Analyzing Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy Record

---

Ronald Reagan: President from 1981-1989

Personal Characteristics: Confident, Hands-Off, Charismatic

A Charismatic Leader: A well-known fact about President Reagan was his ability to command an audience, and have his voice resoundingly heard. According to Thomas Paterson, et al., “Surrounded by specialists who tapped his natural talent, Reagan proved an effective communicator. ‘Being a good actor pays off,’ he once told students at China’s Fudan University. Reagan became a very popular president, winning a landslide reelection in 1984 against former Vice President Walter Mondale. Even when Reagan suffered setbacks, Americans applauded his speak-from-the-heart manner, his self-deprecating humor, and his dogged ideological consistency.” 

A Simple and Politically Inexperienced Man: Obviously enough, Ronald Reagan’s acting career that turned into a political career did not make him a foreign policy genius overnight. In fact, “this Hollywood actor-turned president had no foreign affairs experience before taking office in 1981. He preferred movies and television to reading books; riding horses to round-table discussions, and he often revealed ignorance of fundamental information, as when he marveled following his first South American trip: ‘They’re all individual countries.’” So, to counter his foreign policy inexperience, he would need to bring with him into office a staff with the ability to educate him on the fly.

A Somewhat Hands-Off President: Although Reagan was a charismatic, in-control leader on the surface, in practice, he had a much more laid-back approach to the everyday functioning's of his Administration. This led to many within his cabinet to argue with each other over what policy initiatives to implement, and then to sometimes go behind Reagan’s back to ensure that their own policies were utilized. Reagan also did not come from an Ivy League or higher-up school, making him one of the least intellectual president’s. This was shown through his mannerisms while in office. “Reagan was prone to exaggeration, factual inaccuracy, and right-wing sloganeering. He acted more on instinct than on patient reasoning. His staff, fearing ill-thought utterances, managed his public performances.” Reagan was also the first to introduce the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” a phrase which Donald Trump would make the backbone of his campaign in 2016.

The International Context: 

Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: This event lived past the Carter Administration into Reagan’s time in office, really becoming the Soviet Union’s version of Vietnam. The war went poorly as the Soviet Union tried to maintain Afghanistan as a satellite buffer state, partially leading to the Soviet Union’s eventual demise from trying to keep the war effort going for so long.

Lebanon: This would eventually become an American issue following the destruction of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, but, for a time, events occurred mostly outside any American influence. Following the occupation of Lebanon by the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO) the state of Lebanon fell into a state of civil war and faced invasion from Israel following bombings on Israeli territory. 

Grenada: This state would also face eventual U.S. intervention, specifically military intervention. Prior to that though, there had been a coup on the left-wing leader of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, which was a successful internal overthrow by an even more radical group with ties to Cuba and Russia. Following the assassination of Bishop, chaos on the island ensued, sparking American intervention.

Nicaragua: Another international issue that spilled into the Reagan Administration from Carter’s years was the rebellion in Nicaragua. This event also sparked much American domestic dispute based on how the Reagan Administration dealt with the conflict, but I will get into that later. The Contra terrorists in Nicaragua were funded in large part by the United States. Terrorists on the island destroyed cotton and coffee shops and brutalized civilians. They had a hard time maintaining any territory, yet held a notable presence within the state. In the end, around 40,000 Nicaraguans were killed during the civil war.

The Iran-Iraq War: This was yet another conflict in which the U.S. had some influence over, as they helped supply the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. This conflict was “a bloody eighty-year cross-border conflict. Iraq had begun the war in 1980 to seize Iranian oil lands and topple the Khomeini regime, which had incited Shiite Muslims in Iraq to rebel.” The conflict was eventually concluded in 1988, in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed between both sides.  

Unrest in Africa: During the Reagan years, a much larger portion of the continent of Africa was subject to Cold War tensions. “In Africa, too, Reagan confronted knotty, protracted problems: death-dealing famine in Ethiopia and Sudan; civil wars in Ethiopia and Angola, where Soviet and Cuban troops assisted ruling regimes and covert CIA aid helped insurgents; the unresolved status of South Africa-dominated Namibia and the dehumanizing policy of apartheid in South Africa.” The issue of South African apartheid would eventually be thrust onto America’s plate following protests by black South Africans, organized by the Free South Africa Movement. 

