1960s NEWS
Home of Sir Dennis Brogan in Cambridge.
INTERVIEW:
Announcer 44:14
At his home in Cambridge, England, a lifelong observer of American politics, sir Dennis Brogan sees a change in recent United States foreign policy,
Dennis Brogan 44:23
but I think has been taken and that's one taking a new direction. And not sure that I like it very much a idea that United States has got to protect the whole world, a sort of new Monroe Doctrine applied to Asia, as it's very dangerous, and I think it's very unpopular in Europe and in Asia, and I think in perhaps the United States, I think is a change from the opposite belief to the policy of the Kennedy administration is last year anyway. And of course, it'snot a ton to a degree for armed confrontation which alarms people, then people get scared about it. I don't think I'm not scared in that sense. I don't think it's going to be worldwide. I don't tend to have an escalation. I don't think the Chinese in that sense are going to intervene. On the other hand, I don't think there's going to be a quick solution oppose any solution in Vietnam. It can be gone for a long, long time. Increasing financial and military intervention and military commitment, which I think beyond a pocket in America and United States isn't a dilemma. I'll be healing from the peerless part without having a purist ideology. This accounts for the confusion in his statements as to one's doing. And Santo Domingo probably needs much better governance lately to get under any of the contending parties. Hayti would be improved by almost any government. I'm not sure it would mean improvement government, Governor Barnett or some of the Southern senators who make governit better than it's governede now. But you can't do that. And then go on talking about democracy, the free world all the rest, that you've got to admit, the imperialists like Huey Long, you must have impeded, find another name for it, call it something different. This, of course, is heresy because the United States never does this kind of thing.
Andrew Stern 46:17
There has been a view in the United States that it is America's responsibility to make the rest of the world secure for democracy. Do you think the time for this kind of thinking is ending?
Dennis Brogan 46:29
No, no, I don't think it has responsibilities and security for the world. This is what I called a long time ago, the illusion of American omnipotence and just isn't powerful enough to secure the whole world. It it may be powerful enough to impose peace along with the Soviet Union, which is what it has been doing, tacitly in recent years, prevent the expansion of atomic power to preserve the status quo, the Russian status quo as well as America's status quo. But the United States simply can't provide for the security. But it isn't big enough, it isn't rich enough, it isn't strong enough. And this was an illusion, and a dangerous illusion. The British never believed us because they knew they were intrinsically weak and had to deal had to bargain and make compromises the so called facts botanic of the 19th century, was based on a very realistic assessment of British power. Never go to war with our allies. For example, the only war Britain has ever thought about allies was the war of American independence and lost it. which I think there are many areas in the world in which a major states power is legitimate, is proximate. It's easy to exercise and as welcome, for example, Europe, despite friction and so on, it's basically accepted. It's predominantly accepted, as accepted by General de Gaulle who disliked somebody doesn't deny it. It's it exists in other parts of the world, the Soviet Union is in a stronger position, Afghanistan, for example, nothing can make them out of the states powerful in Afghanistan. The seven feet can't crush the second highest mountain range in the world to get into Afghanistan. That I areas in which United States has a natural geographic interest in Santo Domingo is one of them, you can see separated simply, but this is by nature and part of the American spirit of influence. So we can't help that and it's there.
Andrew Stern 48:16
Well, what about the thesis that the United States is actually making the world safe for democracy and therefore is justified in its actions?
Dennis Brogan 48:24
Well, that's what they haven't done in South Vietnam. The Americans have stopped the elections to be held at 1956 North Vietnam just stopped the United States. everyone in the world knows this about me except the State Department nobody believes the statements issued by the State Department. So this is I don't mind it. But I think the elections Vietnam are bound to be faulty no matter who runs and the idea of elections they may they can line in many countries. It's nonsense nonsense. It's nonsense in Santo Domingo. But it's, there isn't any South Vietnam people defending itself? That's a quite obviously a division. Parallel by a treaty of which the United States is not a party. The Franco Vietnamese got a treaty of Geneva conference in 1954. If anyone is broken, it isn't the United States. Seriously. I don't think it matters. I'm not worried about the morals of that. But I'm worried about the statements about defending democracy in South Vietnam. This is not what's been defended as a power position has been defended by the South Vietnam and better off or worse off up United North Vietnam. I don't know. But any case it's used to stand up democracy free nations, free peoples. We've had issues you've had this summit, South Korea and in Sigmund Rivas thrown up you had it in DMS time and it's not Vietnam. We had it about Chiang Kai Shek I've ever mentioned that forgotten man. What was wrong in all these cases? Well, it's the basic statement wasn't truly defending democracy or any sense that I attach any meaning to. And nobody in Southeast Asia attached any meaning to it, so this is this is this is the mixture you have two different policies one is a realistic, impossibly defensive policy of power that is desirable for the free world, Europe, Australia and Canada and so on to the United States power should not be diminished that I agree with, I think the chips are down. That is the only policy it makes sense. But I don't think a paint job should be done on with kind of irrelevant slogans. I mean, when Jefferson declaration dependents said a decent, respectful Kenyan of mankind, He meant slightly more of an acid and that all the Declaration the list of grievances is not perhaps as authentic as some Americans think. Nevertheless, it's roughly true. Well, some of the statements made recently are roughly false. And I don't mean success for lying, but dislike incompetent lying incompetent evasion, shall I say?
Andrew Stern 50:54
President Johnson, much as he wants to put his own personal stamp on his administration has always had a tremendous respect for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, how well do you think he is living up to these principles,
Dennis Brogan 51:09
domestically brilliantly. And I think that's what really moves and is, in fact, the new society. The Great Society is the poverty belt in Texas, he himself says he knows what it was. All of that he's done magnificently and better than Kennedy, but an enemy has done some throws haven't been his first term outside the United States. Don't think he's interested enough and doesn't notice the variations of areas in which these things are working doesn't work. He is not careful about other people's susceptibilities. And he doesn't tell you he hasn't got possibly unjustly they charisma that Kennedy had. All of this was justified or not, it certainly is a fact. And in all over Europe, there's a Kennedy image, which is very vivid still, years after his death, and there's no Johnson image. And they're and we didn't have one. There's no president of the United States least of an image, even inside the United States as the less outside. But its effect. Consequently, that immense success, the parliamentary success inside the United States, the judicial success, the Department of Justice, as it says under Katzenback. All of these things are very important realities. And of course, they have a good effect in the long run. I'm not very long run, because to give an impression, the United States dealing with his own domestic problems. Let's do things on competition, immense success, which spreads over the whole world of Johnson's domestic program as a kind of domestic program, which isn't like an example to other countries to this country, for example, to Britain. And it's now been offset by a picture of United States throwing its weight about and carrying on policies, which either people don't believe in at all, I don't believe we're going to succeed. A great many people would bet you might say to states and South Vietnam who thought they're gonna win. And since they don't think they're going to win, they don't back them. This is a low immortal attitude, but it's a very common human attitude. And these are parts of the place paid for extravagant statements about the United States making the world safe. After Wilson didn't make the battle safe for democracy, when he made this great, rather ambiguous statement, Chesterton made the great remark, that one will never be made safe for democracy. It's a dangerous trade. And that ought to be remembered in the White House in 1965. The world was never made secure for democracy is a dangerous trades. But the world doesn't agree the United States has a God given mission to save it. The whole world isn't so many parts of the world haven't heard of the United States. One thing and they don't believe it, and they don't want to be saved by the United States all by Russia or possibly by China.