Dr. Henry Kissinger, in an exclusive interview with Outlook Weekly correspondents from China, underlined the importance of conventional disarmament simultaneously with, if not before, a big nuclear disarmament, in order to keep a proper geopolitical balance between the United States and the Soviet Union.

He also held that nuclear disarmament alone would not bring about permanent improvement in the relationship between East and West unless other underlying tensions are dealt with too.

Following are the questions and answers in the conversation over cups of tea in Dr. Kissinger's suite in New York.

Q: Dr. Kissinger. Now that the summit meeting between the U.S. and Soviet leaders in Washington is over, how would you characterize the present East-West relations?

A: I would say the personal relationship among the leaders of the two countries have certainly been improved. On the other hand, I don't believe that tensions result so much from personal relations as from certain reality. I therefore fear that unless the underlying tensions are dealt with ~~that~~ the East-West relation improvement will not be permanent.

Q: What do you mean by the underlying tensions?

A: Well, I mean the Soviet activities in many parts of the world. In Nicaragua, in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia,

-1-

Southeast Asia. After all the Soviet Union has the largest
land territory of the world of any state. To ask them to
keep their armed forces inside their territory is not an
exorbitant demand. And to talk about nuclear disarmament alone
without talking about the conditions that produce the armament
seems to me a mistake too.

Q: So what would be your proposal for this problem?

A: I have said repeatedly publicly that as a matter of fact
I like the Chinese approach which states their three conditions
for improvement which you know very well what they are. I
believe that the west ought to state which problems need to
be dealt with and I would include among them at least two of
the Chinese conditions, Afghanistan and Southeast Asia. I
would add to it Angola, Nicaragua and some degree of cooperation
in the Persian Gulf.

Q: Are the United States and the Soviet Union changing
their policies a bit? What is your impression?

A: The Soviet Union requires some years of stability to
concentrate on domestic affairs. That is what Marxists would
call objective reality. The United States is frequently
tempted to moods which are mostly psychologically oriented.
I think President Reagan would deny that he is changing his
policy. But certainly there has been some improvement in
their relationship.

Q: What about the INF treaty itself which they have just signed?

A: I oppose the INF treaty because I thought it was an unequal treaty. It removes no Soviet threat to Europe or to the United States. But it reduces the ability to retaliate from Europe. However, it is senseless to debate that treaty now because it has been signed and my view is that not ratifying it would cause more damage than the treaty. So I would testify before the Senate in support of the treaty. I don't think the issue now is the treaty. The issue is where do we go from here.

Q: And they're going to cut further the strategic offensive weapons. How do you think about that?

A: I think that what the United States must do is to develop a strategy by which it can defend distant allies or friends, ON the one hand cutting by 50% does not destroy the ability for vast devastation. But it may limit the ability to use nuclear weapons in the defense of friendly countries. And since the Soviet Union has a large land army and imperial lines of communication which mean they can switch their army from East to West, I would like to see some substantial Soviet conventional disarmament, at least together and preferably before a big nuclear disarmament. I do not want to see nuclear weapons singled out.

Q: But Mr. Gorbachev seems to have indicated that

he is quite ready to reduce conventional arms also, even
on the asymmetry principle.

A: I'd like to see what he has in mind. I'm not saying he will not do it. But I don't believe that it is sensible for us to get rid of nuclear weapons before we know what he will do in the conventional field. General statements are not enough. Let him make a concrete proposal so that we know what he has in mind. If they withdraw say five divisions or ten divisions from Europe and put them into the Urals, that will increase the danger to both the Middle East and to China. So whatever they pulled out of Europe has to be dismantled. It isn't enough to change the geographical location. It isn't enough for them just to reduce it.

Q: In view of the complexity of the problem particularly concerning the strategic weapons which is scheduled to be discussed during the next period, how could it be possible to sign such an agreement in such a brief period?

A: I have great difficulty to imagine how it could be done. I have great difficulty imagining those inspection provisions that have to be worked out.

Q: I recall in some of your previous statements you had talked about the ability of human beings to survive in a world of conflicts as well as interdependence among nations. How is the way to start that process if not starting somewhere with nuclear disarmament?

-4-

A: You start with conventional disarmament too. Why do you have to start with nuclear disarmament alone? Why do you have to start exclusively with the weapons on which the defense of the western countries have been built and not include any of the weapons on which the strategy of the Soviets have been built? Why not deal with the danger that has arisen in Soviet conventional superiority? I'm not saying they don't deal with nuclear weapons. I'm saying deal with both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Q: Aside from superpower relationship, what else do you see in the international horizon emerging?

A: I follow with great interest the internal developments of China. I think your Party Congress has been a very significant event, and in fact, much more significant than any of the domestic changes going on in the Soviet Union. Because you have established three layers of leadership. You are the first communist country that has replaced leaders with honor. You have come up with a way conducting your economy that is neither capitalist nor complete planning. I think it will be fascinating to see how it will work. I frankly do not think the Soviet reforms can work the way they are now. But I'm quite optimistic about the Chinese reform. Of course the governing of a billion people is a difficult job no matter what the system is.

Q: Why do you think Mr. Gorbachev has a more difficult job?

A: For a number of reasons. For one thing, I cannot identify in the Soviet Union the people who are for reform. They are a very small group. In China there are three levels of leaders that are now in place, and at all levels. Secondly, I'm not sure that the Soviet Union has developed a theory of what they want to do. They sometimes talk as if they want their central planning system work better while I think China has developed a theory of mixing incentives with planning that *at least* is different and coherent. Thirdly, everybody, even the Soviets, agrees that to run a modern economy you must have decentralization. China is culturally homogenous and it can afford to decentralize. But the Soviet Union is an empire composed of many nationalities and when you decentralize you will very quickly run into the nationality question. Fourth, China has an entrepreneurial tradition. The Soviet Union, and Russia as a state, do not have the similar tradition. So I think the obstacles that Mr. Gorbachev faces are much greater. And in my experience, for example, in the Soviet Union, they have more power than in the United States, because of their similar experience.

Q: We understand you have been very active in using your expertise in helping improve international relations but in a different capacity from formerly as a government official. Could you tell us something about your new experience?

-6-

A: Well, I now do private consulting entirely with private companies. I advise governments but I never take money for that. I advise governments I consider as friends when they ask my opinions. But I do not work for any government. I can play a role but it's not the same as being in government. It's a different role I can look more into the future.

Q: What advice can you offer to China now?

A: I think that China is on the right road. I think China, I hope, is patient with the United States in what may happen in an election year with some irresponsible statements that may be made. I think U.S.-China relations are in very good terms. One thing I'm very proud of is that now every American president since the opening of both parties have supported those relations with China, and this is almost one of the very few subjects that is not controversial. I'm now very actively organizing the U.S.-China Society. It's purpose is to create the best public understanding for close relations between China and the United States in this country. We will have a number of conferences, and in our individual capacity as well, to promote friendship between China and the United States.

-7-