Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323150480
label
Boston University Address, 5/21/89 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323150480
contentType
document
title
Boston University Address, 5/21/89 [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13487-012
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323150480
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0104f42a865b3955
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13487
Folder ID Number:
13487-012
Folder Title:
Boston University Address, 5/21/89 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
25
6
2
7
Davis/Zelikow/Martin
May 16, 1989/6 p.m.
Draft: Three
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY/Nickerson Field
MAY 21, 1989/11 a.m.
Thank you, John. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston.
((And it's a pleasure to be back in one of my home states
Congratulations, Barbara, on a B.U. degree of your very own. And
now that you're an alumnus, take note -- this kinder and gentler
America I'm always speaking of doesn't include the Terriers
))
I am pleased to share this opportunity with a special friend
of America
President Mitterand, you have the warm affection
and high regard of the American people. ((Anecdote to come. ) )
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston University
graduate, and to every proud parent. As B.U. grads, you take
with you a degree from a great institution, and something more --
knowledge of the past, and responsibility for the future.
It is with your future in mind that I have undertaken a
series of foreign policy reviews, the basis for bold new
policies. On April 17, I went to Michigan to outline how my
Administration will meet welcome changes in Eastern Europe. I
announced that the United States will actively encourage and
2
assist reform in Eastern Europe, and I backed up this commitment
with measures to deepen economic relations as those governments
allow for greater freedom. A few days ago in Texas, I spoke to
another group of graduates about our changing relationship with
the Soviet Union. I declared our intention to move beyond
containment, to integrate the Soviet Union into the community of
nations. I said the United States will work with the leaders of
the Soviet Union, not against them, as they institutionalize
changes that encourage freedom and peaceful cooperation.
But today, I want to discuss the future of Europe, that
mother of nations and ideas that are so much a part of America.
Just consider this city. From the Old North Church, to Paul
Revere's home now nestled in the warm heart of the Italian North
End, to the song-filled Irish pubs of Southy
the Old and
New Worlds are inseparable in Boston.
But as we look back to Old World tradition, we must look
ahead to changes in Europe. From foreign policy to economics --
these changes will shape your careers and your very lives. Can
America keep up with the brisk pace of change around the world?
More importantly, can we stay ahead of those changes?
Absolutely.
Forty-two years ago, just across the Charles River,
Secretary of State George Marshall gave a commencement address
3
that outlined a plan to revive Europe. Western Europe responded
heroically, and then joined with us to protect this fragile
reconstruction. Behind this shield, Europe has now enjoyed forty
years of peace, the longest period of peace Europeans have ever
known. Behind this shield, the nations of Western Europe have
risen from privation to prosperity -- all because freedom works.
Of course, the generations coming of age in America and
Western Europe today can hardly be expected to feel the grip of
past anxieties -- the fears of those who fought in a wars that
began at Sarajevo (Sarah-HAY-vo) and Danzig. But the history you
learned in this university is the only past you will inherit.
Any student of history will remember that democracies reach the
moment of maximum danger when they reach maximum complacency. I
understand that when people have been at peace for a long time,
it is easy to forget that it could be otherwise. I can
understand the frustration of those who rush to embrace the new
millennia. But our expectations cannot race so far ahead of
reality that we lose sight of what's at stake.
There is a great irony here. At the very moment the
Alliance is tested by complacency, an ideological earthquake in
the societies of the East is shaking asunder the very premise of
Communism. In Eastern Europe, a powerful yearning for self-
determination is asserting itself, a yearning which will not be
satisfied by a mere easing of the grip of illegitimate regimes.
4
In the Soviet Union, the extent of reform itself is a
dramatic confession of failure. Yet they cling to the enforced
division of Europe. As the Soviets continue to talk about a
united Europe, we will remind them that it is their Berlin Wall,
their Brezhnev Doctrine, their guard towers, their barbed wire,
which divide Europe. Mr. Gorbachev says he has a vision of a
common European home. But Mr. Gorbachev, your vision of this
home will not inspire us until you first unlock doors and open
windows to the world
My vision goes far beyond the boundaries of mere geography.
My vision is one of a global Commonwealth of Free Nations united
by eternal values of democracy, openness and respect for human
rights -- with the nations of the Alliance as its founding
members.
The Alliance is also the means through which West will deal
with East. ((Quote to come from Raymond Aron on partnership) )
Our allies should know that we will consult with them constantly,
and remain sensitive to their vital interests. They should also
know this: There will be no surprises from the United States.
As democracies, we will have disagreements. But the West
must ultimately stand solid and united in the face of the Soviet
threat. The United States remains committed to the belief that
5
the defense of Europe and the deterrence of war requires nuclear
weapons, including short-range nuclear weapons. These weapons
have made the prevention of war an absolute and fearsome
necessity. The destructive power of these weapons is so terrible
as to banish forever the delusions of a would-be aggressor. And
it is this very destructive power which serves a constructive
purpose -- to bring the ancient dream of ending war within our
reach.
Common sense tells us that we must maintain the means to
convince an aggressor that he would be met in Western Europe with
any level of force needed to repel his attack and frustrate his
designs. This is the essence of our strategy of "flexible
response." We will keep and maintain the nuclear forces we base
in Europe as proof of our commitment. We will hold these weapons
at the lowest possible level. Mr. Gorbachev's latest promise to
withdraw 500 warheads means we should withdraw a proportionate
equivalent. Fine. ((That's four warheads.) So much for public
relations. Now let's get back to substance.
The fact is, we have unilaterally withdrawn thousands of
weapons in the last decade, more than a third of our stockpile.
Still, as my friend President Mitterand recognizes in word and
deed, nuclear forces still remain the ultimate deterrent. There
is no substitute.
6
Our policy approach springs from seventy years of Soviet
international behavior. We welcome Soviet reforms, but we will
continue to scrupulously evaluate Soviet intentions.
Last week, I gave concrete proposals to seek more openness
between the United States and the Soviet Union on military and
trade issues. But, I also warned of the Soviet season, where
every summer of friendship is followed by a winter of suspicion.
A look at last week's headlines proves this point. The Soviet
Foreign Minister has threatened to violate the INF treaty if we
take actions fully allowed by the treaty, and fully foreseeable
at the time the treaty was signed. Are we now to understand that
the Soviet implementation of the INF Treaty is conditional? Is
this an example of what we can expect from "new thinking?" Or is
it the same old party line? Whatever it is, it does not bring us
closer together.
We also remain committed to the conventional defense of
Europe. Of course, we want a more secure balance, at lower
levels. But I will reject legislative attempts to unilaterally
withdraw U.S. troops from Europe. We are disturbed by the way in
which the Soviet Union deploys its forces in a forward posture,
taking full advantage of its superior geographic position. We
will maintain, in cooperation with our allies, U.S. ground and
air forces in Europe so long as the Soviet Union remains the
dominant military power in Eurasia.
7
We welcome European defense coordination as a new stage in
trans-Atlantic relations. The Alliance needs a strong European
"pillar." And we see such a pillar of strength arising in the
revitalized Western European Union, and in its coordinated effort
with the United States in the Persian Gulf. We applaud the
growing defense cooperation of West Germany and France, and
support the modernization of the British and French independent
nuclear deterrent.
In these ways, the Western Alliance can maintain a common
strategic policy. But in a time of peace, economic and political
cooperation can be almost as critical to the Alliance as a united
strategic approach. Some in the United States are ambivalent
about the integration of Europe in 1992. They look to the past.
