NATO: the best investment in peace - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - George Bush's address at the University of New Hampshire on May 23, 1987 - transcript

US Department of State Bulletin, August, 1987

NATO: The Best Investment in Peace

Excerpts from an address by Vice President Bush at the University of New Hampshire commencement in Durham on May 23, 1987.

Whether you're going on to graduate school, on to a career, or still considering your next step, today is your day. It's for you to reflect back on what you've done, or maybe what you haven't done. And it's a day for you to think ahead to the challenges that each of you will face once you leave Durham.

The 1990s will bring a dramatically new set of challenges from the ones we faced in the 1970s and 1980s. You're moving into a society based on information and knowledge, an economy fully integrated into the global market, and a world where change is the rule, not the exception.

Yet through all of this, some things should never change. Just north of here lies the Canadian border, the longest unguarded border in the world between two countries, symbolizing the long friendship between our two countries. To me, it's a reminder of a broader point: America's role in the world. We are part of a great worldwide coalition of democracies. This is a tremendous achievement because this alliance of free nations has maintained world peace and security for four decades. It's something all of us--we and our allies--are enormously proud of.

Our strong alliance is a blessing all of you should appreciate. The alliance has been fundamental to ensuring that the United States remains a land of opportunity--your opportunity. And as you go forward into the world, it will be your generation's responsibility to maintain and strengthen the alliance.

When the Atlantic alliance was formed nearly 40 years ago, its purpose was to protect freedom and prevent a war in Europe between the West and the Soviet Union. It has succeeded. The past four decades represent the longest period of peace Europe has enjoyed in this century.

Arms Control Negotiations

And if the democracies maintain their strength and their solidarity, there are more successes ahead. "We're engaged now with the Soviet Union in important negotiations on arms control. Previous negotiations tried to put a cap on the arms race or tried to slow it down, but they didn't even succeed at that very well. Today we may be on the verge of a truly historic agreement that mutually and verifiably reduces a whole category of nuclear weapons.

In our current arms control negotiations with the Soviets, our objective is carefully defined: we seek the best possible agreements, consistent with the security of the free nations. An agreement that leaves the democratic nations less secure is no triumph; in fact, it's against America's interest.

We should never make a deal simply for the sake of making a deal. And we will never sign an agreement that puts at risk the interests or security of our allies--and that includes our allies in Asia in addition to our allies in Europe.

The Soviets say they want to reduce nuclear weapons. Well, that was our goal before it was theirs. The United States will certainly meet halfway on any treaty that calls for equitable, verifiable, and stabilizing reductions. But in Europe, the Soviets clearly have unstated political objectives.

First, they want to decouple Western Europe from the United States.

Second, they want to weaken NATO defenses.

America's response is clear: NATO is the cornerstone of our national security policy, our strategy for peace. We will not allow the Soviets to split or weaken the alliance.

For 20 years, the defense strategy of the Atlantic alliance has been based on the principle of flexible response--having the capability to deter a Soviet challenge at any level of force. That's the right strategy, and we must maintain it.

American troops will continue to be committed, alongside allied forces, on West European soil--backed up by the American nuclear guarantee. The alliance needs to enhance its conventional strength. And the United States needs to continue its modernization of strategic forces and other nuclear forces that are the backbone of the NATO deterrent.

Right now, the focus of the negotiations is on INF--American and Soviet intermediate-range nuclear forces. When the Soviets, 10 years ago, started deploying their SS-20 missiles, with multiple warheads aimed at our allies in Europe and Asia, NATO decided to deploy a counterweapon--and to offer negotiations to eliminate or reduce those weapons on both sides. In February 1983, I traveled to five countries in Western Europe to consult our allied leaders and to tell the people of Europe about our willingness to ban all INF weapons or, failing that, our willingness to help them by deploying our own INF missiles. The Soviets said "no' to getting rid of the weapons--so the NATO countries began deployment.

Our allies showed enormous political courage in doing so, facing down emotional protests from the radicals. Sometimes the protests got violent. When I returned to West Germany in July 1983, demonstrators stoned the motorcade and literally attacked the car that Chancellor Kohl and I and our wives were riding in. It was an ugly incident. And it brought home to me just how steadfast our allies had been to persevere.