The Philippines: Another state facing unrest was a former U.S. colony and ally during the Reagan years, the Philippines, led by the brutal Ferdinand Marcos regime. Under his leadership, the Philippines faced extreme oppression, and, in the 1980s, the Philippines “groaned under a foreign debt of more than $20 billion, high unemployment, and economic stagnation. He jailed, tortured, and murdered critics. Business, Roman Catholic, civil libertarian, and professional leaders demanded reform. The accelerating discontent with Marcos came to a head in August 1983, after assassins gunned down the anti-Marcos leader Benigno S. Aquino. The evidence pointed to a successful military conspiracy.” 

Korean Passenger Plane: Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Soviet Union were reignited following the Soviet Union mistakenly shooting down a Korean passenger plane, and claiming that the plane had strayed too close to a military base within Soviet airspace. “Soviet officials claimed that KAL (Korean Air Lines Flight) 007 was on a spy mission for the United States. Moscow later revealed that the shootdown had occurred in international airspace and that Soviet authorities had crudely covered up their error. 

Poland: One of the states that had the most contention following World War II was Poland. And, as Reagan and the Soviets were attempting to negotiate nuclear arms proliferation, unrest ensued in Poland. “After months of strikes and protests by Poland’s Solidarity labor movement, the Polish military cracked down in December 1981, imposing martial law and arresting Solidarity leaders… NATO countries reacted cautiously, seeking to protect their lucrative trade with the Soviet Union and Soviet clients.” 

Israeli Bombings: In 1981, following tension between Iraq and Israel, the Israelis, out of fear of a possible Iraqi attack, used 16 of its U.S. fighter jets to attack nuclear reactors in Iraq. Israel tried to later justify this as stopping a possible nuclear belligerent. The Reagan Administration, along with the United Nations Security Council, condemned the attacks. However, Reagan did agree that Israel could have truly seen the attacks as a defensive measure. 

Key Foreign Policies:

A Soviet Hard-Liner (At First): During Reagan’s first-term, he was an avid hard-liner against the Soviet Union, even going as far to feign goodwill in nuclear arms negotiations in favor of having rearmament in America’s favor. “... President Reagan and his advisers had gained a reputation for irresponsibility, even recklessness, on nuclear issues. The administration’s obvious preference for rearmament over arms control contributed to this; so too had a series of injudicious remarks by key officials about the development of nuclear ‘war-fighting strategies…’” Which led to the “strongest upsurge in public concern over the danger of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis…” Finally, “Reagan saw the Soviet-American relationship as an elemental confrontation between virtue and wickedness that would allow neither negotiation nor conciliation in any form; his tone seemed more appropriate to a medieval crusade than to a revival of containment.” 

Later in Favor of Negotiations: Following Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise to power as the leader of the Soviet Union, and his desire to negotiate with the West, Reagan dropped much of his “evil empire” rhetoric in favor of adopting a more accepting stance on possible deals with the Soviet Union. Reagan “welcomed the fresh breeze emanating from Moscow and moved quickly to establish a personal relationship with the new Soviet leader.” Following the change in rhetoric by Reagan, it led to eventual talks between him and Gorbachev, beginning with the Geneva summit.

In Fact, Reagan did not Like Nukes: As was previously stated, those working in the Reagan Administration often came to blows, and tried to undermine Reagan’s own political beliefs in favor of their own. One such example comes from the policy on nuclear arms. Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry stated that “Reagan’s personal convictions on nuclear weapons were profoundly at odds with the beliefs of most in his administration. Staffed by officials who considered nuclear weapons as a useful instrument of statecraft and who were openly disdainful of the moral critique of nuclear weapons articulated by the arms control community and the peace movement, the administration pursued the hardest line on nuclear policy and the Soviet Union in the postwar era.” Furthermore, “there is abundant evidence that Reagan himself felt a deep antipathy for nuclear weapons and viewed their abolition to be a realistic and desirable goal.” 