My mission is to look to the future. The United States welcomes
a larger European role in the world. We believe that European
unity and the NATO partnership are not in conflict. We believe
they reinforce each other.
We will seek new ways to manage the transition to 1992. And
the United States also welcomes the political role of the
European Community. If the EC agrees, we are eager to develop
and intensify new avenues of consultation and cooperation on
global issues -- whether it is strengthening the economies of the
8
Third World, encouraging the spread of democracy, or protecting
the environment.
We must especially avoid prolonged and bitter disputes over
trade. Just as we must not mistake adversaries for allies, so we
must not mistake our allies for adversaries. What a tragedy --
what an absurdity -- it would be if future historians attribute
the demise of the Western Alliance to disputes over produce, and
wars over pasta.
We want the Europe of 1992 to adopt the lower barriers of
the modern world economy, not the high walls and moats of
medieval commerce. We want to see what President Kennedy
referred to as an "outward-looking" Europe. And we are hopeful
that a resurgent Western Europe will be a magnet drawing the
nations of Eastern Europe into the Twenty-First Century.
Twice in this century, American blood has been shed over
conflicts that began in Europe. So Americans share the fervent
desire of Europeans to relegate war forever to the province of
distant memories.
Nineteen-ninety-two is the five hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to
celebrate, not just four decades. We will celebrate the American
Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and
9
unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic
vision of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi.
( (Quote to come from Jean Monnet) )
Davis/Zelikow/Martin
May 17, 1989/ 2:00 p.m.
Draft: Four
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:
BOSTON UNIVERSITY/Nickerson Field
May 21, 1989/11 a.m.
Thank you, John. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston.
( (And it's a pleasure to be back in one of my home states
Congratulations, Barbara, on a B.U. degree of your very own. And
now that you're an alumna, take note -- this kinder and gentler
America I'm always speaking of doesn't include the Terriers
.))
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston University
graduate, and to every proud parent. As B.U. grads, you take
with you a degree from a great institution, and something more --
knowledge of the past, and responsibility for the future.
It is with your future in mind that, after a pause for
deliberation and review, I am now putting into place a new
foreign policy for a new period of extraordinary change and hope.
On April 17, I went to Michigan to outline how my Administration
will engage to promote change in Eastern Europe. I used the
example of Poland to show that the United States will take an
active part in encouraging, and assisting, fundamental political
and economic reform. On May 2 I addressed the Council of the
Americas on my policies toward Latin America. A few days ago, in
Texas, I spoke to another group of graduates about our new
approach to the Soviet Union, about our intention to move beyond
containment to seek to integrate the Soviet Union into the
community of nations and help them share in the benefits of
international cooperation. I said we will work with the Soviet
leaders, not against them, as they make enduring and ingrained
changes that encourage freedom, as they become a partner in
solving the world's problems rather than contributing to them.
But today, I want to discuss our relationship with Western
Europe, the source of so much of the culture and so many of the
ideas that are part of America. I am pleased to share this
opportunity with a special friend of America
President
Mitterrand, you have the warm affection and high regard of the
American people. I remember well when I joined you in Yorktown,
in 1981, to celebrate the bicentennial of that first Franco-
American partnership in the decisive battle to win America's
freedom. It is highly appropriate that you should now be here in
Boston, where that struggle began, and that, on July 14, I will
join you in Paris for the 200th anniversary of France's fight for
political freedom. The interrelationship between our revolution
and yours is but one example of the inseparable bond between the
United States and Western Europe.
From the Old North Church, to Paul Revere's home now nestled
in the warm heart of the Italian North End, to the song-filled
Irish pubs of Southy, the Old World and the New come together in
3
Boston. But as we look back to Old World tradition, we must look
ahead to a changing Europe. From foreign policy to economics --
these changes will shape your careers and your very lives.
Forty-two years ago, just across the Charles River,
Secretary of State George Marshall gave a commencement address
that outlined a plan to help Europe revive. Western Europe
responded heroically, and then joined with us in a partnership to
protect this fragile reconstruction. Behind this shield, Europe
has now enjoyed forty years of peace, the longest period of peace
the continent has ever known. Behind this shield, the nations of
Western Europe have risen from privation to prosperity -- all
because freedom works.
Today, of course, the generations coming of age in America
and Western Europe can hardly be expected to feel the grip of
past anxieties. We have been at peace for so long, it is hard to
remember how it could be otherwise. I can understand the
eagerness to embrace the millennium and declare concerns about
security and freedom to be troubles of the past. But our
expectations should not race so far ahead of reality that we lose
our sense of perspective.
There is a great irony here. While the West is tested by
complacency, an ideological earthquake in the East is shaking
asunder the very foundation of Communist societies. Eastern
4
European peoples are asserting their yearning for self-
determination, for a reconciliation of the two halves of Europe.
Yet, while the Soviets continue to talk about a united Europe, we
will remind them that they are responsible for the Berlin Wall,
the Brezhnev Doctrine, the guard towers, which divide Europe.
Mr. Gorbachev speaks of a vision of a Europe joined in a 'common
European home.' But, friends, when were you last in a home in
which the rooms were separated by barbed wire?
I too have a vision of why nations join together. It is not
limited by the accidents of mere geography. It is, instead, a
kinship rooted in common values, in common ideals for the way
people should live. I believe the nations of the Atlantic
community have been the founding members of a global Commonwealth
of Free Nations, open to all who share the eternal values of
democracy, openness, and respect for human rights and private
endeavor.
So, as the democracies enter a new era of testing and of
hope, let me declare some of the principles which guide America's
policies toward our friends in Western Europe. First and
foremost, the transatlantic relationship remains at the center of
American foreign policy, as it has throughout our history. Two
world wars in this century have reminded us that Europe's future,
and Europe's security, is inseparable from our own future, and
our security.
5
America therefore remains committed to preserving freedom in
Europe by whatever means are necessary, in accordance with agreed
Alliance strategy. Our nuclear forces must be part of this
commitment. Nuclear weapons make the prevention of war so
imperative that, for that very reason, the ancient dream of
preventing war has -- for the first time -- become attainable.
We cannot unlearn how to make these weapons. So, instead of
vainly attempting to turn back the clock, we should decide how to
use this terrifying reality to fulfill the potential for a safer,
more stable, world.
Common sense tells us that any would-be aggressor must
understand that he would be met, in Western Europe, with any
level of force needed to repel his attack and frustrate his
designs. The option of going to war must always be full of
incalculable risks for a possible attacker. This is the essence
of our strategy of "flexible response." And the nuclear forces
we base in Europe, kept up to date as needed, are the proof of
our commitment to make this strategy work. Naturally, we try to
hold these weapons to the lowest possible level. The fact is, we
have unilaterally withdrawn, and destroyed, thousands of weapons
from Europe in the last decade. Without much fanfare, a third of
our stockpile has been removed. Still, as my friend President
Mitterrand has recognized both in word and deed, nuclear forces
remain the ultimate deterrent against aggression. There is no
6
substitute.
((I want to comment briefly on the Soviet approach. Last
week, I made concrete proposals to bring more openness to
military activities and trade relations between the United States
and the Soviet Union. But, I also warned that history has
revealed a seasonal nature to Soviet policy, with summers of
friendship followed by winters of malice. I said that
perestroika raises our hopes that Moscow is ready for a true
break with the past. Last week's headlines were not encouraging.
