Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

235. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the Department of State (Platt) to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (McFarlane)¹

Washington, March 8, 1985

SUBJECT

• Proposals for Speeches by the President during His May 1–10 trip to Europe²

As currently planned, President Reagan’s schedule in Europe includes three major addresses. They are:

— May 6—Hambach Castle Germany: Remarks to an assembled group of German youth.³

— May 8—Strasbourg: A major address at the European Parliament to members of the parliament and other assembled dignitaries.⁴

— May 9—Lisbon: A speech at the Portuguese Parliament to members of the parliament.⁵

Despite chronic uncertainty in Europe, especially about the economic situation, the President’s trip presents an important opportunity for the United States and for the Alliance. American optimism is starting to infect Europe as well. The President’s image in Europe is increasingly characterized by his record of success in restoring American economic, military and political strength, both at home and abroad.

This record of success will be the President’s most important asset in communicating with the Europeans. Impressed by his achievements, the Europeans are beginning to look for ways to emulate his methods. Traditional European desires for American leadership are thus reinforced by the expectation that the American model again provides the best hope for a brighter, more secure future.

The President’s speeches in Europe will provide a superb means to send a message both to our friends and adversaries in Europe and to the people of the United States. Especially through his speeches, he has an opportunity to establish a framework which could guide US-European and East-West relations for the next decade or even longer.

The sequence of three speeches in three countries in four days sets a grueling pace—but it also presents an excellent opportunity. A series of speeches allows us to establish a few basic themes and then focus each speech on specific subject areas, tailored to the audience to which it is delivered. Our aim should be a comprehensive statement of US intentions across the entire scope of US-European and East-West relations which cumulatively provide a “Reagan vision” for the Atlantic world. In the current propitious climate, this vision could rival the Marshall Plan⁶ or the Kennedy Berlin speech⁷ in setting the tone for US engagement in Europe.

Basic Themes

The President’s message will be most relevant to the Europeans if he builds his speeches around a few basics which are of highest concern to European public opinion. By hitting these framework points in each speech, the President can relate American goals directly to Europeans’ needs. We would recommend concentrating on the following three themes:

— Security: How can the achievements of the past forty years be protected? Europeans are uncertain that they will be able to maintain the economic prosperity, the social equilibrium and the freedom from outside threat which they have enjoyed since the end of World War II. Despite renewed faith in US leadership, they remain unsure about the continuity of US protection in years to come.

— Change: Recent years have brought home the painful realization that the comfortable postwar world which Europeans constructed for and around themselves is beginning to change. They are struggling to understand the changes and to cope with them. Europeans are looking for a positive concept of change which will equip them for the future while not endangering the gains of the past.

— Partnership: Younger Europeans especially are increasingly frustrated by a sense that they have lost control of their own fate. Modern technology, atomic weapons and the “superpowers” are all seen as contributing to the increased impotence of individual and state in Europe. With the United States in particular, the Europeans seek a sense of partnership, where their views are taken into account and where Europeans are accepted as full participants in deciding the future of the Western world.

The President’s Message

The message which the President has delivered at home during the past four years is also well suited for Europe. We are past the point where the United States can provide complete solutions to European problems. What Europeans need most is a sense of self-confidence and trust in their ability to face the future with courage and optimism. Our offer should not focus on what the US can do for the Europeans, but on what we can help them do for themselves. Our goal should be to help further European initiatives to deal with their specific concerns and to join the United States in a deeper partnership.

Our basic message should be a simple one—Freedom Works. The Western example demonstrates that societies can both provide for their citizens and master the challenges of the future by allowing the freest expression of individual human aspirations.

The economic component of American success will be especially important. America has again proven that by freeing personal initiative and productive capacities, difficult problems such as unemployment, environmental damage, inflation and the challenges of modern technology can be dealt with successfully.

The second message should be a call for unity and partnership. No country, even the United States, can maintain freedom and prosperity alone. But we cannot be expected to treat the Europeans as full equals if they are not willing to accept the burdens that true partnership entails. A clear statement on the requirements of partnership would help considerably to make clear what we expect from the Europeans in the Atlantic relationship.

A key aspect of this message will be our approach to East-West relations. Simplistic demands of 1982 and 1983 for maintenance of detente at any price have all but disappeared. Europeans are growing increasingly skeptical about Soviet behavior, but are still unsure about how to proceed. They are awaiting a signal from Washington. The Soviets will also listen carefully to the President’s message, as will the countries of Eastern Europe.

