NEWSMAKER SUNDAY (CNN) - March 19, 1990

1

MR. FRANKEN: Welcome to NEWSMAKER SUNDAY. I'm Bob Franken in Washington. In the good old days, a few months ago, events of just this week would have been the stories of the year, or century. The communist world continues to transform, while in the Mideast the government of Israel falls apart. We are joined here today in Washington by two who have been and will be right in the thick of things, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell. We'll try and sort out the week's breath-taking events next on NEWSMAKER SUNDAY.

MR. FRANKEN (on tape): Another routine week, one historic change after another. Dateline Germany: East German voters are electing a new government after throwing out the communists and eliminating the Berlin Wall, while in Bonn all the affected parties try to sort out German reunification which has gone in a brief time from almost unthinkable to apparently inevitable. But even that historic movement is overwhelmed by the week in Moscow. The Soviet Union has a new super-president. Mikhail Gorbachev has assumed unprecedented powers, and promised in effect to reconstruct his Marxist-Leninist state as a democratic country with a market-driven economy. How big that country will be remains to be seen. In Lithuania, the parliament has voted to succeed from the U.S.S.R., and several other Baltic republics are considering the same thing, as Moscow vacillates between a mild and hard line response.

Meanwhile, over in the Mideast, we certainly can't overlook the collapse of the Israeli coalition government. Labor and Likud are jockeying once again to head the next one, and an American peace proposal might hang in the balance. There's so much ferment everywhere that the Libyan chemical plant that burned down was nearly shoved aside from the world's attention. That's sadly true also of America's hostages, still held in the Mideast. Terry Anderson's fifth anniversary in captivity came and went last week. Renewed hopes some hostage release was in the works are

2

dismissed as premature once again.

Among the many questions is the performance of President
Bush. Put simply, is his administration on top of events, or
racing to keep up?

MR. FRANKEN: So let's ask that question for starters
first of Dr. Kissinger. Are they on top of things?

DR. KISSINGER: Of course, so many things have happened
that were totally unexpected that nobody could have foreseen, but
I think on the whole, on the main trends, they are on top of
things, and have conducted a very subtle and thoughtful foreign
policy.

MR. FRANKEN: The criticism is, however, that their
subtlety has moved into reticence on occasion.

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, but some of the events--for example,
on Eastern Europe, on Germany--they cannot force events beyond the
election schedules and others. I think they've on the whole
established a framework which will stand us in good stead.

MR. FRANKEN: Congressman Fascell?

REP. FASCELL: I think basically the administration is
on top of the issues. Events have broken so fast it's very hard
to keep up with them. I think the criticism, if any, is probably
style as much as anything else, or rhetoric. The prose needs to
be more forceful in explaining to the American people and the
world, if you will, a vision of what this is all about, where
we're going with emerging democracies, the place that the United
States has in it. Without that, we seem to be responding piecemeal,
although adequately, or perhaps get into discussions about whether
or not the assistance is timely, is it enough money, and that
seems reactive, and it may be that there really isn't too much the
United States can do anyway.

So I think it is the vision of the future and where
we're going that indicates a lack of real control, when, as a
matter of fact, the administration is keeping up with events.

3

MR. FRANKEN: Well, the events are coming from every
which direction, as we know, and in just a moment we'll check out
on one of the world capitals when we continue with NEWSMAKER
SUNDAY.

(Announcements)

MR. FRANKEN: The Soviet Union now has what is being called a super-president, that is to say, a leader with unprecedented power. Dr. Kissinger, is this something to worry about?

DR. KISSINGER: It's an interesting phenomenon. It's described in much of our media as a move towards pluralism. But you could equally well describe it, and perhaps more accurately as the substitution of one man rule for one party rule, and how he will actually--legally Gorbachev has more power now than anyone has had in the Soviet Union since the days of Stalin. Can he exercise it? Will there be enough authority? That remains to be seen. But, effectively he has established now one man rule.

MR. FRANKEN: Is this, as I said, something to worry about?

