U.S. foreign policy achievements and challenges - Michael H. Armacost's address before a State Department regional foreign policy conference in Salt Lake City on October 18, 1986

US Department of State Bulletin, Jan, 1987

U.S. Foreign Policy Achievements and Challenges

Address before a State Department regional foreign policy conference in Salt Lake City on October 18, 1986.

This is a beautiful setting in which tojoin a foreign policy conference cosponsored by the University of Utah, Brigham Young University, and the State Department. Throughout our country we feel a renewed confidence that America is in a position to play a positive foreign policy role. This is a major change and one of my themes today.

Journalists normally keep score onan administration by adding up the formal agreements signed with foreign countries. This is at best an incomplete measure of success. The Carter Administration secured ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, moderated the Camp David agreement, normalized relations with China, and negotiated the SALT II [strategic arms limitation talks] agreement on arms control. Yet Americans intuitively understood that these agreements did not add up to success in foreign policy. By 1980, there was a widespread perception both here and abroad that American power had been eroded, as had our will to utilize power to protect our interests overseas.

With congressional elections comingand with President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev having met in Iceland last week, this is an appropriate time to reflect on some of the achievements and challenges of American foreign policy. Let me briefly report some "good news' and some "bad news' by describing some of the trends in the international and domestic environment which currently affect our ability to promote foreign policy interests.

First, the good news. Many globaltrends and developments now favor us.

A Favorable "Correlation of Forces'

The most important development in recentyears is this: a significant shift has occurred in what the Soviets call the "global correlation of forces.'

You remember the 1970s. Weexperienced a constitutional crisis. We endured the ordeal of the American hostages in Iran. Long gas lines reminded us of America's growing dependence on others for basic resources. Economists introduced the term "stagflation' into our vocabularies. President Carter described the national mood as one of "malaise.'

The bitter legacy of Vietnam was anAmerican disposition to retreat temporarily from international leadership. Divisions appeared in our alliances. The cumulative effect of inadequate investment in U.S. military modernization began to show.

In contrast, the Soviets appeared tobe on a roll. The momentum of Moscow's strategic modernization effort far exceeded ours. Through the direct or indirect application of their military power, they expanded their influence in Angola, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Mozambique, and Nicaragua. They invaded and attempted to occupy Afghanistan. They supported the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. During this period, many Third World countries embraced statist political and economic practices; the influence of democratic and free market principles appeared to wane.

Much has changed in the 1980s. Wehave substantially rebuilt our military power and revitalized our economy. There is a new pride in our country, a strong consensus that the United States should play an active role in the world. We have a President who enjoys the luxury of a second term and the continuity of policy which that affords. Our alliances are in solid shape. It is now the Soviets who are encountering growing difficulties at home and abroad and who apparently need some respite from the East-West competition in order to put their house in order.

Winning the Global Contest of Ideas

My second bit of good news is that weare doing very well in the global contest of ideas. This is particularly apparent in the currency of democracy and market economics in the Third World. A decade ago, martial law and other forms of authoritarianism were de rigueur in the developing countries. We confronted a spirited drive by the nonaligned for a new international economic order which was blatantly statist in its approach.

Today, 90% of all Latin Americanslive under governments which can plausibly claim to be democratic. Nor is this trend confined to this hemisphere. All Americans were thrilled by the swift and peaceful democratic revolution in the Philippines last February. Though problems remain, Pakistan made the transition from military to civilian government. Haiti was relieved of the oppression of the Duvaliers. The extraordinary movement toward democracy unfolding in diverse corners of the earth reminds us that dictatorship--whether of the left or of the right--is not permanent.

President Reagan has personallyurged democracies to assert their values. A National Endowment for Democracy was created and has undertaken projects in support of democratic institutions in the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Chile, Haiti, and South Africa. Other projects have assisted elementary school education for anticommunist Afghans and supported Solidarity and other groups working to establish independent institutions in Poland.