18

acceptable behavior for us to support them? And, if so, why is not--
hypothetical question -- why is it not acceptable for us to
support the --

SENATOR LEAHY: Unfortunately, it is not a hypothetical
question. And to answer it I would have to go into highly classified
matters which I have just said I'm not going to do.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, Senator, the newspapers, the news
magazines have said we're sending arms to the Afghan freedom fighters.
So, it has been published. You've been told something in secret.
Only the American people don't really know the facts. That's
terrific isn't it?

SENATOR LEAHY: I think that's been a big problem in our
whole policy in Central America, quite frankly.

MR. BRINKLEY: All right, on that note, Senator Leahy,

thank you very much.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Thanks for coming in. We enjoyed having you
with us today.

(Announcements.)

c

19

MR. BRINKLEY: Ambassador Kirkpatrick, thanks very much for coming in. Pleasure to have you with us today. I have a question that is more politics and sociology than military strategy and I'm not sure I understand it all together. If you can explain it, I'd be happy to hear it. For a long time we've been sending money, arms, trainers, to Central America. Then we put mines in the water and there's a tremendous uproar. Why is that? What is the great difference?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: That's an interesting question, I think I take it that the -- there are two, two aspects to it, as I understand it; though, I don't think there's a final answer to that question. But I take it that mines, first of all, we're beginning to really damage the Nicaraguan economy in the kind of way that Nicaragua's been damaging El Salvador's economy for three years. It was beginning, though, to do them some harm, and second, that mines constituted a terrible irritation, at best, to third, fourth, fifth countries who were seeking to land and depart in those Nicaraguan ports. And so the countries whose ships were affected by the mines protested, and I hope it doesn't just mean that we're still putting more value on property, frankly, than we are on human lives and countries.

MR. BRINKLEY: I mean, your first response suggests that there is objection to a policy in Central America only if it works. That the mines work.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I think part of the outcry, actually is from people, very significant part of the outcry, is from people who have consistently opposed any action by the United States or anyone else which brings pressure and seeks to bring pressure to bear on the government of Nicaragua. And with the view, of course, to persuading

[c]

20

them to change their policies and seek the destabilization of their
neighbors. I think that's true. I think a lot of the outcry is from
just those people who have never wanted to do anything that was threat-
ening to Nicaragua, no matter how threatening Nicaragua is to her
neighbors.

MR. WILL: If I understand the Administration's policy with
regard to the International Court of Justice, known as the World
Court, and I'm not sure I do understand it, if it is understandable at
this point, it is that we do not accept their jurisdiction with regard
to events in Central America but that we are going to go to them and
argue for their judgment why we do not accept their judgment. Is this
a fair statement of what the policy is?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I think so. That's the way I under-
stand it, too. I take it--I think the case is very strong, let me say.
I would point out that in the whole history of the International
Court of Justice, since 1945, there has never been ever an instance
in which the court has tried to decide whether a given policy consti-
tuted an act of aggression or a threat to international peace and
security. That's never been done by the court. So it's very reason-
able to argue that they have no jurisdiction there. The reason that
it's never been done is that the United Nation's charter vests that
function in the Security Council, where there is, by the way, a veto,
of course, by all the major powers.

MR. WILL: So, are you saying that the proper place for this to
occur is in the Security Council?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Of course, I'm saying that the

u

21

charter of the United Nations clearly puts questions of aggression and threats to international peace and security in the Security Council, not in the International Court of Justice.

MR. WILL: Why haven't the Nicaraguans gone there? To the UN?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, they have.

MR. WILL: Yes, but why are they going to the court additionally?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, I think that the Nicaraguans, frankly, are engaged in major propaganda exercise. And, by the way, they're very successful at it. They, first of all, go to the Security Council for international propaganda. They always go to the Security Council when there's a debate on Central American policy and a vote coming up in the U.S. Congress. They usually go to the Security Council also when there's an important decision coming up in the Contadora process, where they claim that they support the Contadora process, but, in fact, they try to evade it. Just two weeks ago, for example, when they came to the Security Council, they cut the meeting of the working group of the Contadora process in Panama at the same time they were trying to move the discussion from a working group setting where you could make concrete progress to any international forum where they could get a great deal of publicity, propaganda.

MR. DONALDSON: Ms. Kirkpatrick, is it your understanding the mining has ceased?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I don't know. Frankly, I really don't know anything about the mining.

MR. DONALDSON: You were not informed originally?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I am a member of the government, and

22

it is the policy of the government not to comment on any questions of
U.S. intelligence operations. I am obviously bound by that policy. I
will simply tell you I don't know anything about the mining.

MR. DONALDSON: And you don't know whether it would be resumed,
t hen, since you don't know whether it's been stopped.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I don't know anything about the mining.

MR. DONALDSON: Was the mining legal?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I think so. That, I think I know
something about. And let me hasten to say, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm
not an international lawyer. I did, however, spend quite a lot of
time consulting with some very distinguished authorities in interna-
tional law, and I think--yes, I think it's legal. I think it's legal
because Nicaragua's engaged in a process of armed aggression against
her neighbors, and that they have the right under the United Nations
Security Council Charter--

MR. DONALDSON: We were doing it. They weren't doing it.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: No, but they were engaged in an armed
act, armed attack, persistent, consistent, armed attacks against their
neighbors.

