[L]

THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY - April 22, 1990

1

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Kissinger, thank you for coming.

DR. KISSINGER: Glad to be here.

MR. BRINKLEY: We're glad to have you with us today. Here in the studio are two people you already know rather well-- George Will and Sam Donaldson, both of ABC News.

DR. KISSINGER: Good to see you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Now, after all the changes we have seen and observed with, shall I say, awe and fascination in the last year or so, how would you assess the threat of war now?

DR. KISSINGER: Oh, I think the threat of general war is greatly reduced (momentary signal interruption), war involving the United States. It's possible that there is a slightly increased risk of war among the various nationalities as they become more independent in the Balkans, and perhaps even in the Middle East.

But any war involving the United States is much less likely.

MR. BRINKLEY: The Middle East, I assume you mean, would likely involve, say, Iraq?

DR. KISSINGER: Iraq is right now the most aggressive country in the Middle East.

MR. BRINKLEY: And the one most likely to be in some kind of war in the foreseeable or unforeseeable future?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, not in the immediate future; but it is certainly a country that is conscious of its military capability and that is apt to create trouble for its neighbors.

MR. WILL: Mr. Kissinger, American policy toward the Soviet Union today seems to be approximately this: we should acquiesce in, and quietly acquiesce in, the strangling of Lithuania; otherwise, Gorbachev might fall and be replaced by the kind of terrible man who would strangle Lithuania.

It's puzzling a lot of people. What should our policy be?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I actually--I have great sympathy for what the administration is doing; I have less sympathy for the

[L.C.]

2

justification.

I don't think maintaining any Soviet leader in office can be an objective of American policy--because either he reflects underlying realities, or he doesn't. And if it's purely a personal exercise, then we're building on sand.

On the other hand, I think, with respect to Lithuania, the administration doesn't have all that much choice because if Lithuania secedes by a vote of its parliament, then the whole Soviet state may disintegrate. And while we can't keep it together, it is a different issue from the issue of Central Europe. And so I understand why the administration is reluctant to take that on, head on.

MR. WILL: Pause for just a moment and explain why the stealing and buying, I guess, of Lithuania from Hitler in 1939 presents different moral and political problems than the suppression and incorporation of Poland and Czechoslovakia less than 10 years later.

DR. KISSINGER: In retrospect, one could say if everybody about a year or so ago had converged on the issue of the Baltic countries and if an attempt had been made then to establish a distinction between those countries and some of the other Soviet republics, there's a possibility that it might have worked more smoothly.

On the other hand, probably in the administration, they were more concerned at that moment with freeing Eastern Europe than with dealing with the Baltic countries.

Legally, morally, the question you put is absolutely correct. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were independent countries, were taken over as a result of the Hitler-Stalin pact. But if a Soviet republic can declare itself independent simply by a vote of its parliament, then that whole--what was called in the 19th century "prison of nations"--might fall apart. And while that is no concern of ours directly, it presents a different challenge to Moscow than freeing the sovereign nations of Eastern Europe.

3

MR. WILL: But, Mr. Kissinger, you seem to be saying that while it is wrong for us to make it the overriding goal of American policy to preserve in office a particular person--in this case, Gorbachev--the logic of your argument seems to be that it should be American foreign policy to preserve in its current form, spanning eleven time zones, this polyglot, unnatural thing called the Soviet Union.

Is that wise?

DR. KISSINGER: No. It shouldn't be the goal of American policy to preserve it. But it should not be the goal of American policy to destroy it. If the Soviet Union cannot hold it together, we have absolutely no reason to preserve it.

On the other hand, at a time when there are Soviet armies still in the center of Europe and when--I would think the top priority has to be to get the Soviet armies back to the Soviet-Polish frontier, much as I sympathize with what is going on in Lithuania and repellent as I find Gorbachev's behavior.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, now, in Lithuania Gorbachev has now imposed almost a complete blockade. Should Washington do anything more than wring its hands? Or should the United States, perhaps in concert with other Western nations, come to Lithuania's economic aid?

DR. KISSINGER: I suspect that the United States would not find many Western nations to act in concert with it. I think that at the margins of relationship with the Soviet Union on some new negotiations and on anything that shows particular warmth and affection for Soviet leaders, we should cool down the relationship.

I think, however, a fundamental challenge, that is, asking the Soviets to give up Lithuania, would get us into a totally new situation in East-West relations--not because of Gorbachev, but because I don't believe that any Soviet government can accept the disintegration of its country on the basis of a vote of a local parliament.