DR. KISSINGER: It depends--when you have one man rule it depends what that one man thinks. Right now, I believe he's too preoccupied with his domestic affairs to be able to worry us in an expansionist sense. But I think he will face the problem of whether glasnost, the democratization and perestroika, the restructuring can exist side by side, and whether the ethnic problem, and the problem of central authority, how that is going to be related, and he may be--he will be oscillating, I think, between the dangers of chaos and the dangers of repression. And in that sense, we have something in the longer term to think about.

REP. FASCELL: Well, no doubt Gorbachev has consolidated his power. He's been doing that all five years, and every time there's a political test, we all wonder, is he going to make it. And so far every time he's been successful. Now, how will he use that? I agree with Dr. Kissinger that he's going to be wavering back and forth on the use of that power between trying to do

4

something about his domestic and internal problems both economic and social. And the real test for us, the rest of the world, will be in the liberalization process of his foreign or international policy--let me put it that way. So a good test might be what relationship in Angola, what relationship in Cuba? Do they really follow through in Nicaragua and El Salvador, in other places, Afghanistan, et cetera. And if that becomes an integral part of the total pull back, expansionist concepts of the Soviet empire, then I think Gorbachev would really deserve a major place in history.

DR. KISSINGER: They're still putting $12 billion into the foreign adventures that the chairman was mentioning.

MR. FRANKEN: Well, that raises the question, the United States policy. The policy of the United States right now seems to be to be rooting for Gorbachev in all these changes. Should that be our policy?

REP. FASCELL: Oh, sure. Absolutely. We want the man to succeed in the economic improvement and in the liberalization with respect to Eastern Europe, and even internally.

MR. FRANKEN: Even with the dangers--

DR. KISSINGER: I have a slightly different view on this. So long as he conducts the policies of liberalization of especially foreign policy. We want him to succeed. But we want the policies to succeed, not the man to succeed. And so we have to hold him to standards. He should not be able to sell his staying in office as a quid pro quo for our concessions.

REP. FASCELL: Absolutely.

MR. FRANKEN: Well, what about the suggestion by a member of your party, House Majority Leader Gephardt, that we should provide aid to the Soviet Union, food for peace? Bad idea? Good idea?

REP. FASCELL: No. We can do all of those things, because the majority leader conditioned all of that assistance, either direct or indirect, upon certain standards as the secretary

5

said. And you've got to maintain those standards. If, for example, the Pomyat pogroms against the Jews in the Soviet Union is not stopped, he can't get it under control, the harassment continues, the human rights efforts go to pieces, so to speak, we can't, you know, we can't give any aid.

MR. FRANKEN: The criticism is, among other criticisms, is that it's premature. Dr. Kissinger?

DR. KISSINGER: I would make a distinction between those things that alleviate immediate suffering, such as if there's a food shortage, which I would favor, favor those which strengthen the strategic capabilities or the military capabilities of the Soviet Union which I wouldn't do. One of the pressures on the Soviet system has been their inability to meet the consumer needs. And to the extent that those pressures continue, they will be forced to shift from the military sector into the civilian sector. And that's in our interest. There's a short term emergency in food, for example. I would favor helping them out. But fundamentally we can't solve the economic problem. The economic problem is total mismanagement.

MR. FRANKEN: Well, along the lines of their domestic problems, what about Lithuania? What should our posture be on Lithuania?

REP. FASCELL: I think the posture we've taken right now is a reasonable posture.

MR. FRANKEN: Which is sort of a non-posture.

REP. FASCELL: Well, it's waiting for the developments internally. I think it would be a mistake for us to take a position in the United States that what we're actually doing is fomenting an earlier action than the people themselves can handle.

DR. KISSINGER: We haven't recognized the occupation of the Baltic states for 50 years, and it's too late to start now. I think we have made it clear, and certainly it's in our political context that if they attempted to repress the freedom movement in the Baltics, they would suffer a severe strain on their relations

6

with the United States. As long as they don't repress it, I
believe that independence is almost inevitable, is inevitable.

MR. FRANKEN: We have to take another break here as we
move from the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc to the Mideast,
back in a moment.

