Dan, you said the 25th and now the 50th. Do you mind if I try for the 75th?
But it goes without saying that this is a very special day for you who are graduation. Would you forgive me if I day it's a very special day for me also? Over the years since I sat where, you the graduating class of 1982, are now sitting, I've returned to the campus many times, always with great pleasure and warm nostalgia. Now, it just isn't true that I only came back this time to clean out my gym locker.
On one of those occasions, as you've been told, I addressed a graduating class here, "'neath the elms,'" and was awarded an honorary degree. And at that time I informed those assembled that while I was grateful for the honor, it added to a feeling of guilt I'd been nursing for 25 years, because I always figured the first degree they gave me was honorary.
Now, if it's true that tradition is the glue holding civilization together, then Eureka has made its contribution to that effort. Yes, it is a small college in a small community. It's no impersonal, assembly line diploma mill. As the years pass, if you have let yourself absorb the spirit and tradition of this place, you'll find the four years you've spent here living in your memories a rich and important part of your life.
Oh, you'll have some regrets along with happy memories. I let football and other extra curricular activities eat into my study time with the result that my grade average was closer the C level required for eligibility that it was to straight A's. And even now I wonder what I might have accomplished if I'd studied harder.
Now, I know there are differences between the Eureka College of 1932 and the Eureka of 1982, but I'm also sure that in many ways- important ways- Eureka remains the same. For one thing, it's impossible for you now to believe what I've said about things being the same. We who precede you understand that very well, because when we were here, we thought old grads who came back only after 5 years- not 50- couldn't understand what out life was like and what had taken place and changed. So, take my word for it. As the years go by, you'll be amazed at how fresh the memory of these years will remain in you minds, how easily you can relive the very emotions that you experienced.
The Class of '32 has no yearbook to record our final days on the campus.
The Class of '33 didn't put out a Prism because of the hardships of the
Great Depression era. The faculty sometimes went for months on end without
pay. And yet this school made it possible for young men and women,
myself included, to get an education even thought we were totally without
funds,
our families destitute victims of the Depression. Yes, this place
is deep in my heart. Everything that has been good in my life began
here.
Graduation Day is called "Commencement," and properly so, because it is both recognition of completion and a beginning. And I would like, seriously, to talk to you about this new phase- the society in which you're now going to take your place as full-time participants. You're no longer observer. You'll be called upon to make decisions and express your view on global events, because those events will affect your lives.
I've spoken of similarities, and the 1980s like the 1930s may be one of those- a crucial juncture in history that will determine the direction of the future. In about a month, I will meet in Europe with the leaders of nations who are our closest friends and allies. At Versailles, leaders of the industrial posers of the world will seek better ways to meet today's economic challenges. In Bonn, I will join my colleagues from the Atlantic Alliance nations to renew those ties, which have been the foundation of Western, free world defense for 37 years. There will also be meetings in Rome and London.
Now, these meetings are significant for a simple but very important reason. Our own nation's fate I directly linked to that of your sister democracies in Western Europe. The values for which America and all democratic nations stand represents the culmination of Western culture. Andrei Sakharov, the distinguished Nobel Laureate and courageous Soviet human rights advocate, has written in a message smuggled to freedom, "I believe in western man. I have faith in his mind, which is practical and efficient and, at the same time, aspires to great goals. I have faith in his good intentions and in his decisiveness."
This glorious tradition requires a partnership to preserve and protect it. Only as partners can we hope to achieve the goal of a peaceful community of nations. Only as partners can we defend the values of democracy and human dignity that we hold so dear.
There's a single, major issue in our partnership which will underlie
the discussions that I will have with the European leaders; the future
of Western relations with the Soviet Union. How should we deal with
the Soviet Union in the years ahead? What framework should guide
our policies toward it? And what can we realistically expect from a world
poser of such deep fears,
hostilities, and external ambitions?
I believe the unity of the West is the foundation for any successful relationship with the East. Without Western unity, we'll squander our energies in bickering while the Soviets continue as they please. With unity, we have the strength to moderate Soviet behavior. We've done so in the past, and we can do so again.
Our challenge is to establish a framework in which sound East-West relations will endure. I'm optimistic that we can build a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union. To do so, however, we must understand the nature of the Soviet system and the lessons of the past.
The Soviet Union is a huge empire ruled by an elite that hold all power and all privilege, and they hold it tightly because, as we've seen in Poland, they fear what might happen if the smallest amount of control slips form their grasp. They fear the infectiousness of even a little freedom, and because of this many ways their system has failed. The Soviet empire is faltering because it is rigid- centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation efficiency, and individual achievement. Spiritually, there is a sense of malaise and resentment.
But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship
has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by
pre-empting the human needs of its people, and in the end, this course
will underline the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman
was right when he said of the Soviets that, "When you try to conquer the
people or extend
yourself over vast areas you cannot will in the long run."
