GUNS ALONE WILL NOT BUY SECURITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000100640002-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 18, 2010
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 24, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
ILLEGIB
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/18: CIA-RDP90-00552R000100640002-0
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
24 March 1980
Guns alone
will not buy security
By Don Bonker
Gies that committed us to adopting the odious
tactics, principles, and policies of our adver-
saries. Too often we abandoned our own val-
ues by pursuing expedient and symbolic;
actions.
Even though the national dialogue today is
dominated by military approaches - estab-1
lishinga military facilities in the Persian Gulf,I
enlarging our rapid deployment force, estab
lishing a naval presence in the Indian Ocean,
the sale of previously banned military equip
ment to China, and cultivation of security ties!
with other countries all along Russia's south?
em border - all of this has its price. It comes
at the expense of other values that are equally
important in our,,.relations with the world
community..
It would be tragic if we have now reachedi
a point where firm promotion of human rightsi
and restraints on nuclear and conventional
arms sales are politically anathema. But
clearly events in Iran, Ethiopia, Philippines,
Zaire, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Cambodia,
Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala have shown
that human rights concerns are directly re-
lated to our genuine, long-term security inter-
est - something that cannot be purchased
with guns, airplanes, and the training of tor-
turers. It has never been the lack of weapons
but internal discord and insensitivity to hu-
man needs that threaten such repressive gov-
ernments and often our own security
interests. -
People tend to forget that the United
States's uncritical support of regimes like the
ex-Shah's, whose main accomplishment is they
exploitation of their subjects, has irreparably i
tarnished our image abroad. As inheritors oft
a tradition that fosters liberalism, human dig=
nityand individual rights, we must not
blindly return to the bankrupt policies that
identify us with such regimes.
The House Subcomittee on International
Organizations,which oversees human rights
policies, recently held several hearings on hu-
man rights conditions in Asia. All the private
witnesses testified that wherever and when-
ever the US supported improvement in hu-
man- rights activities the situation change
for the better as local governments eased u
on harsh, policies . to accommodate our
concerns. . ;zi.
In the final analysis, we promote our long
term interests - including security and stra-
tegic interests - when we remain true to our-'
selves and our vision of humanity byl
encouraging democratic 'change and social
and economic justice. The recognition of this
reality, I believe, will make the eighties the
decade of human rights. And, in the long run,
it will advance our own best interests.
As President Carter reminded us in his
State of the Union address: "In repressive rel-
gimes, popular frustrations have no outlet ex-
cept violence. But when people and their gov-
ernments can approach their problems
together - through open democratic methods
- the basis for stability and peace is far more
solid and enduring. That is why our support!
for human rights in other countries is in ourl
national interest as well as part of our na-1
tional character."
Now more than ever, we must continue our
vigorous promotion of human rights, for it
would be sad and counterproductive if we
emulated Soviet policies and methods in deal-
ing with third-world countries.
Don Bonker, a Democratic congress-
man from Washington State, is chairman
of the House Foreign Affairs Commit-
tee's Subcommittee on International
organizations.
Several weeks ago we watched from the
floor of the House as a determined Jimmy
Carter stood before the Congress of the
United States to deliver his State of the Union
message. His stinging criticism of Russias
invasion of Afghanistan touched a. latent jin-
goistic chord from coast to coast. The demand
for American action could be heard through-
out the halls of Congress.
We also witnessed a President who seemed
to abandon the principles he earlier sought to
include in his administration's foreign policy:
promotion of human rights, restraint on arms
sales, nonproliferation of nuclear materials,
checks on CIA covert activity an all-volun-
teer military service, and reduction of de-
fense spending. -
In the aftermath of Vietnam and Water-
gate, these were the very objectives that
Jimmy Carter promised as a candidate; and,
as a President, he and the Congress have
worked hard to implement these goals during
the first four years. Now the President, with
the apparent blessing of the Congress, was
promoting something different and
disquieting.
What does all this mean? Are we abandon-
ing our humanitarian goals? Is this the death
knell of "detente?" Are we possibly reverting
back to the "defensive pactomania" of the
1950s - the Dulles-Nixon-Kissinger policies of
embracing unsavory dictators only because
they spout anticommunist slogans to win our
affections?
Few doubt the need to strengthen existing
US resolve and commitments in a volatile
world, but this requires more than sheer mili-
tary force or strategic preparedness. US
strength is measured by our self-confidence,
our maturity as a people, and the insights and
actions of our leaders. Carter himself has nur-
tured this theme in US policy formulation.
European parliamentarians with whom I
recently had discussions about human rights
expressed the view that American restraint in,
the Iranian crisis is a much admired sign of
our strength as a people. They pointed out
that for too long we have been wedded to poll-
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/18: CIA-RDP90-00552R000100640002-0