I don't like this; and, over a historic period, I hope

[L]

4

that these countries will become independent.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, you don't like it; but apparently you are not willing to do anything about it from the standpoint of U.S. aid.

DR. KISSINGER: No, I think any foreign policy has to choose between objectives. At this point, the pre-eminent objective for American foreign policy in Europe should be to get the Soviet army out of Central Europe and to restore the traditional Europe at the Soviet-Polish frontier. And we should certainly make clear our moral disapproval and impose some costs; but we should not make an all-out assault on it.

MR. DONALDSON: Okay. We're coming up on the first-year anniversary in a few weeks of the Tiananmen Square massacre, so-called, in China. You were particularly understanding of what was done by the Chinese regime there.

In the year that's passed, can you point to any evidence that this kind of understanding has led to a relaxation of repression by China's old leaders?

DR. KISSINGER: Oh, you could mention a few things that have been done, but I would--

MR. DONALDSON: Please do.

DR. KISSINGER: Well, martial law has been lifted, the Peace Corps has been permitted to go back in, the Voice of America has resumed broadcasts into China, and some political prisoners have been released.

But I don't consider the situation in China satisfactory. I consider that the dissident who's in the American Embassy should be released. But I would repeat what I've been saying for a year, that we have a fundamental interest in relations with China, and we have to balance that against our other concerns. And we should not pretend that the internal structure of China is the only American interest in China.

This my basic point--not that I approve what has been done, but that I think that China is too important for the United

[10]

5

States to ostracize it and to run the risk of Chinese xenophobia being turned on the United States which might then be with us for a long time. But it's a balancing act.

MR. DONALDSON: But, Dr. Kissinger, you say martial law has been lifted. But, as far as the repression of Chinese dissidents are concerned, it continues. Why shouldn't the United States step in on the side of human rights there?

DR. KISSINGER: The United States should certainly indicate its preference for human rights and for the kind of political organization which is traditional with us.

The United States also has fundamental national security interests, and it has to balance those. That is the only point I'm making. We should not pretend that we can remake the domestic structures all over the world, and to make that the only objective of American foreign policy. It should an important objective, and we have to balance it against other considerations.

I'm not saying that what was done is approved by me or should be welcomed by the--

MR. DONALDSON: You said, Dr. Kissinger, that any regime, if I recall, any regime would have done the same: if its central square had been occupied, it would have moved.

DR. KISSINGER: No, I said no regime would have tolerated having its main governmental buildings blocked for seven weeks. I also said, which is never quoted, that I objected strongly to the methods used and to the Stalinist propaganda and trials that followed. It's all in the same paragraph, but it's never mentioned.

MR. BRINKLEY: Well, you have mentioned it now. So thank you very much for coming in today. Pleased to have you with us.

DR. KISSINGER: Nice to be here.

MR. BRINKLEY: Come again.

DR. KISSINGER: Thank you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Coming next, the speaker of the House, Representative Tom Foley, Democrat of Washington; and the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Bob Dole, Republican of Kansas-

[L]

6

-in a moment.

(Commercial announcements)

MR. BRINKLEY: Senator Dole, Mr. Speaker, thanks for coming.

SENATOR DOLE: Thank you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Pleased to have you with us. You know everyone here.

Now, you've just heard one opinion on the subject of recognizing or not recognizing the independence of Lithuania. What's your judgment, Senator Dole?

SENATOR DOLE: It's not going to happen; I don't think the president is going to recognize Lithuania. I think you may see Congress may be doing some things independently of the president, as far as trade agreements, trade preferences, most-favored nation. But I don't think you'll see recognition.

MR. BRINKLEY: Well, trading wouldn't mean much at the moment because it's blockaded.

SENATOR DOLE: That's true. But I think what we were going to do with the Soviet Union--they want trade agreements. They're in some economic distress right now, if the CIA is correct. And it seems to me we shouldn't make it easier for the Soviet Union.

But, on the other hand, I think it's where we have a mutual interest in arms control agreements, we ought to continue those; we ought to continue with the summit. But certainly in anything that benefits strictly the Soviet Union, we ought to slow walk it.

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Speaker?

REP. FOLEY: I would have to agree with that. I think those things that are strongly in our interest, or our mutual interest, we should continue to pursue. Those things that would be primarily beneficial to the Soviet Union, I think we can slow up on, particularly if the policy in Lithuania becomes more regressive even than it has been. And we should continue to urge the Soviet

7

Union to discuss the matter with the Lithuanian authorities.