The Soviet Foreign Minister threatened to violate the INF Treaty,
a solemn agreement signed and ratified by our two countries, if
we plan our defense in a way - perfectly legal under the treaty -
which the Soviet Union does not like. Are we now to understand
that Soviet adherence to this treaty is conditional? This does
not seem to be an example of 'new thinking,' and it does not
bring us closer together.) )
Let me return to another vital principle of America's
relationship to Western Europe. In addition to nuclear forces,
we remain committed to the conventional defense of Europe.
Specifically, we are prepared to maintain, in cooperation with
our allies, U.S. ground and air forces in Europe so long as the
Soviet Union remains the dominant military power in Eurasia. I
will reject legislative attempts to unilaterally withdraw U.S.
troops from Europe. At the same time, we seek a less militarized
7
Europe, with a secure balance at lower levels of forces. Arms
control efforts to achieve this goal will be a high priority of
my Administration.
We also welcome, without reservation, more cooperation,
within Western Europe, to strengthen the European "pillar" in
Alliance defense. European defense cooperation is part of a more
mature transatlantic relationship, and we applaud the work of the
revitalized Western European Union -- which worked with us in
keeping open the sealanes of the Persian Gulf -- and the growing
military cooperation between West Germany and France. We
continue to support British and French programs to modernize
their own nuclear deterrent forces. Granted, part of our allies'
motivation is to be a little more independent of us. But it is
perfectly right and proper that Europeans should see defense as
an enterprise they engage in for their own future.
In these ways, the West can prepare for a new century of
peace. The future holds tremendous promise and, in this time of
peace, economic and political cooperation are as the common
defense.
Western Europe is moving towards far greater integration of
national economies, with the ambitious goal of a single European
market in 1992. For decades we have said that we want a more
integrated Europe, healing national emnities. Now we must
8
actually prepare to live with it. Some in the United States are
ambivalent about this prospect and fearful that Europe will
become an economic fortress shutting out the U.S. and others. I
tell you today that I reject this ambivalence. The United States
welcomes a strong, prosperous, and economically united Europe --
a Europe able and willing to play a larger role in the world
economy. We believe that European unity and the NATO partnership
are not in conflict. They can and will reinforce each other.
We will seek an enhanced dialogue with the European
Community and new mechanisms for cooperation in the economic
transition to 1992. And the United States also welcomes the
growing political role of the European Community. We are ready
to develop -- in partnership with the EC -- new avenues of
consultation and cooperation on global issues, whether it is
strengthening the economies of the Third World, encouraging the
spread of democracy, or protecting the world environment.
A more mature partnership with Western Europe will not be
easy. There will be differing views, on trade and on other
problems. But just as we must not mistake adversaries for
allies, so we must not mistake our allies for adversaries. What
a tragedy -- what an absurdity -- it would be if future
historians traced the demise of the Western alliance to dispute
over produce, and wars over pasta.
9
We are confident that the Europe of 1992 will adopt the
lower barriers of the modern international economy, not the walls
and moats of medieval commerce. We want to see what President
Kennedy referred to as an "outward-looking" Europe, and I know
this vision is shared by President Mitterrand.
We see a new resurgence of the vast genius and potential of
Europe. Such a resurgent Western Europe will be a magnet drawing
the nations of Eastern Europe into the Twenty-First century, into
the commonwealth of free nations.
Nineteen-ninety-two is the five hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to
celebrate, not just four decades. We will celebrate the American
Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and
unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic
vision of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi. The modern
vitality of Europe -- its prosperity, its freedom, and its unity
-- is the vindication and culmination of values that we cherish.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 19, 1989
Memorandum to Chriss Winston
From:
Jim Pinkerton P
Re:
BU Commencement draft
I think the draft that went to the
President is good enough, except for one
oddball phrase:
On page 6, line 6, do we really want
the President to say that the Alliance has
always been driven by "the spirit of crisis"?
What does that mean?
CC: Jim Cicconi
Davis/Zelikow/Martin
May 17, 1989/ 2:00 p.m. .
Draft: Four
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:
BOSTON UNIVERSITY/Nickerson Field
May 21, 1989/11 a.m.
Thank you, John. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston.
( (And it's a pleasure to be back in one of my home states
Congratulations, Barbara, on a B.U. degree of your very own. And
now that you' re an alumna, take note -- this kinder and gentler
America I'm always speaking of doesn't include the Terriers
now THAT THE Two PRes. ontris st. have been AWARDED A
.)) Doctor of laws
-
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston University
graduate, and to every proud parent. As B.U. grads, you take
with you a degree from a great institution, and something more --
knowledge of the past, and responsibility for the future.
It is with your future in mind that, after a pause for
deliberation and review, I am now putting into place a new
foreign policy for a new period of extraordinary change and
hope. On April 17, I went to Michigan to outline how my
Administration will engage to promote change in Eastern Europe.
I used the example of Poland to show that the United States will
take an active part in encouraging, and assisting, fundamental
political and economic reform. On May 2 I addressed the Council
of the Americas on my policies toward Latin America. A few days
ago, in Texas, I spoke to another group of graduates about our
2
new approach to the Soviet Union, about our intention to move
beyond containment to seek to integrate the Soviet Union into the
community of nations and help them share in the benefits of
international cooperation. I said we will work with the Soviet
leaders, not against them, as they make enduring and ingrained
changes that encourage freedom, as they become a partner in
solving the world's problems rather than contributing to them.
But today, I want to discuss our relationship with Western
Europe, the source of so much of the culture and SO many of the
ideas that are part of America.
I am pleased to share this
opportunity with a special friend of America
President
Mitterrand, you have the warm affection and high regard of the
American people. I remember well when I joined you in Yorktown,
in 1981, to celebrate the bicentennial of that first Franco-
American partnership in the decisive battle to win America's
freedom. It is highly appropriate that you should now be here in
Boston, where that struggle began, and that, on July 14, I will
join you in Paris for the 200th anniversary of France's fight for
political freedom. The interrelationship between our revolution
and yours is but one example of the inseparable bond between the
United States and Western Europe.
From the Old North Church, to Paul Revere's home now nestled
in the warm heart of the Italian North End, to the song-filled
Irish pubs of Southy, the Old World and the New come together in
3
Boston. But as we look back to Old World tradition, we must look
ahead to a changing Europe. From foreign policy to economics --
these changes will shape your careers and your very lives.
Forty-two years ago, just across the Charles River,
Secretary of State George Marshall gave a commencement address
that outlined a plan to help Europe revive. Western Europe
responded heroically, and then joined with us in a partnership to
protect this fragile reconstruction. Behind this shield, Europe
has now enjoyed forty years of peace, the longest period of peace
the continent has ever known. Behind this shield, the nations of
Western Europe have risen from privation to prosperity -- all
because freedom works.
Today, of course, the generations coming of age in America
and Western Europe can hardly be expected to feel the grip of
past anxieties. We have been at peace for so long, it is hard to
remember how it could be otherwise. I can understand the
eagerness to embrace the millenium and declare concerns about
security and freedom to be troubles of the past. But our
expectations should not race so far ahead of reality that we lose
our sense of perspective.
There is a great irony here. While the West is tested by
complacency, an ideological earthquake in the East is shaking
asunder the very foundation of Communist societies. Eastern
4
European peoples are asserting their yearning for self-
determination, for a reconciliation of the two halves of Europe.
