Take a Page from Kennedy

RU· EN

Dateавгуст 3, 1998

PublicationTIME

LanguageEnglish

Response to Bill Clinton's speech at Time magazine's 75th anniversary. Gorbachev compares Clinton's rhetoric about the "American Century" with Kennedy's 1963 speech and reflects on the nature of true global leadership.

Text size: А− А А+

Take a page from Kennedy

“The advance of freedom has made this the American century,” declared Bill Clinton in a New York City speech this year. “God willing...we will make the 21st century the next American century.” Perhaps this was meant mostly for domestic consumption, but I am wondering how the rhetoric rings in the rest of the world. Should America have the guiding role in global development?

Before considering that question, we should look back at another presidential speech, delivered 35 years ago at American University by John F. Kennedy. It was the height of the cold war, a year after the Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear conflict. Yet Kennedy spoke of peace: “a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived.” The truth, as he saw it, was that “in an age [of nuclear weapons], total war makes no sense.”

But what kind of peace should America seek? This was Kennedy’s answer: “Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war...not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women.” Peace as “the product of many nations.” Kennedy spoke of world law and of strengthening the United Nations, rather than imposing the American system.

This was a new vision of peace. The President proclaimed America’s willingness to re-examine its place in a world that had changed dramatically since World War II. He appealed for understanding and a similar attitude on the part of Soviet leaders, hoping that a new American approach would help them abandon prejudice, suspicion and propaganda.

Kennedy’s appeal did not meet with the understanding or response that it deserved. Although a partial nuclear-test-ban treaty was soon signed, further progress stalled. The ideology that shaped all Soviet policies assumed an irreconcilable struggle between the two opposing social systems. No one in Moscow believed that the U.S. President was sincere, and his initiative ended with his assassination later that year.

When I assumed leadership of the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s, I saw the same need that Kennedy felt two decades before – and embarked on a path that we called the new political thinking. President Ronald Reagan responded, though not immediately, to our new approach, and together we began the work of ending the cold war. We both concluded that nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought – exactly what Kennedy had said. His legacy was in visibly present in the work done with Presidents Reagan and Bush, which began the process of nuclear disarmament.

What followed, however, was often disappointing. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the West could not resist declaring victory in the cold war, and the U.S. saw an opportunity to extend its influence to the former Soviet bloc.

Does that mean that Kennedy’s insights and the principles of new political thinking are of little use at the threshold of the 21st century? I don’t think so. Even as business and com munications have become globalized, we see the rise of national consciousness. Even in the age of the Internet, nations are seeking to safeguard their unique cultural identities.

The world is more complex and problem-ridden than in the 1960s. Many nations that were once backward technologically – including China, India and Brazil – are now influential forces in economics and politics. Amid this diversity and complexity, should the U.S. claim global leadership?

Many dispute that claim sharply. In fact, as globalization has widened the world’s wealth gap, poorer countries are blaming the rich, industrialized West for many of their ills.

It was good to hear Clinton, in that New York speech, salute and reaffirm U.S. commitment to the U.N. – particularly after a period of quite chilly relations with the organization. American leadership will be applauded when the U.S. uses its influence to help settle international conflicts, when it takes part in U.N. peacekeeping operations, when it opposes militant nationalism and global terrorism, when it works to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, when it helps less-developed countries and speaks out for human rights.

At times, however, Americans interpret their responsibility in a different way – as giving them a right to decide for others, to impose American institutions and to promote the American way of life as something unrivaled in the past, present and future. This kind of leadership can hardly be a way toward world peace and stability.

I have no intention of admonishing America. I am just saying that the world is, and should remain, a place of great diversity. The global neighborhood will not accept global uniformity. Think of this today, heeding John F. Kennedy’s speech of 35 years ago.

1998 TIME English