We in the House have passed a resolution calling for the
recognition of Lithuania at the earliest possible time--but recognizing
that this, to some extent, is a separation-of-powers issue in
terms of the administration's authority to recognize.

MR. DONALDSON: Let me see if I just understand you. Then you're
saying the United States should not offer any aid--any credits,
any oil, any gas, directly to Lithuania?

REP. FOLEY: Well, the problem would be, first of all,
delivering it. The oil would have to be delivered by sea. The
Soviet Baltic fleet is in maneuvers. There's a restricted area off
Lithuania's coast. No vessels are likely to be permitted to
approach those coasts. And so much of that actual proposal to
provide them with oil is difficult to carry into effect.

And the Lithuanian authorities have had trouble getting
assistance from either Norway or now I guess working with Denmark
in those areas.

MR. DONALDSON: Senator Dole? Nothing for Lithuania, but
a lot of talk?

SENATOR DOLE: We can extend credits that were helpful,
yes. I think what you're going to have is an international hand-
wringing conference one of these days. All the countries are going
to get together and say we sympathize with Lithuania, but what can
we do?

MR. DONALDSON: You're saying we can do nothing?

SENATOR DOLE: Well, we can extend credits--but can they
be used? Can there be delivery? Could you have an air-lift?
Probably not. We've had one senator--Senator D'Amato--couldn't get
into Lithuania. He got as far as the border.

So I think there are fairly--

MR. DONALDSON: What was his purpose in trying to do
that, do you think?

SENATOR DOLE: I think just to send a signal that we
believe in freedom and democracy--and he wasn't successful, but I

[L.C.]

8

think he made his point.

MR. WILL: I'm having trouble understanding again the importance we place upon the preservation of Mr. Gorbachev. How does Gorbachev's behavior toward Lithuania--which is severe, uncompromising, and brutal--define Gorbachev for you? Is he a democrat? Is he a liberal? What do you think of Gorbachev today?

SENATOR DOLE: I think right now a lot of us sort of put him on hold. I think as long as things were coming the way we thought they should come--with glasnost, perestroika, democracy breaking out everywhere--Gorbachev was pretty high on the priority list. I think now he's back-tracking in Lithuania. He's going back on his word in Lithuania, and a lot of us are having second thoughts and doubts about Gorbachev--and that's one reason, as I heard Chairman Fascell say yesterday--chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--we shouldn't provide him some forum in the United States the end of this month where he's bigger than life at the same time he's strangling some country in the Baltic area.

MR. WILL: Mr. Foley, what do you think of Mr. Gorbachev, particularly in light of the behavior there, but also in light of the fact that he has, in his constitutional changes in the last six months, been creating quite a centralized basis for dictatorship?

REP. FOLEY: Well, he's obviously a Soviet nationalist. I think, in one respect, of course, Gorbachev is probably responsible for the fact that the Lithuanians have been encouraged to declare their independence. It's impossible to imagine a Brezhnev regime or Andropov or Chernenko permitting even the discussion of independence by Lithuania.

So the question now is how he manages an increasing restlessness on the part of nationalities in the Soviet Union ranging from Lithuania, which we've never admitted is an appropriate Soviet republic, to Mongolia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan. The whole country is a collection of republics other than the Soviet Great Russian republic, which--

MR. WILL: Should it be American policy to preserve the Soviet Union?

[LC]

9

REP. FOLEY: No, I don't think, as Mr. Kissinger said, that it should be our specific policy. On the other hand, I think it would be strange for us to assume that Mr. Gorbachev would preside over an eager effort to dismantle the Soviet Union. Indeed, I don't know that he would be permitted to do so.

MR. WILL: Senator Dole, you've--

SENATOR DOLE: I think it's in our interests to preserve Gorbachev or the present government. If it's conventional arms or nuclear arms control agreements, that might be one reason we'd want to continue with Gorbachev.

MR. WILL: Let me ask about China. The American policy toward China has been called appeasement. Now, there's nothing wrong with appeasement if it appeases, if it gets people to change their behavior.

Is it fair to call that appeasement, and is it fair to call it a failure after a year?

SENATOR DOLE: Well, it seems to me--I was one of those who stood with President Bush in sustaining the veto on sanctions that Congress wished to impose on the Peoples Republic of China. They haven't done a great deal. I listened to Dr. Kissinger about the Voice of America and the Peace Corps; but it seems to me that they've been moving in the other direction. They've been tightening up in certain areas, too.

So unless there's some--something happens soon on the part of the government in China, it would seem to me that Congress might be back at it again.

