10

THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY - July 28, 1991

1

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Malashenko in Moscow, thank you for coming in today.

MR. MALASHENKO: Pleasure to be with you.

MR. BRINKLEY: We are pleased to have you. Here in the studio in Washington are Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, both of ABC News.

Now, Mr. Malashenko, your president, Mr. Gorbachev, asked for help from the West. How does he feel about the response?

MR. MALASHENKO: Well, I think that he asked for assistance, and he got a response up to his expectations. We need, first of all, know-how to start with--and actually we are going to get it after the London G-7 summit. And maybe later on, if we are really making progress on our road to the market economy--and I do believe it is going to be the case, we can talk probably even about some different kinds of assistance, a financial one. But now it's a little bit too premature.

So I would say that nobody in Moscow is disappointed about the G-7 summit at London. And it was very positively perceived back in the Soviet Union. And President Gorbachev delivers this message to the leaders of the nine republics whom he met shortly after his arrival from London. And they accepted and approved this news. And nobody was also disappointed.

So I would say it was a very positive development.

MS. ROBERTS: One of the things that is holding up U.S. aid to the Soviet Union, and particularly in the United States Congress, is the question of Soviet aid to Cuba--$5 billion a year. Is there any discussion there about stopping that aid, and do you think that might happen during this week's summit?

MR. MALASHENKO: Well, actually, it's a very much debated domestic issue in the Soviet Union--I mean, this aid to the different third world and other countries. And many people raise their concerns. They say basically that we have so many shortages and so many needs at home, probably this aid should be cut; and it is being cut, and it is being cut already to Cuba. And Cubans themselves know this fact much better than anybody else.

Unfortunately, there is a perception in Moscow that, because of the blockade of Cuba by the U.S. and its isolation in the western hemisphere, it's a very difficult just to cut this aid completely. But generally it's perceived as a heavy burden for the Soviet economy, which is in crisis, and many people would like to get rid of this burden basically. But they still feel some kind of a moral commitment, and it's very difficult to make this kind of a decision.

MS. ROBERTS: The other matter that's been very much of concern here is the amount that the Soviet Union continues to spend on its military production. At the same time you say the economy is in crisis. But somewhere--

MR. MALASHENKO: I cannot hear you right now. Probably we can continue this topic because, basically, I think there are very few unresolved issues in U.S.-Soviet relations. And I would remind you that many of them were settled in a few years--well, just Afghanistan was dominating to a very large extent the U.S.-Soviet agenda, or Central America. Now it is Cuba.

And I think what is important now, it is the fact that there is no such problem as U.S.-Soviet

NEWS TRANSCRIPTS, INC. - (202) 682-9050

2

relations which cannot be settled satisfactorily, and, of course, even when the interests of the third parties have been taken into account.

MR. DONALDSON: Mr. Malashenko, can you hear us now?

MR. MALASHENKO: Yes, now I can hear you.

MR. DONALDSON: All right, let me break in and ask you a question.

MR. MALASHENKO: Sure.

MR. DONALDSON: Another of Mr. Gorbachev's close aides has resigned this weekend to join the reformers openly who are trying to establish a new party in the Soviet Union. What's that about?

MR. MALASHENKO: Well, there were rumors about the possibility of Mr. Yakovlev's resignation for a few weeks. So it didn't come as a major surprise. And actually he would really like to concentrate on establishing this new political movement. It's not quite a party yet, but it may be that it will become a party this autumn.

MR. DONALDSON: Do you think the Communist Party will go out of business, will eventually just disappear?

MR. MALASHENKO: I do not think so, after the last plenary session of the central committee, because there was a preliminary approval of a very radical party program which doesn't have anything to do with old ideological cliches, with all this class struggle and things like that. So it's very legal, and I would say it's almost surprisingly progressive, and there was very little opposition.

So probably the Communist Party is still able to reform. And we will see it very soon actually during the next party congress this November when this party will be discussed. And if it is adopted, I think it will be a very different party--probably the very name of it will be changed.

MS. ROBERTS: So it won't really be a communist party at all then, will it? It will be a social-democratic party or a party much more similar to western European parties?

MR. MALASHENKO: The general perception is that in general this program is something like a social-democratic program. And many people don't have disagreement about it because Russian Bolsheviks started as social democrats. So maybe they're going hack to basics.

MR. DONALDSON: Let me ask you a question about Yugoslavia. It's been suggested to me that Secretary Baker and Secretary Bessmertnykh, Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh, discussed whether the U.N. should get involved in some sort of peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia. But the Soviet Union is opposed to that.

Is that correct, and, if so, why?

MR. MALASHENKO: I think that it's a very contentious issue now in Yugoslavia itself. And from my point of view, this is the root of the problems--because there are political groups in Yugoslavia

14

3

who would like to have this kind of U.N. peacekeeping force and others regard it as not just a kind of an interference, but their people, their opponents would use this U.N. presence to separate, to break with the rest of the country.