Yet Soviet aggressiveness has grown as Soviet military poser has increased. To compensate, we must learn from the lessons of the past. When the West has stood unified and firm, the Soviet Union has taken heed. For 35 years Western Europe has lived free despite the shadow of Soviet military might. Through unity, you'll remember for you modern history courses, the West secured the withdrawal of occupation forces for the Austria and the recognition of its rights in Berlin.
Other Western policies have not been successful. East-West trade
was expanded in hope of providing incentives for Soviet restraint, but
the soviets exploited the benefits of trade without moderating their behavior.
Despite a decade of ambitious arms control efforts, the Soviet buildup
continues. And despite its signature of the Helsinki agreements on
human rights, the
Soviet Union has not relaxed its hold on its own people or those of
Eastern Europe.
During the 1970s, some of us forgot the warning of President Kennedy, who said that the Soviets "have offered to trade us an apple for an orchard. We don't do hat in this country." But we came perilously close to doing just that.
If East-West relations in the détente era in Europe have yielded disappointment, détente outside of Europe has yielded as severe disillusionment for those who expected a moderation of soviet behavior. The Soviet Union continues to support Vietnam in its occupation of Kampuchea and it s massive military presence in Laos. It is engaged in a war of aggression against Afghanistan. Soviet proxy forces have brought instability and conflict to Africa and Central America.
We are now approaching and extremely important phase in East-West relations
as the current Soviet leadership is succeeded by a new generation.
Both the current and the new Soviet leadership should realize aggressive
policies will meet a firm Western response. On the other hand, a
Soviet leadership devoted to improving its people's lives, rather than
expanding its
armed conquests, will respond with expanded trade and other forms of
cooperation. But all of this depends on Soviet actions. Standing
in the Athenian marketplace 2,000 years ago, Demosthenes said, "What sane
man would let another man's word rather than his deeds proclaim who is
at peace and who is at war with him?"
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. I believe we can cope. I believe that the West can fashion a realistic, durable policy that will protect our interests and keep the peace, not just for this generation but four your children and your grandchildren.
I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic scrutiny, regional stability, arms reductions and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead. Today, I want to set this five-point program to guide the future of our East-West relations, set it out for all to hear and see.
First, a sound East-West military balance is absolutely essential.
Last week NATO published a comprehensive comparison of its forces with
the of the Warsaw Pact. Its message is clear: During the past decade,
the Soviet Union has built up its forces across the board. During
that same period, the defense expenditures of the United States declined
in real terms. The United
States has already undertaken steps to recover from that decade of
neglect. And I should add that the expenditures of our European allies
have increased slowly but steadily, something we often fail to recognize
here at home.
The second point on which we must reach consensus with our allies deals
with economic security. Consultations are under way among Western
nations on the transfer of militarily significant technology and the extension
of financial credits to the East, as well as on the question of energy
dependence on the East, as well as on the question of energy dependence
on
the East, that energy dependence of Europe. We recognize that
some of our allies' economic requirements are distinct from our own. But
the Soviets must not have access to Western technology with military applications,
and
we must not subsidize the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union must make
the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic
shortcomings.
The third element is regional stability with peaceful change. Last year, in a speech in Philadelphia and in the summit meetings at Cancun, I outlined the basic American plan to assist the developing world. The se principles for economic development remain the foundation of our approach. They represent threat to the Soviet Union. Yet in many areas of the developing world, we find that Soviet arms and Soviet-supported troops are attempting to destabilize societies and extend Moscow's influence.
High on our agenda must be progress toward peace in Afghanistan.
The United States is prepared to engage in a serious effort to negotiate
an end to the conflict caused by the Soviet invasion of that country.
We are ready to cooperate in an international effort to resolve this problem,
to secure a full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to ensure self-determination
for the Afghan people.
In southern Africa, working closely with our Western allies and the African states, we've made real progress toward independence for Namibia. These negotiations, if successful, will result in peaceful and secure conditions throughout southern Africa. The simultaneous withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola is essential to achieving Namibian independence, as well as creating long-range prospects for Central America also has become a dangerous point of tension in East-West relations. The Soviet Union cannot escape responsibilities for the violence and suffering in the region caused by accelerated transfer of advanced military equipment to Cuba.
However, it was in Western Europe- or Eastern Europe, I should say, that the hopes of the 1970's were greatest, and it's there that they have been the most bitterly disappointed. There was hope that the people of Poland could develop a freer society. But the Soviet Union has refused to allow the people of Poland to decide their won fates, just as it refused to allow the people of Hungary to decided theirs in 1956, or the people of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
If martial law in Poland is lifted, if all the political prisoners are released, and if a dialog is restored with the Solidarity Union, the United States is prepared to join in a program of economic support. Water cannons and clubs against the Polish people are hardly the kind of dialog that gives us hope. It's up to the Soviets and their client regimes to show good faith by concrete actions.