MR. DONALDSON: May I come back to the question of Lithuania, and the summit?

Senator Dole, you seem to suggest in quoting Chairman Fascell that we ought not to have the summit, if Lithuania is still going hot and heavy?

SENATOR DOLE: I think he made a good point. Maybe we ought to take a look at that, maybe consider that.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, what would you think? I mean,

[L]

10

forget Dante Fascell--nice guy--but what do you think?

SENATOR DOLE: Well, he's a very prominent, and very powerful and influential member of the Congress.

MR. DONALDSON: So are you.

SENATOR DOLE: Well--but if it's in our interests, then let's proceed.

MR. BRINKLEY: You didn't get any response to that at all, did you?

SENATOR DOLE: If it's in our interests, then let's proceed. If it's only in their interests--

REP. FOLEY: I would say the same thing. I think in those areas where we're specifically dealing with Soviet benefits-obviously, trade relations, a tax treaty, things of that kind that are economically good for the Soviet Union--

MR. DONALDSON: Summit.

MR. BRINKLEY: I need to interrupt.

REP. FOLEY: The summit ought to continue, I think, at this point.

MR. BRINKLEY: I need to interrupt here for just a moment. We'll be back with more questions for our two guests in a moment.

(Commercial announcements)

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Speaker, you were about to tell us your thoughts on China. Go ahead, now.

REP. FOLEY: Well, I think the administration's policy looks bad on China after a year. The visits that were made immediately after the Tiananmen Square disaster or debacle were justified by the administration because it would improve the opportunity for relaxation of suppression of Chinese human rights. But that hasn't seemed to happen. And the administration's activities gave the impression of acquiescence. Maybe that wasn't the intention; but that was impression that was given.

So I think whatever explanation the administration offered for that policy, it largely seemed to fail to produce the

11

results.

MR. BRINKLEY: Now, if we can move eastward--or, in fact, westward, either way--the Middle East has suddenly become a very scary place. We have a tyrant in Iraq who has poison gas and has shown he's willing to use it. He threatens to use it against Israel. He seems to be--the facts are very uncertain--he seems to be stockpiling nuclear weapons, or trying to.

We have Libya and Muammar Gaddafi with what he calls a pharmaceutical plant which he pretended to burn down, and, I gather, didn't. He says he's making drugstore pharmaceuticals, which nobody believes.

What can we--and Israel is unable to form a government. The whole Middle East is pretty messy at the moment. What do you make of it, Senator Dole?

SENATOR DOLE: Well, I was just there and visited those-I didn't visit Libya, but visited Iraq. And I must say that I only report what Saddam Hussein told us. He thinks there's a conspiracy with the United States, Britain and Israel, particularly in the media, to tarnish his image and the image of his country.

He disclaims any nuclear weapons capability. He does admit chemical weapons. He does indicate there are no germ warfare-any weapon of this kind. And he says only if there's a first strike by Israel, a nuclear first strike, will he respond with chemical weapons.

And we indicated to him, if he wants to improve relations with the United States, he needs to demonstrate some willingness to sit down with the Israelis or their representatives and talk about peace. So the point I would make--

MR. BRINKLEY: Which he has not done.

SENATOR DOLE: Which he has not done. The Israelis have tried contacts; he has not done it.

But it seems to me that there is a window of opportunity that's starting to close a bit, whether you talk to Shamir or Peres or moderate Palestinians in Israel, or Mubarak or whoever it is. I

12

think time may be running out. We need a government in Israel right now--that would be the first thing, if you start the dialogue.

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Foley?

REP. FOLEY: Well, the first thing I would do is not try to upset the political situation in Israel any more than necessary. The Israelis have to choose a government. U.S. policy should be to stay away from actions that might destabilize or influence that in a negative way.

Obviously, the security problems are very real in the Middle East. They may replace our concerns about U.S.-Soviet security problems, as those diminish, as the threat of war, of central war, reduces probably to virtually zero. I think we have to remember that the capacity for the Middle East to produce great danger to the entire world security is still very great.

MR. BRINKLEY: Well, you can't see any way the U.S. couldn't be involved in that, can you--a Middle Eastern war?

REP. FOLEY: Well, we obviously are involved in it, in the sense that we want to do whatever's necessary in order to stop outbreaks from occurring.

The British seem to be convinced that Iraq was importing something akin to a giant cannon in components that might have-- whether that's true or not, I don't know.

MR. BRINKLEY: Do you understand that? I don't. I haven't been able to make any sense out of it. Why can't they look at it and tell if it's a cannon or not?

