Editing 75-20-A4 (section)

= D&eacute;tente =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Détente, like the weather, is something everyone talks about but unlike the weather maybe Détente should and could have something done about it. I'll be right back.

I know we've discussed relations with Russia a number of times in this program and made reference on several occasions to détente. Maybe it's time to talk about détente itself and what it means to us and to the Soviet Union. A very fine writer James Burnham recently did this in National Review magazine. He pointed out that our leaders think of détente as a diplomatic equivalent of a business deal: each side has its own special interest but they agree to function within the rule of the marketplace. Something for something. Each will receive some of what it wants but each will in turn give something.

In the case of détente, the plus for both sides is believed to be some assurance against that horror of horrors, nuclear war. With that agreed upon, we hope for eventual trade, cultural exchange and, in time, legitimate friendship as we get to know each other better. That's the way we see détente. Not so with the communists. For them détente is not a step toward peace, nor is it Mr Burnham says an effort to achieve an evenly balanced equation. It is a way for them to carry on the revolutionary struggle with the advantage for them increased by détente. Indeed they see the whole arrangement as the result of our weakness.

Gus Hall, leader of the Communist Party USA, has written that Détente represents a new qualitative change in international relations, a deterioration of our strategic situation. It's explained that we've been forced to accept detent on communist terms and they don't lack for evidence to support that claim.

There is our retreat from Indochina, retreat to the west from such important strategic areas as Mozambique and Angola. And then there's the Marxist push in Portugal, the Greek-Turkish trouble in NATO, the oil squeeze on the west, increased communist influence in Italy, France and Great Britain. We could add the increase in Soviet naval strength, the terrorist activities we seem unable to halt and the Soviet Union's arrogant violations of the salt agreements on arm's limitation. They arm and we limit.

We're blind to reality if we refuse to recognize that détente's usefulness to the Soviet is only as a cover for their traditional and basic strategy for aggression. It would appear that our situation is worse than just not recognizing facts. Not seeing the facts is useful for those who can turn a profit from dealing with the Soviets even though such trade increases our danger and according to Burnham free world diplomats can use it to cover up their mistakes and hide their lack of a cohesive policy. In other words, politicians can hide their lack of willingness to be real leaders, their lack of courage and their governing by public opinion polls.

Détente is for the Soviet Union and no can lose proposition it fits their communist dialectic, according to this dialectic opposites clash and become ultimately fused into a synthesis on a higher plane.

Today the primary clash is between imperialist finance capitalists and revolutionary workers. The synthesis is the proletarian dictatorship led by the communists. All communist strategy is conceived against that doctrine or background and that most assuredly includes détente.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>10/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>