Yet, while the Soviets continue to talk about a united Europe, we
will remind them that they are responsible for the Berlin Wall,
the Brezhnev Doctrine, the guard towers, which divide Europe.
Mr. Gorbachev speaks of a vision of a Europe joined in a common
European home.' But, friends, when were you last in a home in
the DOORS to every 10 ched, winpows closed to the
which the rooms were separated by barbed wire? worse.
I too have a vision of why nations join together. It is not
limited by the accidents of mere geography. It is, instead, a
kinship rooted in common values, in common ideals for the way
people should live. I believe the nations of the Atlantic
community have been the founding members of a global Commonwealth
of Free Nations, open to all who share the eternal values of
democracy, openness, and respect for human rights and private
endeavor.
So, as the democracies enter a new era of testing and of
quote
hope, let me declare some of the principles which guide America's
policies toward our friends in Western Europe. First and
R.A.
foremost, the transatlantic relationship remains at the center of
American foreign policy, as it has throughout our history. Two
world wars in this century have reminded us that Europe's future,
and Europe's security, is inseparable from our own future, and
our security.
5
America therefore remains committed to preserving freedom in
Europe by whatever means are necessary, in accordance with agreed
Alliance strategy. Our nuclear forces must be part of this
commitment. Nuclear weapons make the prevention of war SO
imperative that, for that very reason, the ancient dream of
preventing war has -- for the first time -- become attainable.
We cannot unlearn how to make these weapons. So, instead of
vainly attempting to turn back the clock, we should decide how to
use this terrifying reality to fulfill the potential for a safer,
more stable, world.
Common sense tells us that any would-be aggressor must
understand that he would be met, in Western Europe, with any
level of force needed to repel his attack and frustrate his
designs. The option of going to war must always be full of
incalculable risks for a possible attacker. This is the essence
of our strategy of "flexible response." And the nuclear forces
we base in Europe, kept up to date as needed, are the proof of
our commitment to make this strategy work. Naturally, we try to
hold these weapons to the lowest possible level. The fact is, we
have unilaterally withdrawn ( (and destroyed) ) thousands of
weapons from Europe in the last decade. Without much fanfare, a
third of our stockpile has been removed. Still, as my friend
President Mitterrand has recognized both in word and deed,
nuclear forces remain the ultimate deterrent against aggression.
6
There is no substitute.
( (I want to comment briefly on the Soviet approach. Last
week, I made concrete proposals to bring more openness to
military activities and trade relations between the United States
and the Soviet Union. But, I also warned that history has
revealed a seasonal nature to Soviet policy, with summers of
sustamen
friendship followed by winters of malice. I said that
perestroika raises our hopes that Moscow is ready for a true
break with the past. Last week's headlines were not encouraging.
The Soviet Foreign Minister threatened to violate the INF Treaty,
a solemn agreement signed and ratified by our two countries, if
we plan our defense in a way - perfectly legal under the treaty -
which the Soviet Union does not like. Are we now to understand
that Soviet adherence to this treaty is conditional? This does
not seem to be an example of 'new thinking,' and it does not
bring us closer together.) )
Let me return to another vital principle of America's
relationship to Western Europe. In addition to nuclear forces,
we remain committed to the conventional defense of Europe.
Specifically, we are prepared to maintain, in cooperation with
our allies, U.S. ground and air forces in Europe so long as the
Soviet Union remains the dominant military power in Eurasia. I
will reject legislative attempts to unilaterally withdraw U.S.
troops from Europe. At the same time, we seek a less militarized
A lasting peace must be built on a solid foundation. The
differences of half a century cannot be settled by fleeting
proclamations and ambiguous promises. It must be grounded in
deeds that are concrete, not cosmetic. It must be based on
changes in military and political institutions, changes that
endure beyond one day's headline.
7
Europe, with a secure balance at lower levels of forces. Arms
control efforts to achieve this goal will be a high priority of
my Administration.
We also welcome, without reservation, more cooperation,
within Western Europe, to strengthen the European "pillar" in
Alliance defense. European defense cooperation is part of a more
mature transatlantic relationship, and we applaud the work of the
revitalized Western European Union -- which worked with us in
keeping open the sealanes of the Persian Gulf -- and the growing
military cooperation between West Germany and France. We
continue to support British and French programs to modernize
their own nuclear deterrent forces. Granted, part of our allies'
motivation is to be a little more independent of us. But
it is perfectly right and proper that Europeans should see
defense as an enterprise they engage in for their own future.
In these ways, the West can prepare for a new century of
peace. The future holds tremendous promise and, in this time of
peace, economic and political cooperation are as the common
defense.
Western Europe is moving towards far greater integration of
national economies, with the ambitious goal of a single European
market in 1992. For decades we have said that we want a more
integrated Europe, healing national emnities. Now we must
8
actually prepare to live with it. Some in the United States are
ambivalent about this prospect and fearful that Europe will
become an economic fortress shutting out the U.S. and others. I
tell you today that I reject this ambivalence. The United States
welcomes a strong, prosperous, and economically united Europe --
a Europe able and willing to play a larger role in the world
economy. We believe that European unity and the NATO partnership
are not in conflict. They can and will reinforce each other.
We will seek an enhanced dialogue with the European
Community and new mechanisms for cooperation in the economic
transition to 1992. And the United States also welcomes the
growing political role of the European Community. We are ready
to develop -- in partnership with the EC -- new avenues of
consultation and cooperation on global issues, whether it is
strengthening the economies of the Third World, encouraging the
spread of democracy, or protecting the world environment.
A more mature partnership with Western Europe will not be
easy. There will be differing views, on trade and on other
problems. But just as we must not mistake adversaries for
allies, SO we must not mistake our allies for adversaries. What
a tragedy -- what an absurdity -- it would be if future
historians traced the demise of the Western alliance to dispute
over produce, and wars over pasta.
9
We are confident that the Europe of 1992 will adopt the
lower barriers of the modern international economy, not the walls
and moats of medieval commerce. We want to see what President
Kennedy referred to as an "outward-looking" Europe, and I know
this vision is shared by President Mitterrand.
We see a new resurgence of the vast genius and potential of
Europe. Such a resurgent Western Europe will be a magnet drawing
the nations of Eastern Europe into the Twenty-First century, into
the commonwealth of free nations.
Nineteen-ninety-two is the five hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to
celebrate, not just four decades. We will celebrate the American
Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and
unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic
vision of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi.
The modern
vitality of Europe -- its prosperity, its freedom, and its unity
-- is the vindication and culmination of values that we cherish.
MOP
curreral comments.
NSC redraft
tone/nonewpolicy
(blustreafristion ApplAuse to come
Cicconi
SNF - conspic.
Goeb.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1989
MEMORANDUM TO CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
JIM PINKERTON
&
SUBJECT:
Boston University Draft Speech
This important and serious speech is well-written. We liked
lines like "disputes over produce, and wars over pasta." We also
liked the linkage established on the first and second pages,
between the various commencement speeches.
While we have no problem with the tough tone on pages 4, 5
and 6, we are concerned about several perhaps overly-hawkish
statements [e.g., see 3,2 below]. We want to share our feeling
that this speech could be seen as added frost on the verbal
exchanges of the last couple of days.
Pg. 1, para. 3, line 2 "...grads..." is too colloquial. We
suggest "graduates.
3,1,1-5 We see two problems: First, "fragile reconstruction"
is the wrong choice of words to describe 40 years of prosperity.
We'd suggest "heroic reconstruction."