And that's why I think that both sides should listen to the Yugoslavs themselves, first of all.

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Malashenko, thank you. Thank you for being with us.

MR. MALASHENKO: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to be with you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Pleasure to have you. Coming next, Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, and, shortly, Moshe Arens, the defense minister of Israel--in a moment.

(Announcements)

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Kissinger, thank you for coming. We're pleased to have you.

MR. KISSINGER: Glad to be here.

MR. BRINKLEY: Now, there have been a number of, I would say, extravagant events in the Soviet Union in the last week or two--the Communist Party almost voting itself out of existence, and so on. Give us your thoughts about what all this means.

MR. KISSINGER: Well, we have to understand that there is a revolution going on in the Soviet Union about economic organization, about political organization, and about the relationship between the central government and the republics. And none of these events are final. For example, that apparent settlement between the republics and the central government, it's not a final settlement, because they still have to decide about the allocation of tax revenues and probably it will turn about how the army is going to be organized.

As far as the Party is concerned, they have given up the doctrine, but they have not given up their monopoly of organization in the factories and in the property they own and control of the newspapers, and that is the real fight that is now going on between Yeltsin and Gorbachev.

So these are astonishing events in terms of what we expected three years ago. But the process is not completed, and it's going to go on for several years, in my view.

MS. ROBERTS: What role do you think we should be playing in that process? Should the United States be shoring up the Soviet Union the way it is, or is it in our interest to see it fall apart?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, first of all, we ought to stay out of the internal political contest, because the players keep changing roles all the time, and I think the internal conflict is primarily for the Soviet Union to settle.

As far as the United States is concerned, from a strictly U.S. point of view, whenever there has been a very strong central government in the Soviet Union or in the territory that is today the Soviet Union, it turned into a menace for its neighbors. So what would be best for us would be a federal or confederal solution in which they are strong enough to defend themselves, but not well enough united so that they can menace their neighbors.

4

But having said this, if you ask me how to accomplish this, especially how the United States is going to accomplish it, all we can do is watch the evolution and resist the use of force in the settlement of domestic disputes insofar as we can, and I think that will be bring about the sort of federal or confederal solution. And I guess the Baltic states will have to--we will have to support their independence.

MR. BRINKLEY: Are you talking about something roughly similar to the British Commonwealth?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, something--

MR. BRINKLEY: Independent states--go ahead.

MR. KISSINGER: Something between the British Commonwealth and the European Community. But above all, I think the United States ought to stay out of it, because we could get ourselves caught in a civil war and in a domestic conflict that we have absolutely no way of managing.

MR. DONALDSON: Let me turn you to the Middle East, your old stomping grounds. You started shuttle diplomacy there. Would it appear to you that Israel is now isolated and the pressure is such that Israel is going to have to go to a peace conference? And if that's true, will the peace conference establish anything?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I think Israel will go to a peace conference and should go to a peace conference. I think it's wrong to put all the onus on Israel because they're in a very difficult position. They are surrounded by a hundred million Arabs that have not accepted them up to now, and they cannot afford a single mistake. But I think there should be a peace conference, and I think we ought to turn the discussion from procedure to substance as quickly as we can, because the procedural debate now is really a surrogate for the substantive debate--what territory should be given up, how much territory, any territory? That's really the--in return for what?

MR. DONALDSON: When you say any territory, Hafez al-Assad gave an interview a couple of days ago to Newsweek and I think the Post in which he said that until Israel agrees to return what he calls the occupied territories, there can never be peace in the region. Is that a bluff?

MR. KISSINGER: Of course, first of all, one has to define what one means by peace because most wars in history have started between countries that were at peace. It's only in the Middle East that they start between countries that are already at war. So one has to look at concrete guarantees and not just at the word "peace."

Secondly, I have always believed that Israel has to give up or should give up some of the territory that it has occupied.

MR. DONALDSON: What do you mean by "some," Dr. Kissinger? Do you mean the bulk of it except for whatever territory needs to be kept in order to refine a defensible border?

MR. KISSINGER: Exactly. I think that--

5

MS. ROBERTS: But does that include, for instance, the Golan Heights?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I don't want--my own view is that Israel could probably give up part of the Golan Heights and maybe even, if a proper security system could be set up, all of the Golan Heights, because the security reason for holding the Golan Heights might be taken care of by demilitarizing the Golan Heights under some kind of U.N. supervision.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, you know, Israel just yesterday announced a new infusion of families into the Golan Heights. They are continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. Does this help the peace process?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I think the issue of settlement, the issue of borders, is one that needs to be addressed almost immediately. But I think the Arab countries also have to assume a responsibility for defining some security system in--

MS. ROBERTS: Along those lines, though, Dr. Kissinger, the driving force here seems to be Assad of Syria, a man with whom you have had extensive dealings. Do you trust him?