MR. DONALDSON: But not against the United States.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: No, but their neighbors have the right
to call upon others for help, as a matter -- just as in fact the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States had the right to ask their
neighbors for help, so do the small --

MR. DONALDSON: Would we take the same view?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: -- countries in Central America have

23

the right to ask us for help.

MR. DONALDSON: Would we take the same view if Nicaragua asked for Cuban help and Soviet help against us?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, they have, as a matter of fact.

MR. DONALDSON: So we think that's fair.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: They asked for Soviet minesweepers, and of course, they get Soviet help all the time.

MR. BRINKLEY: Let me interrupt here, if I may. We'll be back with more questions for Ambassador Kirkpatrick in a moment.

(Continued on page 24.)

[u]

24

MR. BRINKLEY: Ambassador, perhaps one reason there is so much uproar about this in Congress and elsewhere is what we commonly call, rightly or wrongly, the Vietnam syndrome and that people are afraid of again committing our armed forces in some remote place for ambiguous purposes. What sent of circumstances might warrant using the American armed forces in Central America?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, I suppose if we finally concluded that our own vital and national interest were in dire jeopardy in an imminent kind of way -- but I would like to say that I don't think that situation exists and I don't think that there's any serious discussion of the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Central America. That's exactly the situation we're trying to avoid.

What -- and we think that if we take prudent measures to help others defend themselves, it will not now or ever be necessary to use U.S. armed forces in that region. That's exactly what we want to avoid.

MR. BRINKLEY: And if we don't take prudent measures, you think the armed forces might have to go there?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I believe that if we don't take prudent measures to help the countries in the region defend themselves, then we will be confronted before very long with a really major threat to the U.S. national security, really major threat. And that it's fairly imminent for the -- and that it's different than anything that we've encountered in our lives because this is on our borders.

W

25

The biggest difference between Vietnam and Central America is the Pacific Ocean. Because this is on our border, Central America and the Caribbean are on our border, we can't walk away from it.

MR. BRINKLEY: Well, you say imminent. What? A year? Two years?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Three years, four years, five years, relatively the foreseeable future.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, who's going to threaten the United States? The Nicaraguan army?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Unfortunately, I don't -- the problem for us is the use of a country, take Cuba, as a base for the projection of Soviet military power --

MR. DONALDSON: Then the Soviet Army?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: -- off our borders. The Soviets already have installations in Cuba which enable them to keep nuclear submarines and nuclear weapon bearing submarines off our shores.

MR. DONALDSON: Shall we go take them out, those installations?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: And planes -- pardon me?

MR. DONALDSON: Do we take them out militarily?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: No, I don't think so. I don't think anybody is proposing that. But there comes a certain point at which such dangers would constitute a really, you know -- a real threat to us. A real threat to us.

u

26

MR. DONALDSON: Well, George mentioned earlier in this broadcast, the installation of nuclear missiles, again, but scaling back from that how many divisions of troops, and whose troops, would have to be on our border before you think that the threat exists that requires the use of U.S. combat forces?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: May I say that I think that the biggest danger to us in the foreseeable future is not combat divisions of somebody on our border. It is, in fact, nuclear missiles it's chemical weapons, which are another really important threat looming on the horizon.

MR. DONALDSON: Do you have any evidence that the Soviets might use chemical warfare in Central America?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, we know that the Soviets are using chemical warfare in Southeast Asia. They're using chemical warfare against the Hamang people, against the Afghan people. They deny that, of course.

MR. DONALDSON: That's a pattern of conduct, but that's not evidence of the perspective use in Central America is it?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, no, I mean we didn't know that they would use them against the Hamang people until they started using them against the Hamang --

MR. DONALDSON: By the way, could I ask just one more and then I'll defer. What do you think about Senator Moynihan's resignation as Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee on the grounds that he was not notified about the mining?

[c]

27

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, that's obviously his right.
That's --

MR. DONALDSON: Well, it's his right. Do you think it was
wise?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: It's --

MR. DONALDSON: Justified?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: You know, I couldn't say. I think
it's a way of avoiding a lot of the toughest questions, and the
toughest problems and, you know --

MR. DONALDSON: Is it posturing?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: -- you don't have to take the
responsibility --

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: I think those are Senator Moynihan's
decisions.

MR. WILL: Shortly before the United States was expelled
from Lebanon, a Syrian official said, "The United States is short of
breath." Now, suppose you're a leader in Managua, in Nicaragua, or
of a democratic country in Central America, and you watch what is
going on in the United States, tremendous toing and froing about a
few mines in the harbors and about $32 million. Wouldn't you con-
clude that the United States is short of breath and not in this for
the long haul?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: You might. That's certainly what
Libya's Colonel Khadaffi concluded too. And said in his speech of

w

28

March 2nd and since then. He concluded just that, that we weren't serious, that we were not even, that we were not serious about protecting ourselves --

MR. WILL: What should the President do to show that we're serious?

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: What he is doing, I think. I think, for example, his speech yesterday --

MR. WILL: But he's asking for $32 million.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Pardon me?

MR. WILL: He's asking for $32 million in --

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Well, the President didn't ask for $32 million, the President asked for $91 or $92 million right now. The Congress keeps cutting those -- saying -- refusing and refusing and refusing and the Administration eventually ends up compromising for sums that quite frankly I think are much too small and the President thinks are too small, but the President doesn't have sole powers of decision.

I think that the President has to make clear to the American people what's at stake in Central America.

MR. BRINKLEY: Ambassador Kirkpatrick, thank you. Thanks very much for coming in. It is a pleasure to have you with us.

AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.

**********