Second, we wonder what "this shield" refers to. If we are
talking about NATO, or Western resolve, or containment, we ought
to say what we mean.
3,2,4
"But the history you learned in this university is the
only past you will inherit. " This is obviously untrue in the
sense that you learn history, and inherit the past, outside of
college as well. We suggest omitting the line.
If we wish to refer to the B.U. audience in stressing the
importance of not forgetting history, we can do it in the next
sentence by saying something like "Any student of history,
especially at B.U, will remember
"
(more)
2-2-2
3,2 "Sarajevo," "Danzig," etc. : This digression into the
origins of the past two World Wars seems ripe for
misunderstanding. To repeat, we aren't questioning the strategy
involved here, we are simply sharing our concern about possible
reaction to some of these word choices.
3,3,6
We question the use of " illegitimate regimes
"
Do we, at this point in time, want to blanketly stigmatize all
Eastern European governments? If the President says this, people
will ask what business we have dealing with them, our precise
criteria for determining illegitimacy, etc. Far better, we
think, to simply say "repressive."
6,2,3
"[T]he Soviet season" " should be plural since we are
speaking of more than one season.
7,3,1
"
transition to 1992 " is inadequate. We suggest a
stronger formulation of our goal in the lead sentence, such as:
"We will seek to cooperate with the European Economic Community
to promote prosperity and cooperation on both sides of the
Atlantic in the crucial years to come. "
8,3,1
We suggest changing "We want the Europe of 1992 to
adopt
"
to "We hope that Europe of 1992 will adopt
"
8,3,3
Again, we suggest changing "We want " to "We
hope "
8,3,4
And we suggest changing "And we are hopeful " to "And
we are confident
"
#
Document No. 036749
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 05/16/89
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: Noon 05/17/89
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY
SUBJECT:
(05/16 6:00 p.m.-draft 3)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
D
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
ROGERS
CARD
PINKERTON
WINSTON
CICCONI
DEMAREST
ROSE
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations directly to Chriss
Winston (Rm. 122, x2930) by Noon on Wednesday, 05/17, with an
info copy to my office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
See changes
James W, Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
Davis/Zelikow/Martin
May 16, 1989/6 p.m.
Draft: Three
PM 7: 20
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY/Nickerson Field
MAY 21, 1989/11 a.m.
Thank you, John. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston.
( (And it's a pleasure to be back in one of my home states
Congratulations, Barbara, on a B.U. degree of your very own. And
now that you're an alumnus, take note -- this kinder and gentler
America I'm always speaking of doesn't include the Terriers
.))
I am pleased to share this opportunity with a special friend
of America
President Mitterand, you have the warm affection
and high regard of the American people. ((Anecdote to come.))
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston University
graduate, and to every proud parent. As B.U. grads, you take
with you a degree from a great institution, and something more --
knowledge of the past, and responsibility for the future.
It is with your future in mind that I have undertaken a
series of foreign policy reviews, the basis for bold new
policies. On April 17, I went to Michigan to outline how my
Administration will meet welcome changes in Eastern Europe. I
announced that the United States will actively encourage and
2
assist reform in Eastern Europe, and I backed up this commitment
with measures to deepen economic relations as those governments
allow for greater freedom. A few days ago in Texas, I spoke to
another group of graduates about our changing relationship with
the Soviet Union. I declared our intention to move beyond
containment, to integrate the Soviet Union into the community of
nations. I said the United States will work with the leaders of
the Soviet Union, not against them, as they institutionalize
changes that encourage freedom and peaceful cooperation.
But today, I want to discuss the future of Europe, that
mother of nations and ideas that are so much a part of America.
Just consider this city. From the Old North Church, to Paul
Revere's home now nestled in the warm heart of the Italian North
End, to the song-filled Irish pubs of Southy
the Old and
New Worlds are inseparable in Boston.
But as we look back to Old World tradition, we must look
ahead to changes in Europe. From foreign policy to economics --
these changes will shape your careers and your very lives. Can
America keep up with the brisk pace of change around the world?
More importantly, can we stay ahead of those changes?
Absolutely.
Forty-two years ago, just across the Charles River,
Secretary of State George Marshall gave a commencement address
3
that outlined a plan to revive Europe. Western Europe responded
to form the NATO alleance that has protected
heroically, and then joined with us to protect-this fragile
reconstruction. Behind this shield, Europe has now enjoyed forty
years of peace, the longest period of peace Europeans have ever
known. Behind this shield, the nations of Western Europe have
risen from privation to prosperity -- all because freedom works.
Of course, the generations coming of age in America and
Paragray
Western Europe today can hardly be expected to feel the grip of
a lit
past anxieties -- the fears of those who fought in a wars that
obscure
began at Sarajevo (Sarah-HAY-vo) and Danzig. But the history you
learned in this university is the only past you will inherit.
?
Any student of history will remember that democracies reach the
moment of maximum danger when they reach maximum complacency. I
?
understand that when people have been at peace for a long time,
it is easy to forget that it could be otherwise. I can
understand the frustration of those who rush to embrace the new
Roul 5044
um.
millennia. But our expectations cannot race so far ahead of
reality that we lose sight of what's at stake.
Raul
too bombastic
5044
There is a great irony here. At the very moment the
Alliance is tested by complacency, an ideological earthquake in
the societies of the East is shaking asunder the very premise of
Communism. In Eastern Europe, a powerful yearning for self-
determination is asserting itself, a yearning which will not be
satisfied by a mere easing of the grip of illegitimate regimes.
4
In the Soviet Union, the extent of reform itself is a
dramatic confession of failure. Yet they cling to the enforced
division of Europe. As the Soviets continue to talk about a
united Europe, we will remind them that it is their Berlin Wall,
their Brezhnev Doctrine, their guard towers, their barbed wire,
which divide Europe. Mr. Gorbachev says he has a vision of a
common European home. But Mr. Gorbachev, your vision of this
home will not inspire us until you first unlock doors and open
windows to the world
My vision goes far beyond the boundaries of mere geography.
My vision is one of a global Commonwealth of Free Nations united
by eternal values of democracy, openness and respect for human
rights -- with the nations of the Alliance as its founding
members.
The Alliance is also the means through which West will deal
with East. ( (Quote to come from Raymond Aron on partnership) )
Our allies should know that we will consult with them constantly,
and remain sensitive to their vital interests. They should also
know this: There will be no surprises from the United States.
As democracies, we will have disagreements. But the West
must ultimately stand solid and united in the face of the Soviet
threat. The United States remains committed to the belief that
5
the defense of Europe and the deterrence of war requires nuclear
weapons, including short-range nuclear weapons. These weapons
have made the prevention of war an absolute and fearsome
necessity. The destructive power of these weapons is so terrible
as to banish forever the delusions of a would-be aggressor. And
it is this very destructive power which serves a constructive
purpose -- to bring the ancient dream of ending war within our
reach.
poets release
says be
wants
Common sense tells us that we must maintain the means to
convince an aggressor that he would be met in Western Europe with
any level of force needed to repel his attack and frustrate his
Rauly
designs. This is the essence of our strategy of "flexible
response." We will keep and maintain the nuclear forces we base
in Europe as proof of our commitment. We will hold these weapons
at the lowest possible level. Mr. Gorbachev's latest promise to
withdraw 500 warheads means we should withdraw a proportionate
Fine But he has so m any more than we have that
number, it would be just
if we
equivalent.
Fine.
(That's
four
warheads.)