An important task will be to send such a signal to allies and adversaries alike. The President will have an excellent opportunity to seize the initiative on East-West relations and to set forth a framework which could focus discussion in both East and West.

A Division of Labor

Against this background, we would suggest the following division of subject matter among the three speeches:

—Hambach—Youth, Democracy, Human Rights: Chancellor Kohl pushed hard for a speech at this old castle which was the site of one of the first rallies for democracy in post-Napoleonic Germany. He wants the speech to be aimed at German youth.

This focus reflects concerns in both Germany and abroad that young people in Germany are beginning to drift. The Chancellor hopes that the President will deliver a strong statement on the meaning of democracy and on its relevance to the lives of German young people.

Hambach is the ideal place to set the basic theme—“Freedom Works.” The President can set forth a democratic and dynamic concept which provides security while allowing each individual to work within the system to pursue his own goals. The democratic approach could be contrasted with centrally organized systems which allow change only when dictated from above.

Here is also an excellent spot to emphasize the importance of personal courage and initiative. Young people in Germany have lost confidence in their ability to affect society. As a result they are not willing to assume responsibility for their own fate. Reference to the courage shown by Germans immediately after World War II and to the American experience during the past four years could underline the point. The President could also make reference to the spread of democracy in Europe and in the Western hemisphere.

This speech would also be the occasion to stress the concept of change—another theme which is especially vital to Germany. The President could note that American society has always been at the forefront of change, at home and abroad. He could stress our support for democratic change throughout the world, in Europe as well as in the less developed countries. But in Europe and throughout the world, we will continue to resist efforts to impose repressive regimes in the name of “revolution.”

The President could note the clear lesson of history. Repressive regimes cannot master the challenges of a changing world. So too, must changes occur in the inhumane division of Europe. The Hambach speech could include the basic reiteration of our traditional rejection of the postwar division of Europe, including in Germany. The United States is committed to pursuing efforts to ameliorate the human costs of the division. While making clear that we do not wish to change existing borders, he should contrast our views with those of the Soviet Union, which is claiming that the last word has been written about the “fruits of World War II.”

—Strasbourg—Atlantic Relations, European Unity, American Concept for East-West Relations: This speech should be the major policy statement of the trip. Against the background of the Hambach speech, the President should set forth in detail basic elements of American policy towards Europe in the past, present and future. He should trace a clear line of continuity through our efforts and reaffirm the basic principles of unity, security and freedom.

Strasbourg provides an excellent venue to give a ringing endorsement to a united, dynamic Europe. The President should directly refute the view that the United States opposes European unification. This speech should also address fears that the US is turning away from Europe in favor of the Pacific. We should chide the Europeans somewhat for fearing competition from the Pacific. The most important fact is that the Pacific basin is increasingly becoming a part of a dynamic community of nations of which Europe is a part. Nations of the Pacific area have adopted important elements of our system and our values. That strengthens the West, but also brings challenges.

Finally, Strasbourg should feature the major statement on East-West relations. The President should stress the comprehensive proposals which we have put forward and underline the progress represented by commencement of the Geneva talks. He should restate the principles which have guided his approach to East-West relations and stress the continuity of the US approach to the East.

A major focus should be SDI, and US concepts for long term Alliance defense. The President should present a detailed description of SDI and its benefits for the future of the Alliance. It will be especially important to relate SDI to questions of technological development in Europe and the US.

This speech provides an excellent opportunity to debate head-on the problem of how best to secure change in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, and—by inference—how to deal with the human side of the division of Europe.

The original concept of detente, still supported in Europe, suggested that engagement and dialogue with the East were good in themselves. This concept suggests that if government-to-government relations improve, positive and controlled change will follow.

The President could note that experience has demonstrated almost the opposite. Developments in Poland are an excellent example. Years of Western support for Gierek resulted in catastrophe. Poland demonstrates that change will also come to the East. Our task is to help stimulate controlled change which serves the interests of individuals in both East and West.

The vehicle for this controlled change should be the President’s message to the West—“Freedom Works.” If the West remains united in pursuit of its values, we can use our dynamic societies to stimulate change on issues of pressing importance such as military security, human contacts, freedom of expression etc.