The Reagan Doctrine: The Reagan Doctrine mostly revolved around military and economic aid to key allies, specifically those that were facing pressure from Soviet-backed states and supporters. Reagan stated that “We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives–on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua–to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.” Finally, when discussing the possible aid to the Contras fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Reagan argued that it “is essential that the Congress continue all facets of our assistance to Central America. I want to work with you to support the democratic forces whose struggle is tied to our own security.” 

“Peace Through Strength”: The policy of “peace through strength” was motivated from Reagan’s insecurity regarding the alleged military superiority of the Soviets over the Americans. Because of this fear, Reagan ignited the largest peacetime arms buildup in American history to that point, which resulted in about $2 trillion being allocated for the B-1 bomber, the neuron bomb, resumed production of poison gas for chemical warfare, expanding the navy, bolstering counterinsurgency forces, etc.  As a result, military spending grew by 50%, and the Pentagon spent roughly $28 million an hour for every hour in the day, and all days in the week. 

Capitalist Supremacy: Reagan, a conservative politician, obviously advocated for the global use of capitalism, which greatly impacted his decision making. “Reagan and his advisers believed that nations must embrace capitalism and privatize managed economies. American leaders frequently lectured Third World nations on the ‘magic of the marketplace.’” This policy came from Reagan’s desire to promote American exceptionalism, somewhat akin to Woodrow Wilson’s desire for global democratization. Reagan even used the National Endowment for Democracy, “Which used federal and private funds to promote free enterprise and democratic politics abroad,” to provide “millions of dollars to overseas political parties, labor unions, and publishers, many with an anti-leftist bias.” 

Rolled Back Human Rights: Reagan had a strong desire to roll back on the human rights policies of the Carter Administration, which I agree with in principle, but do not understand Reagan’s methods for reversing course, which I will get into later. Reagan saw human rights as effectively getting in the way of making positive relations with potentially fruitful allies around the globe, basically meaning that he became sympathetic to sometimes oppressive, anti-communist regimes. 

The Strategic Defense Initiative: The Strategic Defense Initiative, (SDI) or, as it is more well-known as, “Star Wars,” was an atmospheric defense initiative proposed by Reagan, which was supposed to be able to defend from possible Soviet nukes well enough to ensure survival. Basically, the policy was an expensive endeavor to place American nukes in space to knock out any nukes sent from the Soviet Union to America, fighting fire with fire. 

Positive Achievements: 

Improving Soviet Relations: Following Gorbachev’s rise to power, and the strong relationship between he and Reagan that was cultivated, their friendship led to some meaningful, positive changes in relations between the two sides, mainly based on the desire of both Reagan and Gorbachev to come to a nuclear arms agreement. Starting with the Geneva summit, Reagan and Gorbachev could not come to an agreement on “Star Wars” or an extension of SALT-II, but did begin their cordial personal relations. However, at the Washington summit in 1987, the two sides signed the “Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which provided for the elimination of all U.S. and Soviet INF missiles everywhere and verification of their destruction through on-site inspections.” 

Intervention in Grenada: While the intervention in Grenada by the Reagan Administration was condemned globally at the time, I find it in hindsight as a justifiable action. Americans living in Grenada were in danger following the coup of the Bishop regime. A force of 6,000 American troops went into Grenada and took control of the government, ousting the newfound Marxist regime. The intervention was very popular to the citizens of Grenada, as it mostly ended the unrest in the state. Furthermore, maybe the most important development that came out of this, was that the intervention in Grenada was the last American Cold War intervention, showing that the move was not solely grounded in hate for communism.

Reagan did Influence Some Democratic Transitions: Reagan was able to use economic force, and, in the case of Grenada, military force to ensure democratic transitions. Not only was his military intervention in Grenada successful, it created a democratic transition after America toppled the young marxist regime. Furthermore, Reagan was able to influence a democratic transition in Chile after he cut off aid to Augusto Pinoche’s regime. Moreover, he pressured Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Jean-Claude Duvalier of Haiti to step down, allowing for even more democratic transitions. Reagan’s forceful moves to create democratic transitions arguably were more effective than Carter’s human rights efforts.