MR. KISSINGER: No, I don't--I don't trust him, but it depends what you mean by trust. I believe that if a balance of forces can be established, that Assad has been meticulous in keeping the agreements he has made in which the United States has been a party.

When one says Assad is committed to reconciliation with Israel, I don't think that even translates into Arabic for him. But I do believe that if one makes an agreement with him that is based on a mutual interest and on a balance of forces, that he will keep it as long as the balance of forces is maintained, which should be partly in our control. So in that sense I trust him, and I have found him to be a reliable negotiating partner if one doesn't get too emotional and if one doesn't put it in abstract philosophical terms which have no meaning to him.

MR. DONALDSON: I want to ask you a question on the Persian Gulf. It is said that the United States is having great difficulty in trying to get its allies to agree to bomb Iraq if Iraq is not forthcoming and completely honest on its nuclear capabilities. Do you think there is any possibility that the U.S. will or should go it alone?

MR. KISSINGER: I think there is a possibility that it will, and I can conceive circumstances in which perhaps even it should. But we should not kid ourselves. Last year, I was in favor of very strong action, but I do not think we will have the same support and I think it would be a very risky course to take. And we have to be careful that we don't look like the international bully.

MR. BRINKLEY: Mr. Kissinger, thank you. Thank you for being with us today. Pleasure to have you.

MR. KISSINGER: Good to be here. Thank you.

MR. BRINKLEY: Come again. Coming next, Dean Reynolds with a background report from

6

Israel, and then the Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens. In a moment.

(Announcements)

MR. BRINKLEY: Coming now, Moshe Arens, the defense minister of Israel. Mr. Arens, thanks for coming.

MINISTER ARENS: It's nice to be with you, David.

MR. BRINKLEY: Thank you. We're glad to have you. Now, you're being pushed from all sides, including the United States, to give up some territory for peace while your leadership says absolutely not. So if there is a peace conference and if Israel takes part in it, how can you hope for any kind of success?

MINISTER ARENS: Well, to tell you the truth, we don't really feel that we're being pushed. We've had some very good meetings with Secretary Baker, especially during his last visit. It is now clear that after 43 years, the Syrian leader, Hafiz al-Assad, is ready to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. I consider that to be a very significant step forward.

We've reached agreement with the United States on the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, namely, that it should not include anybody from the PLO nor a resident of Jerusalem. I think that we're very close to a general agreement that will allow the initial meeting to take place and then break up into bilateral talks.

MR. DONALDSON: When do you think you're going to give a response as to whether you'll go to the conference or not?

MINISTER ARENS: At this stage of the game, I consider that to be no more than a formality.

MS. ROBERTS: Assad--

MR. DONALDSON: Now, wait, may I just follow that up? In other words, you're telling us in effect, yes, you're going?

MINISTER ARENS: Based on the agreements that we've reached during Secretary Baker's visit here, in principle, the answer is positive.

MS. ROBERTS: Assad has said in this interview that was published today that there would be no peace without the return of all the occupied territories--Golan, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem. You have said in your government giving up no land. Assad says the United States is on his side. Do you think the United States is on Syria's side?

MINISTER ARENS: I think that the position of the United States, if I read it correctly, is that the negotiations should be carried on between the parties without interference from anybody from the outside. I think it should be everybody's position that we should not preempt the negotiations and try to determine right now what their outcome should be. We here are quite happy that Assad is ready

7

to sit down with us to discuss Israeli-Syrian issues. And there is some reason to hope that once we sit down and talk to him, maybe we will reach an agreement.

MS. ROBERTS: But that agreement includes land or does not include land?

MINISTER ARENS: Well, you're trying to preempt the negotiations, and I can't tell you that for certain. I know that the Syrians want the Golan Heights back. They want to forget that for many years, they terrorized Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley, didn't let people go to work, didn't let children go to school; that in 1967, together with Egypt, they staged a Pearl Harbor type attack on Israel; again in 1973. I think they probably understand, if they are realistic, that Israel has some very legitimate security concerns that have to do with the Golan Heights, and I hope that that will come to the fore in the negotiations.

MR. DONALDSON: By the same token, Mr. Minister, you know the Arabs believe that East Jerusalem must be negotiable, and in fact they want to see it returned. Is Israel just saying flatly no to that?

MINISTER ARENS: Well, you know, if everything was agreed to before we started the negotiations, there would be no need for the negotiations. The need for the negotiations is just because there are differences of opinion, and once we start talking, we hope that we will be able to close some of these gaps.

MR. DONALDSON: Do you--well, you don't seem to be saying no, then. You seem to be saying it is in fact negotiable.

