1. Px5514 1531709 words count:
President Ronald Reagan: Westminster Speech, June 8, 1982
In 1980 the Soviet Union was a threat to the survival of The United States, its allies and to
the principle of self government. In 1990, the Berlin Wall collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was
only a remaining name, and the Soviet Union was approaching its end as a “Nation”.
The victory of President Reagan’s policy was a historical achievement to the US, as the
Soviet Union, after being a major threat to US safety, began to collapse as a nation within ten
years. What Paul Kengor described as “No better start”, Reagan’s Presidency started with a
headline in “The New York Times”: “Fifty-Two American Hostages Flown to Freedom after a
444-Day Ordeal.” (Kengor, 6, 2007).
What can be seen as a rescue mission, Reagan’s presidency in its first sector operated with an
aggressive, strict attitude towards the Soviet Union. It was clear that Reagan wanted to gain
back the American sense of glory and pride, after years of defeats under President Jimmy
Carter.
Reagan made it clear in his speech, “a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of
freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it
has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the
people.” (Reagan, 1982) Marching against tyranny, spreading freedom, and fighting for
democracy, these themes shaped Reagan’s speech, with his target audience shifting as he
spoke, first addressing the British people before moving on to directly address the Soviets.
The message delivered to the British Parliament, concerned Anglo-American solidarity and
the importance of unity against communism, using the legacy of Winston Churchill to
underpin his words. The message delivered to the people of the Soviet Union was two-fold,
with part of it challenging the policies and actions of the government, whilst the other part
appealed to their people to remind them of the freedoms they lacked across different issues
such as free speech and education.
The attitude towards the Soviets was reflected in Reagan’s policies, especially how he the
national budget. Andrew Busch stated that Reagan expanded on defence spending, and in his
perspective, Busch considered three main reasons for defence spending increasing from $143
million to $253 Million in the first three years of Reagan’s presidency. First, strategic
modernization, second conventional force buildup, and third improvement in readiness and
mobility. (Andrew E. Busch, 1997, 452)
Strategic modernization had several objectives. One major objective is matching and then
surpassing the Soviet modernization, in order to restore American negotiating leverage.
Despite Reagan’s actions on military, he declared the start of “Strategic Arms Reduction
Talks” (START), as he wanted to decrease the causes of war waged on both sides.
Like John M. Jones (52, 2010) described it, Reagan’s “softened and sharpened language” in
his speech reflected his willingness to re-establish American superiority, in addition to his
“clear opposition to war”. This sharpened ideology in the speech’s content served Reagan’s
purpose in directly accusing the Soviet Union for what happened in Afghanistan and Poland.

2. Px5514 1531709 words count:
The frequent use of terms like “democracy” “West” and “freedom” when talking about US
itself and UK, and using terms like “oppression” “totalitarian” and “evil” accompanied with
the USSR, shows that Reagan declared a campaign that holds western principles against the
Soviet communism. In what he called the “Global Campaign of Democracy” he was trying to
motivate the Soviet public to revolt against this oppressing system, applying the American
role of “spreading democracy” as he called it.
Although Reagan was so strict and aggressive in his policy with the Soviet Union, some
scholars argued that he was trying to compromise and improve his relationship with the
soviets even before the Soviet’s policies changed. Beth A. Fischer went to the extreme and
claimed that “Reagan administration began seeking an approach with the Kremlin before the
Soviets began to reform”(Fischer, 2, 2000). Moreover, if Reagan intended to give his speech
in this aggressive anti-communist ideology to deliver a message to the Kremlin that the US
still have the ability to stand for freedom and democracy, or if he intended to gain back the
American population’s trust in their administration through resuscitation of the pride and will
of the US, his policy in the upcoming years from 1983 to 1985 reflected a different fact.
As Secretary of State, Kenneth Dam threatened in a speech on October 31st 1982 that
Washington “would continue to take a hard-line approach as long as the Soviets continued
their "quest for absolute security." He also warned that superpower relations were not likely
to improve in the near future.” (Fischer, 4, 2000). While ten weeks later, Reagan himself
delivered an address concerning the superpowers relations between Washington and
Moscow, which is considered the turning point in his relation with the Kremlin. Fischer
elaborated this point concerning Reagan, “he played down the ideological differences
between the two capitals, and spoke at length about the superpowers' "common interests."
Foremost among these interests, he asserted, was the desire for peace.” (Fischer, 4, 2000).
One of the interesting articles that closely examined Reagan’s speech and policy in general
was Robert C. Rowland on the principles, pragmatism, and authenticity in the president’s
rhetoric. Rowland highlighted the fundamental role that Reagan played in winning the Cold
War, describing it as a “...quite contested issue. Conservatives emphasize Reagan’s arms
buildup and the aggressive tone he took with the Soviets. In this triumphalist view, Reagan
played a key role in winning the Cold War with aggressive rhetoric and action.” (Rowland,
4).
It is clear now that Reagan supported real arms control, but was frightened of war with the
soviets. To Rowland “Reagan’s rhetoric was defined by quite a strident attack on the Soviets
from 1981 to 1983 and then shifted to emphasize arms control, leading to the successes of the
second term.”( Rowland, 7). This view was contradictory in a way that reflected his
conservative and liberal policy, which subjected Reagan to criticism of his “doubtable
success”, and raised questions as to whether it was Reagan’s approach or Gorbachev’s
policies that really ended the war.
Ultimately Reagan’s speech could be seen as being dichotomous with his actions. On the one
hand he was using the harsh language of anti-communist rhetoric to solidify his alliance with

3. Px5514 1531709 words count:
the UK and project a message of American strength, whilst simultaneously his actions sought
to solidify his relationship with the Russian leadership in order to get them to engage in the
START talks and avoid a situation of total war.

4. Px5514 1531709 words count:
Bibliography
Andrew E. Busch (1997). Presidential Studies Quarterly. London-New York: Wiley on
behalf of the center of the study of presidency and Congress . 451-466.
Beth A. Fischer (2000). Reagan Reversal . Columbia: Columbia : University of Missouri..
2-10.
John M Jones . (2011). Reagan at Westminster: Foreshadowing the End of the Cold
War. Presidential studies quarterly. 3 (3), 659.
Paul Kengor (2009). the crusader . London-New York: Harper Perrenial . 6
Robert C. Rowland. (2000). Principle, Pragmatism, and Authenticity in
Reagan’sRhetoric. Bedrosian center . 11 (1), 4-9.