"
So much for public
wereto
relations. Now let's get back to substance.
MW.Gor bacher's bacher's
The fact is, we have unilaterally withdrawn thousands of
to
weapons in the last decade, more than a third of our stockpile.
war
Still, as my friend President Mitterand recognizes in word and
and
safeguare
deed, nuclear forces still remain the ultimate deterrent. There
for
is no substitute.
peace.
most powerful
6
Our policy approach springs from seventy years of Soviet
international behavior. We welcome Soviet reforms, but we will
continue to scrupulously evaluate Soviet intentions.
Last week, I gave concrete proposals to seek more openness
between the United States and the Soviet Union on military and
trade issues. But, I also warned of the Soviet season, where
every summer of friendship is followed by a winter of suspicion.
Rawl
A look at last week's headlines proves this point, The Soviet
45044
Foreign Minister has already a threatened to violate the INF thelfjustrigned. treaty if we
take actions fully allowed by the treaty, and fully foreseeable
at the time the treaty was signed. Are we now to understand that
adherence tp.
to sen
the Soviet implementation of the INF Treaty is conditional?
Is
making
this an example of what we can expect from "new thinking?" Or
is
further
concessions
it the same old party line? Whatever it is, it does not bring us
them
Add reference to closer ,ccent together. also newsarticles committed on Soviet the constituon
We remain to conventional defense of
Europe. Of course, we want a more secure balance, at lower
levels. But I will reject legislative attempts to unilaterally
withdraw U.S. troops from Europe. We are disturbed by the way in
which the Soviet Union deploys its forces in a forward posture,
taking full advantage of its superior geographic position. We
will maintain, in cooperation with our allies, U.S. ground and
air forces in Europe so long as the Soviet Union remains the
dominant military power in Eurasia.
7
We welcome European defense coordination as a new stage in
trans-Atlantic relations. The Alliance needs a strong European
"pillar." And we see such a pillar of strength arising in the
revitalized Western European Union, and in its coordinated effort
with the United States in the Persian Gulf. We applaud the
growing defense cooperation of West Germany and France, and
support the modernization of the British and French independent
nuclear deterrent.
In these ways, the Western Alliance can maintain a common
strategic policy. But in a time of peace, economic and political
cooperation can be almost as critical to the Alliance as a united
strategic approach. Some in the United States are ambivalent
about the integration of Europe in 1992. They look to the past.
My mission is to look to the future. The United States welcomes
a larger European role in the world. We believe that European
unity and the NATO partnership are not in conflict. We believe
they reinforce each other.
We will seek new ways to manage the transition to 1992. And
the United States also welcomes the political role of the
European Community. If the EC agrees, we are eager to develop
and intensify new avenues of consultation and cooperation on
global issues -- whether it is strengthening the economies of the
8
Third World, encouraging the spread of democracy, or protecting
the environment.
We must especially avoid prolonged and bitter disputes over
trade. Just as we must not mistake adversaries for allies, so we
must not mistake our allies for adversaries. What a tragedy --
what an absurdity -- it would be if future historians attribute
the demise of the Western Alliance to disputes over produce, and
wars over pasta.
We want the Europe of 1992 to adopt the lower barriers of
the modern world economy, not the high walls and moats of
medieval commerce. We want to see what President Kennedy
referred to as an "outward-looking" Europe. And we are hopeful
that a resurgent Western Europe will be a magnet drawing the
nations of Eastern Europe into the Twenty-First Century.
Twice in this century, American blood has been shed over
conflicts that began in Europe. So Americans share the fervent
desire of Europeans to relegate war forever to the province of
distant memories.
Nineteen-ninety-two is the five hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to
celebrate, not just four decades. We will celebrate the American
Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and
9
unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic
vision of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi.
( (Quote to come from Jean Monnet) )
Document No. 036749
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 05/16/89
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
Noon 05/17/89
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY
SUBJECT:
(05/16 6:00 p.m.-draft 3)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
ROGERS
CARD
PINKERTON
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
ROSE
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations directly to Chriss
Winston (Rm. 122, x2930) by Noon on Wednesday, 05/17, with an
info copy to my office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
ok
618W
5/17
James W, Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR CHRISS WINSTON
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR COMMUNICATIONS
FROM:
PATRICIA MACK BRYAN NPWB
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Boston University
Pursuant to James W. Cicconi's staffing memorandum of May 16,
1989, Counsel's Office has reviewed the above referenced
presidential remarks. We have no legal objection to these
remarks; although we defer to the NSC as to the accuracy of the
statements on page 6 involving the meaning of the INF treaty.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
CC: James W. Cicconi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
RBP
SUBJECT:
Presidential Remarks: Boston University
I have reviewed the draft remarks for the President's
address at Boston University and have no policy changes to
suggest. The thrust of the speech is on foreign policy and
I have all that I can handle attempting to keep track of
economic and domestic policy.
I do, however, have one minor editorial suggestion in
the second paragraph of page seven. I recommend that the
third sentence read: "Some in the United States are ambivalent
about the European Community's efforts to create a single
internal market by the year 1992."
If you have any questions, please let me know.
CC: James W. Cicconi
Document No. 036749
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 05/16/89
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: Noon 05/17/89
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY
SUBJECT:
(05/16 6:00 p.m.-draft 3)
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
ROGERS
CARD
PINKERTON
CICCONI
WINSTON
DEMAREST
ROSE
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments/recommendations directly to Chriss
Winston (Rm. 122, x2930) by Noon on Wednesday, 05/17, with an
info copy to my office. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
James W, Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
Davis/Zelikow/Martin
May 16, 1989/6 p.m.
Draft: Three
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: BOSTON UNIVERSITY/Nickerson Field
MAY 21, 1989/11 a.m.
Thank you, John. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston.
((And it's a pleasure to be back in one of my home states
Congratulations, Barbara, on a B.U. degree of your very own. And
now that you're an alumnus, take note -- this kinder and gentler
America I'm always speaking of doesn't include the Terriers
.))
I am pleased to share this opportunity with a special friend
of America
President Mitterand, you have the warm affection
and high regard of the American people. ((Anecdote to come.))
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston University
graduate, and to every proud parent. As B.U. grads, you take
with you a degree from a great institution, and something more --
knowledge of the past, and responsibility for the future.
It is with your future in mind that I have undertaken a
series of foreign policy reviews, the basis for bold new
policies. On April 17, I went to Michigan to outline how my
Administration will meet welcome changes in Eastern Europe. I
announced that the United States will actively encourage and
2
assist reform in Eastern Europe, and I backed up this commitment
with measures to deepen economic relations as those governments
allow for greater freedom. A few days ago in Texas, I spoke to
another group of graduates about our changing relationship with
the Soviet Union. I declared our intention to move beyond
containment, to integrate the Soviet Union into the community of
nations. I said the United States will work with the leaders of
the Soviet Union, not against them, as they institutionalize
changes that encourage freedom and peaceful cooperation.
But today, I want to discuss the future of Europe, that
mother of nations and ideas that are so much a part of America.
Just consider this city. From the Old North Church, to Paul
Revere's home now nestled in the warm heart of the Italian North
End, to the song-filled Irish pubs of Southy
the Old and
New Worlds are inseparable in Boston.
But as we look back to Old World tradition, we must look
ahead to changes in Europe. From foreign policy to economics --
these changes will shape your careers and your very lives. Can
America keep up with the brisk pace of change around the world?