The President should again make clear that we are not talking about changing borders or overthrowing regimes. But at the same time, we cannot limit our efforts to cultivating relations with those in power. We must think of the future. One of the greatest threats to world peace remains the suppression of human aspirations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The West should focus its dialogue with the East increasingly on areas where change is taking place rapidly and where our joint interest in both security and change requires more openness from the Soviet side.

This would not be a new sort of convergence theory. It would also not require abandonment of our existing policy of differentiation. Governmental behavior would be an important criterion in judging our overall relations with a country. But in addition to official relations, the President should seek to offer a vision of how both parts of Europe could become more secure, more prosperous and more democratic through steady spread of individual initiative and openness in the East.

We would use institutions such as the CSCE to concentrate more directly on the social and political implications of such problems as the environment, health care, displacement of workers through automation etc. These are all fields where the West is far ahead of the East. Our solutions can be applied in the East, to the benefit of all. Unstated would be the assumption that if the East does not liberalize, prospects for stability in Europe could be bleak.

With such a message, the President could engage Europeans in a joint effort to promote change in Europe through a positive, controlled process of engagement. We would set forth a concept of engagement for change in Europe which would replace the original theory of detente. Our goal would be to make clear to the Europeans that hoping only to improve relations with an outmoded system which does not enjoy the confidence of its people cannot in the long run serve Western interests. Change must come in the East. It is in the interest of the West to convince Soviet leaders of this fact before it is too late.

A unifying element in the message to both Eastern and Western Europe is science and technology. Again, the SDI example will be important. The President could note that we are on the threshold of a new technological era, but that full application of new methods is possible only in an atmosphere of individual freedom. We are optimistic about chances for reducing barriers—the East must loosen controls if it is to survive. The US wishes to work closely with its European allies to ensure that new technologies are used for the good of mankind. They should unify rather than divide.

This approach would also offer an opportunity to speak directly to an issue which continues to cause friction between the US and Western Europe—export controls. The President could stress the US desire to apply its technological skills to the good of mankind. However, if we see our technology perverted by repressive systems or turned against us by military opponents, we must focus even more attention to controls. The solution is to remove the need for controls by removing the internal repression or military threat which caused them in the first place.

—Lisbon—Portuguese Example of Democratic Change, Relations with Third World, Personal Statement on Europe: The Lisbon speech can tie the threads together. As a nation which only recently returned to democracy, Portugal is a prime example that “Freedom Works.” Portugal is also a country which provided much of the early impulse for the discovery of America. Its long ties to the New World and to other Third World areas provide an excellent background for discussion of worldwide interests. In particular, the President could pick up themes from the Hambach and Strasbourg speeches and apply them to relations between the industrialized countries and the Third World. He could contrast our approach with that of the Soviet Union, and speak directly to problems in Central America, Southern Africa and elsewhere.

Finally, the President should conclude his trip with a very personal vision of democracy, the American role in the world and his hopes for the future.

Next Steps

The Department would be grateful for your initial response to the above proposals as soon as possible. Once we have your guidance, we will begin preparing drafts of the major speeches.

Nicholas Platt ⁸

1. Source: Reagan Library, White House Office of Speechwriting, Research Office; NLR–533–1–120–1–4. Confidential. A notation in an unknown hand in the top left-hand corner of the memorandum reads: “Ben—For our 3:00 meeting. Bill.”
2. The President was scheduled to visit the Federal Republic of Germany, May 1–6, attend the G–7 Economic Summit meeting in Bonn, May 2–4, and then take part in ceremonies commemorating the 40th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. He would then travel to Madrid to meet with King Juan Carlos I and President Gonzalez, May 6–7; to Strasbourg to address the European Parliament on May 8; and to Lisbon to meet with President Eanes and Prime Minister Soares and address the National Assembly, May 8–10.
3. The text of the address is printed in Public Papers: Reagan, 1985, Book I, pp. 569–573.
4. See Document 240.
5. The text of the address is printed in Public Papers: Reagan, 1985, Book I, pp. 590–594.
6. See footnote 3, Document 177.
7. For Kennedy’s June 26, 1963, remarks in the Rudolph Wilde Platz, Berlin, see Public Papers: Kennedy, 1963, pp. 524–525.
8. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.