger Arab oil-producing states. By seeking good relations with Arab states, it compromises its support for Israel.

Nevertheless, the United States has attempted to represent its interests by negotiating peace settlements, supplying arms, and sending military forces. As a negotiator, the United States helped Israel and Egypt reach an historic peace agreement in 1979. American leaders have tried to gain favor with Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two moderate nations in the region, by selling advanced military weapons. The sale of arms to Arab nations was controversial because it meant that the United States was helping sustain Arab-Israeli conflict by appearing to support both sides. In 1982, the United States tried to control fighting in Lebanon by sending military troops to keep peace and distance between feuding factions. This military effort was unsuccessful, and troops were withdrawn in 1984. In 1987, America increased its involvement in the Iran-Iraq War when it sent warships to escort oil tankers through the besieged Persian Gulf.

Global affairs continue to be dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. Even in the Middle East, where conflicts have little to do with democracy versus communism, the actions of the two superpowers can help decide whether peace or conflict reigns.

Because of its military and economic power, the United States has the poten­tial to impose solutions by the use of force. Yet global interdependence and the threat of nuclear confrontation increase the importance of diplomacy to American foreign policy. The United States bears an important global re­sponsibility as it balances its national security interests with the need for international stability and peace.

Gorbachev, Mikhail: born 1931, Soviet statesman, general secretary of the Communist Party since 1985.

179

_{part в Texts}

_{America & the World:}

Principles & Pragmatism

HENRY KISSINGER

-

Henry Kissinger

AMERICA has perennially engaged in a search of its conscience. How does our foreign policy serve moral ends? How can America serve as a humane example and champion of justice in a world in which power is still often the final arbiter? How do we reconcile ends and means, principle and survival? Today the challenge of American foreign policy is to avoid the illusion of false choices: we must live up to this nation's moral promise while fulfilling the practical needs of world order.

From its beginning, Americans have believed this country had a moral significance that transcended its 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, then, that Santayana concluded: "To be 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 Toqueville, it has been frequently observed that we are a pragmatic people — commonsensical, undogmatic and undoctrinaire, a nation of practical energy, ingenuity and spirit. We have made tolerance and compromise the basis of our domestic political life. We have defined our fundamental goals — justice, liberty, equality and progress — in open and libertarian terms, enlarging opportunity and 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. ...

America - and the community of nations -today faces inescapable tasks:

• We must maintain a secure and just peace.

• We must create a cooperative and beneficial international order.

• We must defend the rights and the dignity of man.

Each of these challenges has both a moral and a practical dimension. Each involves important ends, but ends that are sometimes in conflict. When that is the case, we face the real moral dilemma of foreign policy: the need to choose between valid ends and to relate our ends to means.

Peace is a fundamental moral imperative. Without it, nothing else we do or seek can ultimately have meaning. Averting the danger of nuclear war and limiting and ultimately reducing destructive nuclear arsenals is a moral as well as a political act.