More importantly, can we stay ahead of those changes?
Absolutely.
Forty-two years ago, just across the Charles River,
Secretary of State George Marshall gave a commencement address
3
that outlined a plan to revive Europe. Western Europe responded
heroically, and then joined with us to protect this fragile
reconstruction. Behind this shield, Europe has now enjoyed forty
years of peace, the longest period of peace Europeans have ever
known. Behind this shield, the nations of Western Europe have
risen from privation to prosperity -- all because freedom works.
Of course, the generations coming of age in America and
Western Europe today can hardly be expected to feel the grip of
past anxieties -- the fears of those who fought in a wars that
began at Sarajevo (Sarah-HAY-vo) and Danzig. But the history you
learned in this university is the only past you will inherit.
Any student of history will remember that democracies reach the
moment of maximum danger when they reach maximum complacency. I
understand that when people have been at peace for a long time,
it is easy to forget that it could be otherwise. I can
understand the frustration of those who rush to embrace the new
millennia. But our expectations cannot race so far ahead of
reality that we lose sight of what's at stake.
There is a great irony here. At the very moment the
Alliance is tested by complacency, an ideological earthquake in
the societies of the East is shaking asunder the very premise of
Communism. In Eastern Europe, a powerful yearning for self-
determination is asserting itself, a yearning which will not be
satisfied by a mere easing of the grip of illegitimate regimes.
4
In the Soviet Union, the extent of reform itself is a
dramatic confession of failure. Yet they cling to the enforced
division of Europe. As the Soviets continue to talk about a
united Europe, we will remind them that it is their Berlin Wall,
their Brezhnev Doctrine, their guard towers, their barbed wire,
which divide Europe. Mr. Gorbachev says he has a vision of a
common European home. But Mr. Gorbachev, your vision of this
home will not inspire us until you first unlock doors and open
windows to the world
My vision goes far beyond the boundaries of mere geography.
My vision is one of a global Commonwealth of Free Nations united
by eternal values of democracy, openness and respect for human
rights -- with the nations of the Alliance as its founding
members.
The Alliance is also the means through which West will deal
with East. ( (Quote to come from Raymond Aron on partnership) )
Our allies should know that we will consult with them constantly,
and remain sensitive to their vital interests. They should also
know this: There will be no surprises from the United States.
As democracies, we will have disagreements. But the West
must ultimately stand solid and united in the face of the Soviet
threat. The United States remains committed to the belief that
5
the defense of Europe and the deterrence of war requires nuclear
weapons, including short-range nuclear weapons. These weapons
have made the prevention of war an absolute and fearsome
necessity. The destructive power of these weapons is so terrible
as to banish forever the delusions of a would-be aggressor. And
it is this very destructive power which serves a constructive
purpose -- to bring the ancient dream of ending war within our
reach.
Common sense tells us that we must maintain the means to
convince an aggressor that he would be met in Western Europe with
any level of force needed to repel his attack and frustrate his
designs. This is the essence of our strategy of "flexible
response." We will keep and maintain the nuclear forces we base
in Europe as proof of our commitment. We will hold these weapons
at the lowest possible level. Mr. Gorbachev's latest promise to
withdraw 500 warheads means we should withdraw a proportionate
equivalent. Fine. ((That's four warheads.) So much for public
relations. Now let's get back to substance.
The fact is, we have unilaterally withdrawn thousands of
weapons in the last decade, more than a third of our stockpile.
Still, as my friend President Mitterand recognizes in word and
deed, nuclear forces still remain the ultimate deterrent. There
is no substitute.
6
Our policy approach springs from seventy years of Soviet
international behavior. We welcome Soviet reforms, but we will
continue to scrupulously evaluate Soviet intentions.
Last week, I gave concrete proposals to seek more openness
between the United States and the Soviet Union on military and
trade issues. But, I also warned of the Soviet season, where
every summer of friendship is followed by a winter of suspicion.
A look at last week's headlines proves this point. The Soviet
Foreign Minister has threatened to violate the INF treaty if we
take actions fully allowed by the treaty, and fully foreseeable
at the time the treaty was signed. Are we now to understand that
the Soviet implementation of the INF Treaty is conditional? Is
this an example of what we can expect from "new thinking?" Or is
it the same old party line? Whatever it is, it does not bring us
closer together.
We also remain committed to the conventional defense of
Europe. Of course, we want a more secure balance, at lower
levels. But I will reject legislative attempts to unilaterally
withdraw U.S. troops from Europe. We are disturbed by the way in
which the Soviet Union deploys its forces in a forward posture,
taking full advantage of its superior geographic position. We
will maintain, in cooperation with our allies, U.S. ground and
air forces in Europe so long as the Soviet Union remains the
dominant military power in Eurasia.
7
We welcome European defense coordination as a new stage in
trans-Atlantic relations. The Alliance needs a strong European
"pillar." And we see such a pillar of strength arising in the
revitalized Western European Union, and in its coordinated effort
with the United States in the Persian Gulf. We applaud the
growing defense cooperation of West Germany and France, and
support the modernization of the British and French independent
nuclear deterrent.
In these ways, the Western Alliance can maintain a common
strategic policy. But in a time of peace, economic and political
cooperation can be almost as critical to the Alliance as a united
strategic approach. Some in the United States ,Single are ambivalent
the
Em year Community's efforts to create alcomon internal by
about the integration of Europe in 1992. They look to the past.
the
My mission is to look to the future. The United States welcomes
year
a larger European role in the world. We believe that European
unity and the NATO partnership are not in conflict. We believe
they reinforce each other.
We will seek new ways to manage the transition to 1992. And
the United States also welcomes the political role of the
European Community. If the EC agrees, we are eager to develop
and intensify new avenues of consultation and cooperation on
global issues -- whether it is strengthening the economies of the
8
Third World, encouraging the spread of democracy, or protecting
the environment.
We must especially avoid prolonged and bitter disputes over
trade. Just as we must not mistake adversaries for allies, so we
must not mistake our allies for adversaries. What a tragedy --
what an absurdity -- it would be if future historians attribute
the demise of the Western Alliance to disputes over produce, and
wars over pasta.
We want the Europe of 1992 to adopt the lower barriers of
the modern world economy, not the high walls and moats of
medieval commerce. We want to see what President Kennedy
referred to as an "outward-looking" Europe. And we are hopeful
that a resurgent Western Europe will be a magnet drawing the
nations of Eastern Europe into the Twenty-First Century.
Twice in this century, American blood has been shed over
conflicts that began in Europe. So Americans share the fervent
desire of Europeans to relegate war forever to the province of
distant memories.
Nineteen-ninety-two is the five hundredth anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to
celebrate, not just four decades. We will celebrate the American
Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and
9
unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic
vision of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi.
( (Quote to come from Jean Monnet) )
#655
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Boston, Massachusetts)
For Immediate Release
May 21, 1989
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
12:33 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, President Silber. And
President and Madame Mitterrand, it's a great honor to have you here
today. And to Governor Dukakis, my respects -- the Chief Executive
of this great state and my friend as well. To Mayor Flynn, His
Eminence Cardinal Law, and Dr. Metcalf, Dr. Wiesel, and yes,
Kimberly, to you for that wonderful speech earlier on. And to Nancy
Joaquim, who rendered both The Marseillaise and The Star-Spangled
Banner in such fine way.
