spite of the diplomatic obstacles, the language remained intact, a testament to Reagan who, said Pipes, “insisted” on the language; indeed, this was the core of everything Reagan had always wanted.10 It was the manifestation of his forty-year crusade and it would become the centerpiece of the flourishing effort to defeat Communism once and for all. It quietly signaled a new era in both presidential power and American foreign policy.
THE OBJECTIVES OF NSDD-75
The document repeatedly expressed the “U.S. objective”—which it alternately called “task” or “goal” or “policy”—of “promoting positive evolutionary change within the Soviet system” (p. 6), of “containing and reversing Soviet expansion and promoting evolutionary change within the Soviet Union itself ” (p. 6), of “containing the expansion of Soviet power” (p. 7), and more. NSDD-75 reiterated these goals again three separate times on page eight.
After the introduction, a three-part analysis followed, the first part revealingly titled, “Shaping the Soviet Environment,” wherein the administration laid out how it intended to affect that environment. Militarily, NSDD-75 called for a U.S. capability to resist the USSR around the world. Politically, and very much in keeping with Reagan’s views and rhetoric, the directive said that U.S. policy “must have an ideological thrust which clearly affirms the superiority of U.S. and Western values…over the repressive features of Soviet Communism.” The directive advised that these differences be pointed out and broadcast over international airwaves, and suggested increased U.S. government efforts to highlight Soviet human-rights violations.
NSDD-75 emphasized that U.S. economic relations with the USSR must serve strategic goals. “Above all,” U.S. objectives must “ensure that East-West economic relations do not facilitate the Soviet military buildup.” Here, Pipes said he had in mind past cases of U.S. and Western technology that had aided critical Soviet missile-related industries, such as the sale (by a U.S. company) in the early 1970s of equipment to manufacture miniature ball bearings, which ended up in Soviet missile-guidance systems.11 This meant a close eye on technology transfer. Hence, NSDD-75 reiterated key economic-warfare aspects of NSDD-66, notably in regard to the gas pipeline, energy exports, bank credits, and the tightening of technologies on the COCOM list.
Reiterating and expanding on many of the previous NSDDs, NSDD-75 proved to be the most comprehensive policy example of the administration’s mindset. Years later, Bill Clark elaborated on the rationale that the document expressed:
The basic premise behind this new approach was that it made little sense to seek to stop Soviet imperialism externally while helping to strengthen the regime internally. This objective was to be attained by a combination of economic and ideological instrumentalities. Thus it became United States policy to avoid subsidizing the Soviet economy or unduly easing the burden of Soviet resource allocation decisions, so as not to dilute pressures for structural change within the Soviet system.12
Clark’s words matched the language of NSDD-75.13 NSDD-75 acknowledged: “The U.S. recognizes that Soviet aggressiveness has deep roots in the internal system, and that relations with the USSR should therefore take into account whether or not they help to strengthen this system and its capacity to engage in aggression.” Additionally, NSDD-75 addressed the following specifics:
Allies. While stating that the support of overall U.S. strategy by allies was “essential,” NSDD-75 conceded that America “may on occasion” be forced to go it alone, sometimes “even in the face of Allied opposition.” (p. 4) This applied not just economically but militarily, and was a harbinger of what was to come later in the year in Grenada.
The Third World. The directive said the United States must “resist Soviet encroachment” upon the Third World and “support effectively those Third World states that are willing to resist Soviet pressures or oppose Soviet initiatives hostile to the United States.” American efforts in the Third World must involve “an important role for security assistance and foreign military sales, as well as readiness to use U.S. military forces where necessary.” (p. 4)
Soviet Allies within the Soviet Empire. NSDD-75 said there were “a number of important weaknesses and vulnerabilities within the Soviet empire which the U.S. should exploit.” U.S. policies, said the NSDD, “should seek wherever possible to encourage Soviet allies to distance themselves from Moscow in foreign policy and to move toward democratization domestically.” (p. 4)
Eastern Europe. “The primary U.S. objective in Eastern Europe,” NSDD-75 made clear, “is to loosen Moscow’s hold on the region” while also promoting human rights in the region. The directive said the Reagan administration could advance this objective by “carefully discriminating” in favor of countries that “show relative independence” from the USSR in their foreign policy, or those that show “a greater degree of internal liberalization.” (p. 4) The White House had in mind Yugoslavia and Poland, respectively.
Afghanistan. The document affirmed that in Afghanistan, “The U.S. objective is to keep maximum pressure on Moscow for withdrawal and to ensure that the Soviets’ political, military, and other costs remain high while the occupation continues.” (p. 4)
Soviet Third World Alliances. The Reagan team listed an added objective “to weaken and, where possible, undermine the existing links” between the USSR and its Third World allies. U.S. policy “will include active efforts to encourage democratic movements and forces to bring about political change inside these countries.” (p. 5)
China. NSDD-75 happily reported that China “continues to support” U.S. efforts to “strengthen the world’s defenses against Soviet expansionism.” The directive said the United States should seek enhanced cooperation with China and reduce the possibility of a Sino-Soviet rapprochement. (p. 5)
Arms Control. The directive advised that the White House only enter into arms-control talks when they serve U.S. objectives. Speaking Reagan’s own language, NSDD-75 insisted that arms-control agreements were “not an end in themselves.” (p. 5)
Official Dialogue. The directive said the White House “should insist” that Moscow address the “full range of U.S. concerns about Soviet internal behavior and human-rights violations.” The administration should resist a U.S.–Soviet agenda focused on arms control at the expense of human rights. (p. 5) This reflected Reagan’s long- held belief that it was wrong to ignore Soviet brutalities merely for the sake of gaining arms-control agreements; that was what detente had produced, and that was why it was wrong.
Brezhnev’s successor. The directive even addressed the issue of Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev’s successor. On that, NSDD-75 said the administration would “try to create incentives (positive and negative) for the new leadership to adopt policies less detrimental to U.S. interests.” (p. 7) Even that would later be fulfilled in the form of a man named Gorbachev.
Spanning almost every continent, NSDD-75 proved to be the most ambitious assault on Soviet interests in decades, maybe ever. In fact, it held no recognition of Soviet interests. The document assumed that not only should the United States encourage support for democratic forces throughout the world but that it should discourage the USSR’s ability to support Communist forces, which were repressive and undemocratic and thus illegitimate.
NSDD-75 revealed not only an intention to deter Soviet aggression but also to roll back the empire when possible. In a calculated move to avoid overt conflict, NSDD-75 did not advocate taking on the Soviets at every point of incursion, but instead focused merely on the areas where the Soviets were most vulnerable and the United States most capable of inflicting damage. Clark’s deputy, Robert McFarlane, emphasized: “NSDD-75 did not say we should confront the Soviets at every point. It said we should look for vulnerabilities and try to beat them.”14
Though this language concerning the reversal of Soviet expansionism was explicit, NSDD-75 did not explicitly predict a disintegration of the USSR. It did, however, seek to make overt attempts to change the nation internally or to make life miserable for the Soviet system. Unlike Reagan, the document made no predictions of victory or of placing Soviet Communism on the ash heap of history, as such a declaration would have been out of