Negative Drawbacks: 

Negatives of Reversing Human Rights: While there were some positives to Reagan reversing Carter’s human rights policies, like allowing him more freedom of movement in international relations, it also led to some backsliding on how America treated and identified oppressive regimes. The distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes brought forth by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, was accepted by the Reagan regime as its new stance. “Authoritarian governments in countries such as the Philippines, Chile, South Korea, and South Africa, though antidemocratic, sustained capitalist economies and would eventually implement U.S. suggestions for reform. Communist totalitarian regimes imposed managed economies and presumably resisted change. Given such thinking, Reagan officials downgraded human-rights tests for friendly authoritarian governments.” Compounding this fact, President Reagan vetoed a law passed in Congress in 1986 which imposed heavy economic sanctions on the racist and oppressive regime in South Africa. The law passed following the veto, but the move itself showed the insecurity that Reagan and many presidents had during the Cold War era of communism. Even going as far to support inhumane regimes to subvert the will of communism, just an utterly disgraceful policy for one who supported global democratization.

START/Lying about SDI: Once Reagan replaced the SALT talks with Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, (START) his demands became too drastic for the Soviets. “Discussions began in Geneva in 1982, but because the American plan sought drastic reductions in those very weapons that constituted the bulk of Soviet deterrent power, negotiations stalled.” Furthermore, when trying to effectively recreate the arms race with the Soviet Union, the Reagan Administration lied about the viability of “Star Wars.” “As SDI research advanced, with some test results actually faked to keep congressional funds flowing, START sputtered.” The corruption and lack of control that Reagan had over his Administration was clearly evident here, and would not be a one-off event, but would become a theme of his presidency.

Lying About the Nicaraguan Contras: The lying in this case by the Reagan Administration was almost as bad as it would be in the Iran Contra scandal. Here, Congress had prohibited the use of federal funds to assist in the overthrow of the Sandinistas, which was not followed. “In early 1984, Congress discovered that the CIA had worked with contra commandos to mine three Nicaraguan ports.”  Furthermore,  “When Nicaragua went to the World Court to charge a breach of international law, Washington refused to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. (In June 1986, the court decided that the United States had violated international law by funding the contras and ordered Washington to pay an indemnity to Nicaragua; Reagan ignored the ruling.) In mid-1984, Congress banned aid to the contras.”  This is yet another example of Reagan not only undermining the authority of the World Court, but of Congress to ensure his personal policies were implemented. 

Following in the Soviet’s Footsteps: While America was helping to supply the Saddam Hussein regime of Iraq in its war against Iran, Iraqi aircraft accidentally hit the U.S. frigate, the Stark, which killed 37 crewmen and forced Reagan to increase his presence in the Persian Gulf.  However, similar to the Soviet Union shooting down the Korean passenger plane, an American ship, the Vincennes, “thinking itself under attack, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 aboard. Washington admitted error while covering up the fact that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shootdown.” This was yet another example of the Reagan Administration attempting to cover up a mistake or policy, and would not be the last.

Intervention in Lebanon: Prior to the intervention in Grenada, the utter catastrophe of the intervention in Lebanon occurred, which makes me question why Reagan would even decide to intervene in Grenada after this debacle. Following the PLO’s takeover of Lebanon, the Americans began working with the Christian Lebanese army to try to give Lebanon its sovereignty back. After tensions between the forces escalated, Reagan elected to send Marines into Lebanon, who were wholly unprepared to fight in Beirut. Tragedy then occurred. A suicide bomber attacked the U.S. embassy in Beirut, destroying the building and killing 241 Americans. Reagan then pulled the troops out and attempted to save face by arguing that America’s objectives in the state were fulfilled, which was yet another lie.