(Announcement)

MR. FRANKEN: Our guests today, Dr. Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, and Congressman Dante Fascell, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

You used to be called Henry the K as you were bouncing
around the mid-East, involved in shuttle diplomacy. While we've
had the Israeli government fall now, and the peace process seems
to be a little bit stuck. Do you think it's time for somebody
else to get involved in some shuttle diplomacy again?

DR. KISSINGER: I think it's being--I think the procedure
is being properly handled, because shuttle diplomacy took place at
the end of a war when there was need for some dramatic change.
And when the substantive issues were very clearly understood. I
think the real problem in Middle East diplomacy now is to not just
focus on procedure, but try to come to some understanding, especially
between the United States and Israel, where this process is supposed
to go. So that these procedural issues, who sits in the room,
don't become the substitute for what the--for the outcome of the
negotiations. And if there was some understanding as to the floor
below which this will not go, or beyond which we will not press
Israel, I think there might be a calmer atmosphere in the internal
Israeli discussion.

MR. FRANKEN: What calm there was was shattered by
President Bush and his comments about East Jerusalem. Do you
feel, Congressman Fascell, that this was something that was an
accident or was there some sort of larger purpose?

REP. FASCELL: It's hard to say. I haven't discussed
that with the president. But certainly the administration's
regrouping after that comment, so as to take it out of the consi-

7

derations of the matters that are going on. And the vote in the
Israeli cabinet seems to indicate that that was successful.

The fact that it upset the Jewish community here in the
United States and Israel is--there's no doubt about that.

MR. FRANKEN: Could this possibly have been some sort of
Machiavellian effort to--

DR. KISSINGER: The problem, I think it shows the problem.
Because the criticism is that he shouldn't have raised the issue
at this point. But the issue is unavoidable. There is no way
there can be a negotiation on this, on the West Bank without the
issue of Jerusalem.

MR. FRANKEN: It is U.S. policy, by the way, isn't it?

DR. KISSINGER: It is--I have no tactical disagreement
with trying to keep it for as late in the day as possible. But at
the end of the day, it has to be faced. And there has to be some
discussion between Israel and the United States on what we intend
to do. And even though it may be painful, at the end of it at
least we will know where we are all heading.

REP. FASCELL: Well, the issue is there, I agree with
that. And it seems to me that the $64 question is, how do you get
started. Now the Baker plan was an effort to get started on
something, so that all these other things naturally would fall
into place.

I agree with Henry, however, that you can't make procedure
substitute for the substantive issues. That would be ridiculous.
But there are a lot of driving forces in Israel right now, and in
the Middle East with the Palestinians. And I think one of the
fundamental things is that the climate of the world plus the fact
that the Middle East has been there in the situation this long, is
that the status quo is really not acceptable to anyone.

MR. FRANKEN: We had a situation that caught my fancy a little
bit. And that is that events of the week overshadowed a crisis
with Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. He used to be the one that you
would always turn to when you needed a bad guy. Where does he fit

8

in to all of this, or doesn't he?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, of course he hasn't been the same
since the American attack on Libya in retaliation for their terrorist
action. I think that chemical plant is a danger to everybody in
the region. And I don't know who was involved, if anybody was
involved in starting that fire.

But anything that delays or eliminates the operation of
that chemical plant is a contribution to humanity. And so I think
that that was a positive development, without knowing what caused
it.

REP. FASCELL: No question about it. The poor man's
bomb, so to speak, in the hands of a Gaddafi or anybody else is
just--would be a disaster. And the fact that this plant burned
down is a plus for the whole world.

But it just underscores the necessity for the United
States and the Soviet Union to continue to take the lead and try
and reach an agreement among themselves, we're very close to doing
that, and internationally, both on the use of chemical and bac-
teriological warfare, on its production and its distribution.

MR. FRANKEN: Very briefly, there is another concentric
problem, and that is the hostages in the Mid East. Do you have
any idea what's going to be done, what should be done?

DR. KISSINGER: The painful thing about the hostages is
that the best way to get them back is to devalue them. To the
extent that they think they can keep us in turmoil and can keep us
negotiating, to that extent they have a vested interest in holding
them on to them.