It's a pleasure to be back in Boston, back in one of my
home states -- (laughter) -- and I am delighted and honored to
receive a Doctor of Laws from Boston University along with President
Mitterrand. (Applause.) Doctor of Laws -- does this now make us a
couple of Boston lawyers, my friend, Mr. Mitterrand? (Laughter.)
Who knows?
I also would like to salute another most distinguished
visitor -- Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia -- a friend to the
United States, whose son is graduating today. We're honored to have
him here. (Applause.)
And I want to congratulate Barbara on a B.U. degree of
her very own. (Laughter and applause.) And now that you're an
alumna, take note -- this kinder and gentler America that I'm
speaking of does not always include the Terriers. (Laughter.)
My sincerest congratulations go to every Boston
University graduate, and to all you proud parents cooking out along
the 50-yard line there. (Laughter and applause.) And as Boston
University graduates, you take with you a degree from a great
institution, and something more -- (applause) -- something more --
knowledge of the past and responsibility for the future. And take a
look at our world today. Nations are undergoing changes so radical
that the international system you know and will know in the future
will be as different from today's, as today's world is from the time
of Woodrow Wilson. How will America prepare, then, for the
challenges ahead?
It's with your future in mind that, after deliberation
and a review, we are adapting our foreign policies to meet this
- 2 -
1981 to celebrate the bicentennial of that first Franco-American
fight for freedom. And soon, I will join you in Paris, sir, to
observe the 200th anniversary of the French struggle for liberty and
equality. (Applause.)
And this is just one example of the special bond between
two continents. But consider this city. From the Old North Church
to Paul Revere's home nestled in the warm heart of the Italian North
End, to your famous song-filled Irish pubs -- the Old and New Worlds
are inseparable in this city. But as we look back to Old World
tradition, we must look ahead to a new Europe. Historic changes will
shape your careers and your very lives.
The changes that are occurring in Western Europe are less
dramatic than those taking place in the East, but they are no less
fundamental. The postwar order that began in 1945 is transforming
into something very different. And yet certain essentials remain,
because our Alliance with Western Europe is utterly unlike the
cynical power alliances of the past. It is based on far more than
the perception of a common enemy. It is a tie of culture and kinship
and shared values. And as we look toward the 21st century, Americans
and Europeans alike should remember the words of Raymond Aron, who
called the Alliance a "moral and spiritual community." Our ideals
are those of the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man. And it is precisely because the ideals of this
community are universal that the world is in ferment today.
Now a new century holás the promise of a united Europe.
And as you know, the nations of Western Europe are already moving
toward greater economic integration, with the ambitious goal of a
single European market in 1992. The United States has often declared
it seeks a healing of old enmities, an integration of Europe. And at
the same time, there has been an historical ambivalence on the part
of some Americans towards a more united Europe. To this ambivalence
has been added apprehension at the prospect of 1992. But whatever
others may think, this administration is of one mind. We believe a
strong, united Europe means a strong America. (Applause.)
Western Europe has a gross domestic product that is
roughly equal to our own and a population that exceeds ours.
European science leads the world in many fields, and European workers
are highly educated and highly skilled. We are ready to develop,
with the European Community and its member states, new mechanisms of
consultation and cooperation on political and global issues from
strengthening the forces of democracy in the Third World to managing
regional tensions, to putting an end to the division of Europe.
A
resurgent Western Europe is an economic magnet, drawing Eastern
Europe closer toward the commonwealth of free nations. A more
mature partnership with Western Europe will pose new challenges.
There are certain to be clashes and controversies over economic
issues. America will, of course, defend its interests. But it is
important to distinguish adversaries from allies and allies from
adversaries. What a tragedy; what an absurdity it would be if future
historians attribute the demise of the Western Alliance to disputes
over beef hormones and wars over pasta. We must all work hard to
ensure that the Europe of 1992 will adopt the lower barriers of the
modern international economy, not the high walls and the moats of
medieval commerce.
- 3 -
of peace the continent has ever known. (Applause.) Behind this
shield, the nations of Western Europe have risen from privation to
prosperity -- all because of the strengh and resolve of free peoples.
With a Western Europe that is now coming together, we
recognize that new forms of cooperation must be developed. We
applaud the defense cooperation developing in the revitalized Western
European Union, whose members worked with us to keep open the
sea-lanes of the Persian Gulf. And we applaud the growing military
cooperation between West Germany and France. And we welcome British
and French programs to modernize their deterrent capability and their
moves toward cooperation in this area. It is perfectly right and
proper that Europeans increasingly see their defense cooperation as
an investment in a secure future. But we ão have a major concern of
a different order -- a growing complacency throughout the West.
And, of course, your generation can hardly be expected to
share the grip of past anxieties. With such a long peace, it is hard
to imagine how it could be otherwise. But our expectations in this
rapidly changing world cannot race so far ahead that we forget what
is at stake. There's a great irony here. While an ideological
earthquake is shaking asunder the very communist foundation, the West
is being tested by complacency.
We must never forget that twice in this century, American
blood has been shed over conflicts that began in Europe. And we
share the fervent desire of Europeans to relegate war forever to the
province of distant memory. (Applause.) But that is why the
Atlantic Alliance is SO central to our foreign policy. And that's
why America remains committed to the Alliance and the strategy which
has preserved freedom in Europe. We must never forget that to keep
the peace in Europe is to keep the peace for America.
NATO's policy of flexible response keeps the United
States linked to Europe and lets any would-be aggressors know that
they will be met with any level of force needed to repel their attack
and frustrate their designs. And our short-range deterrent forces
based in Europe, and kept up-to-date, demonstrate that America's
vital interests are bound inextricably to Western Europe, and that an
attacker can never gamble on a test of strength with just our
conventional forces. Though hope is now running high for a more
peaceful continent, the history of this century teaches Americans and
Europeans to remain prepared.
As we search for a peace that is enduring, I'm grateful
for the steps that Mr. Gorbachev is taking. If the Soviets advance
solia and constructive plans for peace, then we should give credit
where credit is due. And we're seeing sweeping changes in the Soviet
Union that show promise of enduring, of becoming ingrained. At the
same time, in an era of extraordinary change, we have an obligation
to temper optimism -- and I am optimistic -- with prudence.
For example, the Soviet Foreign Minister informed the
world last week that his nation's commitment to destroy SS-23
missiles under the recently enacted INF Treaty may be reversible.
And the Soviets must surely know the results of failure to comply
with this solemn agreement. Perhaps their purpose was to divide the
West on other issues that vou're reading about in the papers today.
my administration will place a high and continuing priority on
negotiating a less militarized Europe, one with a secure conventional
force balance at lower levels of forces. Our aspiration is a real
peace -- a peace of shared optimism, not a peace of armed camps.
(Applause.)
Nineteen-ninety-two is the 500th anniversary of the
discovery of the New World. So we have five centuries to celebrate,
nothing less than our very civilization -- the American Bill of
Rights and the French Rights of Man, the ancient and unwritten
Constitution of Great Britain, and the democratic visions of Konrad
Adenauer and Alcide de Gasperi.
And in all our celebrations, we observe one fact: this
truly is a moral and spiritual community. It is our inheritance and
so let us protect it. Let us promote it. Let us treasure it for our
children, for Americans and Europeans yet unborn. We stand with
France as part of a solid Alliance. And once again, let me say how
proud I am to have received this degree from this noble institution
and to have shared this platform with the President of the French
Republic Francois Mitterrand.
Thank you very, very much. Viva la France and long live
the United States of America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
12:50 P.M. EDT