On flexible containment

The doctrine of containment has been a principal element of American foreign policy for four decades. But there has been a major change in the Communist world; it is no longer a monolithic bloc. Many Marxist governments, including some Communist regimes, are not satellites or allies of the Soviets. Indeed, some are more anti-Soviet than many noncommunist states. Yugoslavia and China do not serve Soviet expansionism; their security and economic interests are closer to the West. More and more Communist regimes, faced with mounting social and economic difficulties, must turn to the West, which has so much more to offer in the economic and technological spheres. Consequently, differentiation and disintegration within the Communist alliances are inevitable. Pluralism in the Western democracies is a source of strength. In despotic countries and blocs, pluralism would sound the death knell of tyranny and of despotic centralization.The emergence of Gorbachev as a dynamic leader flexible in his relations with noncommunist countries makes the rigid containment practices of the postwar decades decidedly outdated and counterproductive. The international chessboard has become a game of movement, sensitivity, and subtlety. Consequently, the United States should use in its international relations the concept of pluralism that we have used so successfully at home. This means differentiation among the various Marxist regimes, calibrating our policy with flexibility toward each country's policy and situation affect our national interests.