And so I agree with the policy of no concessions to the
hostage takers. I believe that if Iran rationally should come to
the view that no American president can politically afford to make
concessions, they can get nothing for it. But they could get a
different atmosphere if they release them unconditionally. And
there are signs occasionally that that is being recognized.

MR. FRANKEN: And Congressman Fascell, do you support

9

the administration?

REP. FASCELL: I agree with that statement. I think the
only chance we've got is a political chance. There's no other way
to do it that anybody has come up with. And so if we can devalue
their interest in being held as hostages in terms of any gain to
the people who are doing it, we might have a better chance.

The solution of the political problems is our only hope.

MR. FRANKEN: We have to take a break right now. We'll
be back with more as we hopscotch around the world on NEWSMAKER SUNDAY.

(Announcements)

MR. FRANKEN: One of the other burning issues of the day
is the Bush administration's handling of China. I'd like to ask
you as a member of the loyal opposition, Chairman Fascell, your
feelings about the administration's conduct.

REP. FASCELL: Well, we took a very strong view against
the president's efforts with regard to China. And we felt it was
a real gamble. If the president wanted to take the heat for it,
for the benefit of the country, it remains to be seen whether or
not it was a good gamble.

But for the moment, it just seems like we forgave all
values that we hold dear in order to simply maintain contact with
a people, a billion people, and a government in which we have a
great interest.

So it's too early to tell whether the gamble paid off.
And the president right now unfortunately is reaping the criticism
that goes with that gambit.

MR. FRANKEN: You are one of the architects, of course,
of the contacts that we have with China.

DR. KISSINGER: I support the president's policy very
strongly. Because it seems to me nobody approves of what occurred
at Tiananmen Square. But we have a national interest in a relationship
with a billion, 200 million people, self-governing for 4,000
years.

And so we have to keep in mind that the relationship

10

between China and Japan, China and the Soviet Union, East and Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, and therefore the necessity of maintaining communications which I agree with. And it will--may yet turn out, and I believe it will turn out that it will also lead to some progress on human rights.

MR. FRANKEN: I just wanted to ask. You're the person to ask this, of course, when do you have to say that national interest is superseded by the moral questions?

DR. KISSINGER: There is no abstract answer to that. It's a level of intolerable behavior where moral considerations override all others.

I don't believe we have reached that point yet with China. And the administration has stated certain specific criteria, which it is applying and on which it continues to exercise pressure.

MR. FRANKEN: Congressman Fascell.

REP. FASCELL: Well, you know, it's a judgement call every time. And the position that the United States has to be in is to make it clear that the moral values is a very important consideration in our relationship, international relationship with the Chinese. But you know, we're doing other things too. It wasn't just a contact.

We're selling more sophisticated, high technology stuff to the Chinese than the Soviets and all of Eastern Europe put together. And we're taking a real gamble there. So that invites the criticism, if we're going to take that kind of gamble with the Chinese because of strategic interests in the Pacific, why can't we take that same kind of gamble with the Europeans and the Soviets.

MR. FRANKEN: Well, that brings us back a little bit west to Germany. What should our posture be?

DR. KISSINGER: I think that German unification is unavoidable. There are 400,000 Soviet troops in Eastern Germany. They have not felt they could use those to keep Germany divided. If they can't do it with 400,000 troops, none of us on the outside

11

have any ability to prevent it.

Secondly, Germany has been an ally for 40 years and it's awfully late in the game to remember all the misdeeds they committed. So we have to keep Germany tied to the Western community within the unification framework.

REP. FASCELL: Reunification is a fact. It's de facto, it exists. Now whether or not it will ever be de jure under Two-plus-Four or Four-plus-Six or 35, remains to be seen. And whether or not the east and the west can make satisfactory financial arrangements on a unitary currency remains to be seen.
But as far as the people are concerned, it's there now.

MR. FRANKEN: Thank you both very much for being with us. What you have just witnessed is a half hour trip around the world.
Thank you for joining us for NEWSMAKER SUNDAY. ^R