SENATOR DOLE: President Hussein says it's oil field equipment--and they are the second largest oil producer in the world or that region. And so he says it's oil equipment, and he denies any--he says it's part of the conspiracy.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, many people think that it's President Bush and Senator Dole who are destabilizing the Middle East--particularly the government of Israel--President Bush, by restating U.S. policy, which is that Jerusalem is the subject of negotiations in the future; and you, Senator Dole, by your

13

remarks on Jerusalem and on cutting foreign aid to Israel. And
your fellow Republicans in the House, led by Newton Gingrich, have
really accused you of being anti-Israel.

SENATOR DOLE: Well, I can't respond to what they had to say. But my record, I think--and they can take a look at it--for nearly 30 years is pretty strong for Israel.

But what I was suggesting--in fact, it's going to be a
debate in the 1990 elections, is foreign aid--where are we going
to find the money? Are all countries going to have the same? Are
they ever going to be reduced?

But my view is--and I agree with Tom Foley--we shouldn't
try to tip the balance, whether the Labor Party, Likud--and while
we were there, we met with both Peres and Shamir, both trying to
form a government; also Rabin, who might be a compromise candidate.
And we certainly didn't leave any indication that we favored one
over the other.

MR. DONALDSON: You sound like a man who's trying to back
out of the saloon.

SENATOR DOLE: Oh, no, I'm not trying to back out. I think we have to keep the pressure on Israel and other countries in the Mideast. There is the Baker plan; we have to provide some leadership. It's in our interest to get to the peace table. The peace process has to start.

MR. WILL: Let me ask each of you a question about your
respective parties.

Senator Dole, given the Bush performance on the budget,
the continuing running of the deficits, and the mute response about
Lithuania, is it fair for people to say that what the Republican
Party now stands for is to keep the profligacy of the Reagan
administration and jettison the commitment to freedom?

SENATOR DOLE: No, I hadn't heard that before--this is a
first.

MR. WILL: Well, you now have heard it; respond to it.

SENATOR DOLE: No, that's not the position of the Republican

14

Party; and I think you'll be seeing--I hope you'll be seeing in
the very near future a call by President Bush to the leadership in
the Congress to sit down and talk about the budget to see if we
can't put together some agreement--a bold plan that I hope the
leaders could embrace.

MR. WILL: Mr. Speaker, I've talked with people in both parties--particularly in your party--about the Moynihan proposal to cut the Social Security tax and put the system on a pay-as-you-go basis, depriving the government of right now $1 billion a week in Social Security surpluses.

They say if it comes to the floor of the Senate, it will pass easily. If it comes to the floor of the House, it will get 400 votes. Will it come to the floor of the House?

REP. FOLEY: I think there's a good chance it will come to the floor of the House in some manner or another--particularly if it's adopted by the Senate.

MR. WILL: Will it be adopted by the Senate?

SENATOR DOLE: I think it depends on whether it's part of an investment package which includes capital gains rate reductions. If that happens, probably so.

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me return to Israel. I want to know whether you agree with Senator Dole and with President Bush that the whole of Jerusalem, as far as U.S. foreign policy, ought to be the subject for future negotiations.

REP. FOLEY: Well, that's been American policy for a long time. I think the view is that--here, in the United States--that the capital of Israel will continue to be Jerusalem. But, in a technical sense, the United States has always maintained it's a subject for final negotiation within the peace process, and the city should remain united.

MR. DONALDSON: What do you make of Newt Gingrich, then, slamming Senator Dole for--

REP. FOLEY: I'm not going to get--in the first place, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues on the right. But I'm

[10]

15

not going to get into Republican fights. We have enough to--

MR. BRINKLEY: I want to thank you both for coming--Sam, you have a half a minute.

MR. DONALDSON: I just wanted to throw a little kerosene on this flame, I suppose, because I saw your minute when Mr. Gingrich and other Republicans met and denounced you. It was pretty fiery. And this morning, it's pouring--what--oil on troubled waters, but not--

SENATOR DOLE: I think it's been our policy that it should remain an undivided city, and the status ought to be a part of negotiation. That's one of the most ticklish points in the whole Mideast settlement, and we shouldn't be passing resolutions or trying to make--

MR. DONALDSON: But he walked right up to calling you anti-Israel and questioning--

SENATOR DOLE: Well, he was trying to get a few brownie points, I think, with AIPAC.

MR. BRINKLEY: We'll have to take this up another time, if you would like to--but I doubt it. Senator Dole, Speaker Foley, thanks for coming. Pleasure to have you with us.