The fourth point is arms reduction. I know that this weights heavily
on many our your minds. In our 1931 Prism, we quoted Carl Sandburg, who
in his own beautiful way quoted the Mother Prairie, saying, "Have you seen
a red sunset drip over one of my cornfields, the shore of night stars,
the wave lines of drawn up a wheat valley?" What an idyllic scene
that paints in our
minds- and what a nightmarish prospect that a huge mushroom cloud might
someday destroy such beauty. My duty as President is to ensure that
the ultimate nightmare never occurs, that the prairies and the cities and
the people who inhabit them remain free and untouched by nuclear conflict.
I wish more that anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.
I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has know the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunctions with their won arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.
Unfortunately, for sometime suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union
has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties.
There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the
Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast
Asia. As the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on
the
freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.
We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980s if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements, which are verifiable, equitable and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.
Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United States seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.
Since the first days of my administration, we've been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. We're consulting with congressional leaders for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.
The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is growing instability of the nuclear Blanca. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missal force.
Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant eductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintain a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.
For the immediate future, I'm asking my START- and START really means- we've given up on SALT- START means "Strategic Arms Reduction Talks," and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phase reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing system, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.
At first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic
missile warhead, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal
levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels.
To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads
be land based. I hope that these warheads reductions,
as well as significant reductions in missiles
themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible. In a second
phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our
strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight
at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist
on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.
This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such
negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental
task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability
will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it
will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities
that now exist and by
dismantling the nuclear menace.
I have written to President Brezhnev and directed Secretary Haig to approach the Soviet Government concerning the initiation of formal negotiations on the initiation of formal negotiations on the reduction of strategic nuclear arms, START, at the earliest opportunity. We hope negotiations will begin by the end of June.
We will negotiate seriously, in good faith, and carefully consider all
proposals made by the Soviet Union. If they approach these negotiations
in the same spirit, I'm confident that together we can achieve an agreement
of enduring value that reduces the number of nuclear weapons, halts the
growth in strategic forces, and opens the way to even more far-reaching
steps in the
future.
I hope the Commencement today will also make the commencement of anew era, in both senses of the word, a new start toward a more peaceful and secure world.
The fifth and final point I propose for East-West relations is dialog.
I've always believed that people's problems can be solved when people talk
to each other instead of about each other. And I've already expressed my
own desire to meet with President Brezhnev in New York next month.
If this can't be done, I'd hope we could arrange a future meeting where
positive results
can be anticipated. And when we sit down, I'll tell President
Brezhnev that the United States is ready to build a new understanding based
upon the principles I've outlined today.
I'll tell him that his government and his people have nothing to fear
from the United States. The free nations living at peace in the world community
can vouch for the fact that we seek only harmony. And I'll ask President
Brezhnev why our two nations can't practice mutual restraint. Why can't
our people enjoy the benefits that would flow from real cooperation? Why
can't we
reduce the number of horrendous weapons?
Perhaps I should also speak to him of this school and these graduates
who are leaving it today- or of your hopes for the future, of your deep
desire for peace, and yet your strong commitment to defend you values if
threatened. Perhaps if he someday could attend such a ceremony as
this, he'd better understand America. In the only system he knows,
you would be
here by the decision of government, and on this day the government
representatives would be here telling most, if not all, of you where you
were going to report to work tomorrow.
But as we go to Europe for the talks and as we proceed in the importune challenges facing this country, I want you to know that I will be thinking of you and of Eureka and what you represent. In one of my yearbooks, I remember reading that, "The work of the prairie is to be the soil for the growth of a strong Western culture." I believe Eureka is fulfilling that work. You, the members of the 1982 graduating class, are this year's harvest.
I spoke of the difference between our two countries. I try to
follow the humor of the Russian people. We don't hear much about
the Russian people. We hear about the Russian leaders. But
you can learn a lot, because they do have a sense of humor, and you can
learn from the jokes they're telling. And some of the most recent
jokes I found kind of, well,
personally interesting. Maybe you might- tell you something about
your country.
The joke they tell is that an American and a Russian were arguing about
the differences between our two countries. And the American said,
"Look, in my country I can walk into the Oval Office; I can hit the desk,
with my fist and say ‘President Reagan, I don't like the way you're governing
the United States.'" And the Russian said, "I can do that." The American
said,
"What?" He says, "I can walk into the Kremlin, into Brezhnev's office.
I can pound Brezhnev's desk, and I can say, 'Mr. President, I don't like
the way Ronald Reagan is governing to United States.'"
Eureka is an institution and you as individuals are sustaining the best of Western man's ideals. As a fellow graduate and in the office I hold, I'll do my best to uphold these same ideals.
To the Class of '82, congratulations, and God bless you.
Return
to the Reagan at Eureka Photo Essay Index Page