The Iran Contra Scandal: Somewhere between 1984-85, Americans were taken hostage in Beirut, creating another hostage crisis for America. Following the restriction of funds to the Contras rebelling in Nicaragua, Reagan still attempted to provide them with funding, but this time private funding spearheaded by Oliver North, a U.S. Marine Officer, was the method of funding the contras. As part of this funding, the Reagan Administration sent to Iran, via Israel, “good faith arms shipments,” which the Reagan Administration hoped would be enough to free the hostages. Caspar Weinberger, who worked in the Reagan Administration as the Secretary of Defense, argued that this move was not only illegal based on the Arms Control Protection Act, but bad policy. 

Following copious amounts of missile shipments to Iran through Israel, the captive Americans were released. While Reagan argued that he would never pay for ransom, this was effectively doing just that, incentivizing terrorists to take even more hostages going forward. The Iran Contra scandal then exploded back into the face of the Reagan Administration once they were found out. “The Iran-Contra Affair was characterized by pervasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy. North admitted that he and other officials lied repeatedly to Congress and to the American people about the Contra covert action and Iran arms sales, and that he altered and destroyed official documents.” While the investigations regarding the scandal could not prove that Reagan led or even was aware of the actions by those in his Administration, “he set the stage for the illegal activities of others by encouraging and, in general terms, ordering support of the contras during the October 1984 to October 1986 period when funds for the contras were cut off by the Boland Amendment, and in authorizing the sale of arms to Iran, in contravention of the U.S. embargo on such sales.”  Even though Reagan could not be proven to be directly involved, the scandal was still an impeachable offense on the grounds of his enabling. The event was an utter catastrophe, and overshadowed all other nefarious deeds of the Reagan Administration.

Supplying Islamic Guerrillas: While the Soviet Union was fighting its war in Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration decided to supply Islamic guerrillas to assist in the conflict against the Soviets. While this was a common tactic of presidents at the time in order to avoid direct conflict with the Soviets, it was yet another example of an executive being short-sighted during the Cold War by failing to understand the consequences of supplying guerrilla forces. In this case, the guerrilla forces that the Reagan Administration supplied included Osama bin Laden, who would turn against America and organize terrorist attacks on the United States, making this a soberingly narrow-minded mistake.

Final Grade: D-/ I badly want to give Reagan an F here, as he willfully and consistently subverted the will of the American government and public in favor of his personal policies, or was negligent in allowing his subordinates to run rampant. However, Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives did have some positives, and could not be anywhere near as unsuccessful as someone like President Taft, who I gave an F. The issue is that any and all of Reagan’s accomplishments, whether that be with Soviet relations, the successful intervention in Grenada, influencing democratic transitions, were all marred by his brutal errors in judgment. It would be incorrect to assert that all of these negatives were conducted by Reagan, but all of them, even the ones he did not have a direct hand in, fall in the lap of his Administration, which he was responsible for. Therefore, he “earns” a D- grade.

References: 

1. “Reagan Doctrine, Feb. 6, 1985,” in Gambone, Documents of American Diplomacy: From the American Revolution to the Present (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), 441.
2. “The Iran-Contra Affair, November 13, 1987,” in Commager and Cantor, eds., Documents in American History, vol. II (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), 827-28.
3. “Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Welsh Reports on Official Wrong-Doing in Iran-Contra, 1992,” in Dennis Merrill and Thomas Paterson, eds., Major Problems in American Foreign Relations Since 1914, 7th ed., vol. I (Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009), 309-0.
4. Thomas Paterson, et al., “Ronald Reagan’s Mission to Revive American Hegemony,” “Soviet-American Crises and the Antinuclear Movement,” “Civil Wars and Interventionism,” “Hornets’ Nests in the Middle East,” American Foreign Relations, 7th ed., vol. II (Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning), 425-43. 
5. John Lewis Gaddis, “The Unexpected Ronald Reagan,” The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992), 119-32. 
6. Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry, “Engagement and Anti-Nuclearism, Not Containment, Brought and End to the Cold War,” in Paterson, et al., Major Problems in American Foreign Relations Since 1914, 4th ed., vol. II, 746-53.