MINISTER ARENS: Well, I don't see you as a representative of the Syrian or Jordanian or Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

MR. DONALDSON: Oh, I am not, I assure you. I am not.

MINISTER ARENS: And I don't feel that I should negotiate with you. All I am saying is that our position traditionally has been that we are ready to sit down and negotiate without preconditions. Now, that has not been the position in the past of the Syrians. Now Hafez al-Assad is also saying he is also ready to sit down and negotiate without preconditions.

MS. ROBERTS: But that's not--

MINISTER ARENS: Why not leave well enough alone? That's not what?

MS. ROBERTS: --what we were hearing from your prime minister earlier this week.

MINISTER ARENS: No, that is the position of our prime minister. It has been the position of the Israeli government for 43 years, ever since Israel was established. Negotiations without preconditions. Now, it took 30 years before Egypt came to the peace table and said they were ready to negotiate. It's taken another 13 years and now the Syrians are ready. So let's go.

8

MR. DONALDSON: But Mr. Minister, I think what's confusing is that you say your position has been "negotiations without preconditions," but high officials, including yourself, then follow it up when you're talking to Israeli radio by saying, "We will never give up East Jerusalem."

MINISTER ARENS: Well, when we say no preconditions, we say there are no preconditions for the negotiations; the other side can put forth whatever they want. Now, of course, when we come to the negotiations, we will have our positions and we will present our positions, and I think that you can easily guess what our positions are. We're not making a secret of them.

MR. DONALDSON: Do you see this peace conference as simply a forum at which you all get together initially and then it develops into what you've always wanted, direct negotiations in another form? Or do you think this peace conference will simply go on?

MINISTER ARENS: No. The structure of this conference has been clearly agreed to between us and Secretary Baker and, I understand, between Secretary Baker and the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Jordanians. The conference in effect will be a meeting that will last for a day and a half or two. There will be some opening statements, and then there will be direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and Syria, between Israel and Lebanon, between Israel and the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

MR. DONALDSON: Mr. Minister, why yesterday did you announce another, what, I think 300 families to be settled in the Golan Heights? You continue to build settlements on the West Bank. Isn't that just sticking your finger in the eye of the Arab countries?

MINISTER ARENS: Well, you know, the Arab countries have stuck more than a finger into the eye or the heart of Israel. They have waged five wars against Israel. The Golan Heights was used as a platform to attack Israeli settlements. The West Bank came under Israeli control as a result of an attack by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1967. Do I have to remind you of all that?

MR. DONALDSON: Well, no. I wasn't meaning to bring up the Old Testament, "an eye for an eye." I'm simply asking you whether it's helpful to the peace process.

MINISTER ARENS: This has got nothing to do with an eye for an eye. The right of Jews to live in this area has been established for ages, has been given international recognition. Now, the Jordanians destroyed all Jewish settlements when they took over the area.

MR. DONALDSON: Well, the position of the United States, Mr. Minister, as you know, the U.S. government believes that those settlements are illegal and they are not helpful to the peace process.

MINISTER ARENS: Well, to the best of my knowledge, and with all due respect, the United States government has not held that the settlements in the area are illegal. They are not illegal, not in our opinion, and to the best of my knowledge, not in the opinion of the United States government.

MS. ROBERTS: Mr. Minister, speaking of the United States government, as you go into this

9

conference, do you feel completely confident that you have the United States government behind you, or do you have any fears that there might be some degree of abandonment of Israel?

**MINISTER ARENS:** We have a very close relationship with the United States that has existed ever since Israel was established. I think it is probably a special and unique relationship that can only exist between two democracies, like Israel and the United States. However, once we enter direct negotiations, it will be a matter between us and the parties with whom we negotiate.

**MR. BRINKLEY:** Does the Likud Party support everything you have said here today, you and the prime minister?

**MINISTER ARENS:** Well, I am a member of the Likud Party.

**MR. BRINKLEY:** I know.

**MINISTER ARENS:** And I represent the Likud Party in the Israeli government, and I believe that I am speaking for the Israeli government and not just for the Likud Party.

**MR. DONALDSON:** You know, there's a story going around that in order to stall the peace process, you may decide to call elections and say, well, while we have the election campaign, we can't go forward.

**MINISTER ARENS:** Well, you know, Israel law does not permit any single party or, for that matter, the government to call elections. Early elections can be called only if there is a majority in the Knesset and the Israeli parliament for holding such early elections. I doubt that at the present time there is such a majority for holding early elections. The elections are nominally scheduled for November of 1992. My guess is that there's a good chance that they will be held at that date.

**MR. BRINKLEY:** Mr. Arens, thank you.

**MINISTER ARENS:** Thank you.

**MR. BRINKLEY:** Thanks very much for being with us today. A pleasure to have you.