The US has long presented itself as the beacon on the hill whose raison d’être is to make the world safer for democracy. All too often, such statements smack of rhetoric and we take for granted the political values and principles we have become so accustomed to. Yet, as we mark the anniversary of the Malta meetings between US President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, hosted here in December 1989, we are also reminded of how remarkable, fragile and delicately balanced democracies are to build and sustain.
The summit was hailed as a milestone in the course of the Cold War – from Yalta to Malta – that would symbolise the unravelling of the bipolar tensions that had characterised the previous four decades. The storms that led to more intimacy between President Bush and Mr Gorbachev resulted in talks that would go down in history not only due to the symbolic nature of the event but, more importantly, because of the discussions held on the Maxim Gorky and the rapport and talks developed in the months following those memorable days.
My recent opportunity to delve into the archives available at the Bush Presidential Library in Texas, which houses the National Archives from President George H.W. Bush’s time in office, proved to be fascinating. This was not only due to the content of the discussions but also because of the insight into the functions and workings of a democracy that, though more often than not forgotten or unseen, are the pillars that keep a democracy functioning and in check.
The summit was held against a backdrop of reform spreading uncontrollably across central and eastern Europe. The transcripts of talks between the heads of state during the Malta meetings show two individuals who were sensitive to the turning point they had led their countries to, showed a mutual respect for one another’s roles and were cautious not to upset the stability necessary for either side. Moreover, the talks show a meeting of minds on the universality of democratic principles.
As members of the Soviet delegation expressed concern over the portrayal of glasnost and perestroika as Western values, because this would be portrayed as Western strengths over the Soviet Union, President Bush assured: “Let’s try to avoid words that cause you concern or us concern. We are saluting the values.” Mr Gorbachev replied that “The direction of these changes is that we are becoming more open and an organic integration is taking place. We are abandoning those things that divide us.”
It is in the light of such discussions that the importance of democratic values was agreed upon both in principle and terminology. This mutual support for such values was expressed not only in words but also in actions and approach towards one another. The role of head of state within a democracy should be not only to lead in the best interest of the nation after receiving the electoral mandate but also to keep a finger on the pulse of the population and be aware of the sentiments that run through the community. For the President of a country like the United States, it is essential he be sensitive to, first and foremost, his electorate but also to the sentiments being expressed by the international community.
While the summit in itself grabbed the world’s attention and was recorded in diplomatic history, we all too often remain oblivious to the constant maintenance that takes place at all diplomatic levels in order to make such events possible. The national archives at the Bush Presidential Library also revealed the transcripts of telephone conversations held between President Bush and other Nato heads of government in the run-up to the summit, where the President enquired about “any concerns or words of consultation or advice” his allies might have with regard to the meeting. In such conversations, the President also assured “there would be no deals made over your heads at Malta”. Similarly, correspondence records show suggested initiatives and positions being put forward by a number of domestic actors, from both public and private agencies.
The Administration’s records also show debriefings and engagement with domestic and international actors, partners and allies in the follow-up to the meeting. Effective leadership within any democratic administration requires dialogue and debate within all structures of government and amongst all actors. Similarly, such dialogue is also necessary to sustain international diplomacy and stability.
In the midst of the trolley loads and files of documents on every facet surrounding the Malta meeting, from briefing notes to transcripts, official correspondence between states to thank you notes to those that had met with or provided advice to the President, the document that stood out was a piece of correspondence exchanged with a US citizen several weeks after the summit.
To me, this letter and the post-it notes attached to it epitomised the foundations of democratic leadership. A simple letter from an ordinary citizen passing on her advice and thoughts on the Malta meeting was passed on to the President as a sample letter to be replied to. While being acknowledged as “zany” by his staffers, this very letter was passed on so the President would have a true picture of the nature of correspondence received. It was also noted that in view of such a lengthy and neatly typed letter having been written and dated December 25, 1989, a reply would be greatly appreciated by its author.
This is the key to effective democratic leadership: being surrounded by staff who ensure the political elite do not become detached from the sentiments being expressed by the electorate, are made aware of the realities on the ground, whether favourable or otherwise, and are sensitive to the emotional needs of the population.
The author, an assistant lecturer within the Department of International Relations at the University of Malta, has just carried out research at the Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas.