Rethinking Nixon: America's Most Hated President and the Pursuit of Peace
The diplomatic achievements of Richard Nixon offer valuable lessons to a world in crisis.
Richard Nixon is a historical figure who is often associated with controversy and scandal. Despite this, his presidency was also marked by significant progress in thawing relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, ultimately leading to the end of the Cold War. One of Nixon's most significant achievements was the signing of arms control agreements like SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which represented major steps forward in the quest for global disarmament. While his legacy is complex, Nixon's role in promoting global peace and disarmament can offer valuable lessons to the current administration if further conflict is to be avoided.
Nixon's foreign policy approach, referred to as "Realpolitik," diverged from the idealistic foreign policies of previous and subsequent administrations, which prioritized democracy and human rights. Nixon held the belief that foreign policy should be grounded in a balance of power and advocated for diplomatic relations with all nations, including those seen as hostile or unfriendly. The concept of Realpolitik bears a clear resemblance to the increasingly popular notion of a multipolar world advocated by Chinese and Russian foreign ministries.
In a multipolar system, there are several dominant countries or regions that have significant political, economic, and military capabilities, and no single nation or bloc holds unrivaled dominance. The concept of multipolarity faces strong opposition from international organizations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the European Union (EU). These organizations, driven by their vested interests in maintaining their current power structures, staunchly resist the restructuring of the geopolitical landscape that Nixon advocated for. They raise concerns about potential "security risks" as a means to shield their hegemonic control as innumerable lives hang in the balance.
Rather than pursuing a path of economic and diplomatic isolation, like the current US administration is doing in the form of ever-increasing sanctions, Richard Nixon chose a path of engagement. He personally visited the Soviet Union in order to gain a genuine comprehension of the Soviet perspective. He earned the respect of Soviet citizens through active efforts to connect with them, and engaged in televised conversations with Soviet leaders. These endeavors yielded significant results, including the establishment of crucial arms control agreements like SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. A groundbreaking moment arrived in 1972 with his historic visit to Moscow, where he met with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, signifying a remarkable turning point in U.S.-Soviet relations, leading to the eventual end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.
"I felt that it was important to establish direct contact with Soviet leaders, to let them know that we were not seeking war or conquest, but rather a lasting peace and a reduction in nuclear weapons." - Richard Nixon, from a 1984 interview with Barbara Walters.
Nixon's approach to foreign policy, with its emphasis on engagement, diplomacy and pursuit of peace, offers valuable lessons to today's policymakers as global tensions continue to rise. Specifically, Nixon's use of direct contact and dialogue with adversaries provides a useful model for current policymakers to follow. In mitigating risk through dialogue, there exists the opportunity of better understanding the underlying motivations of possible adversaries and how to best move forward without sacrificing stability and security. As advancing technology creates an ever-more interconnected world, it is important to remember the value of a traditional diplomatic approach rather than resorting to punitive measures or increasing military force.
Will the leaders in Washington and The Hague heed the lessons of Nixon's approach, or will we continue to be led down a path that could result in potentially catastrophic consequences? The responsibility rests with today's policymakers to embrace diplomacy, prioritize stability, and forge a future that safeguards humanity from the looming threat of a Third World War. The stakes are high, and the tolling bells grow louder...
- The Shultz Report by M. Shultz