01/12/94 13:14

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

☎002

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

TIMIN

one-on-one-kissinger ske 5587

FNtfhsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 12:01 1994

3:38

one-on-one-kissinger sked 01-07 0633

one-on-one-kissinger

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN'S: "ONE ON ONE"
WITH GUEST, DR. HENRY KISSINGER

TAPED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1994

FOR BROADCAST: WEEKEND OF JANUARY 8-9, 1994

.STX

TRANSCRIPT BY: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
620 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20045
202-347-1400

FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

COPYRIGHT: 1994 BY FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

WASHINGTON, DC

20045, USA. NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY BE COPIED, SOLD, OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL INFORMATION

SYSTEMS

CORPORATION.

...COPYRIGHT IS NOT CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK

PREPARED BY

A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS A PART OF THAT

PERSON'S

OFFICIAL DUTIES.

NARRATOR: From Washington, DC, John McLaughlin's "One on One," an unrehearsed, probing, inside exchange with and about the people making the news. Sponsored in part by the Archer Daniels Midland Company -- ADM, supermarket to the world. And by the Mutual of Omaha Company -- protection for your changing world.

Here's the host, John McLaughlin.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Clinton doctrine. President Clinton is in Europe this weekend for the first time in his presidency. Number one on his agenda: defining America's role in Europe in the post-Cold War era.

On Thursday, Vice President Al Gore, pinch-hitting for the grieving president, spelled out the Clinton doctrine.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: (From videotape.) With the Cold War over, some may think Europe doesn't matter as much to our nation as it used to. President Clinton says they're wrong. The fact is, Europe remains our most valuable trading partner and our military security remains as interwoven with that of Europe as ever in our history.

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 2

01/07/93

.STX

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is the Clinton-Gore foreign policy doctrine on the right track? We'll find out.

Born, Fuerth, Germany; 70 years of age. Jewish. Thirteen relatives murdered in Nazi death camps. 1938, emigrated to the U.S. at age 15; 1943, naturalized. Wife, Nancy; son and daughter from a previous marriage. World War II, U.S. Army, staff sergeant, Counterintelligence Corps, three years. Harvard University, BA, summa cum laude; also MA and PhD. Harvard University, Department of Government and the Center for International Affairs, 15 years. Kennedy administration, National Security Council, consultant, two years. Johnson administration, Department of State, consultant, two

01/12/94 13:15

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

003

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 2

years. Nixon and Ford administrations, National Security Council, head of, seven years; secretary of state, four years. Decorations, extremely numerous, including the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. Author, 11 books, including, "Diplomacy" forthcoming this spring. Kissinger & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm, where he earns an estimated $8 million annually before taxes; chairman, 12 years and currently.

Henry Alfred Kissinger, it's "One on One."

Do you want to correct any of that biography?

MR. KISSINGER: I won't argue.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You won't?

You're coming out with a new book?

MR. KISSINGER: Yes. In April.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the subject?

MR. KISSINGER: The title is, "Diplomacy," and it's primarily

about how previous world orders were organized and why they succeeded or failed, and then apply it to the present United States problems in the world.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Big book?

MR. KISSINGER: Long book.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Where do you get the time?

MR. KISSINGER: I'm sort of a workaholic. I wrote every weekend

and I usually spent three days a week writing and evenings correcting.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: A lot of self-discipline involved in that.

MR. KISSINGER: Well, that's something that I've had on my mind

for a long time.

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 3

01/07/93

.STX

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the problem that Clinton is faced with and the United States is faced with in Europe?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, NATO was based on the proposition that there was a threat from the Soviet Union -- there were Soviet armies in the center of Europe on the Elbe River -- and that there was a hostile ideology.

MORE

.ETX

Jan 07, 1994 11:58 ET

.EOF

01/12/94 13:16

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

004

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

TIMIN

one-on-one-kissinger 1st 5588

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 12:04 1994

3:05

one-on-one-kissinger 1stadd t5587 01-07 0522

one-on-one-kissinger

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

01/07/93

.STX

x x x ideology.

The European Community was based on the proposition that Germany would be divided, that it was a home for a divided Germany, that it covered only part of Europe. So now both of these institutions are in transition. The Soviet army is 600 miles further to the east. Germany is unified. So the internal balance in Europe has been changed. There's no ideological conflict, so that the relationship between Europe and the United States has to be restructured, and it also involves an element now of relations with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let's read the current list of NATO members. If we could see that on the screen. The United States, Canada, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. The NATO candidates are Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Lithuania. They're called candidates because they've applied for membership. The potential partners for peace -- we'll get into this in a minute, but here's the list -- Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan -- about 40 in the so-called Partnership for Peace. What is going on with NATO's restructuring?

MR. KISSINGER: The problem is that legally the frontier of NATO is on the German eastern frontier. The country that people are afraid of, whether we like to admit that or not, is Russia, which is 700 miles further east. So the frontiers that are guaranteed have no enemy, and the frontiers that have an adversary are not guaranteed. This is the problem in Europe, and countries like Poland and Hungary are --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Czech Republic?

MR. KISSINGER: The Czech Republic doesn't really have a frontier with Russia. But what is interesting about the Czech Republic -- I know Havel. My first meeting with Havel, about two years or three years ago --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Vaclav Havel, who is the head of state of the Czech Republic.

MR. KISSINGER: Correct. He is sort of what we in the United States would call sort of a left-leaning intellectual. This is not a militarist. When I first met him, he was opposed to the existence of .ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

01/07/93

.STX

NATO, and he thought that it would make a contribution to peace if NATO would gradually phase out. Now he has asked for Czech membership in NATO.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the problem in bringing these countries into NATO?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I think we should separate two problems. One is to give them a sense of security, and the second is should -- can that be achieved only in NATO. The problem with getting these countries into NATO is that there is a school of thought that argues

01/12/94 13:16

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

005

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 2

that if -- that argues two things: one, there's no danger and,
therefore, it is unnecessary; and, secondly, if we bring them in, we
will provoke the Russians and that this will strengthen the so-called
nationalist anti-reformist forces in the Soviet Union and, therefore,
we shouldn't do it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Zhirinovsky.

MR. KISSINGER: Well --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It would strengthen him.

MORE

.ETX

Jan 07, 1994 12:03 ET

.EOF

01/12/94 13:17

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

☑006

[c]

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

one-on-one-kissinger 2nd 5593

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 12:36 1994

TIMIN

3:58

one-on-one-kissinger 2ndadd t5587 01-07 0666

01/07/93

.STX

x x x him.

MR. KISSINGER: Yeah, but I have a different point of view about Zhirinovsky than most people do. I think Zhirinovsky is a demagogue, and obviously extremely unattractive. But Zhirinovsky did not create his following. His following exists, and one could even argue that Zhirinovsky, by being such an outrageous demagogue, has somewhat lowered what the real potential of that group would be if they had a responsible leader.

So we should keep in mind that the following of Zhirinovsky is genuine, even though he himself is an egregious personality.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the dilemma that the president is faced with? If he brings in Poland, and the Czech Republic, and Hungary into NATO, it will estrange and disaffect Russia. If he does not do it, we see what we heard this week from the head of state in Poland, Lech Walesa, who said, "We've got to get in now to protect ourselves from the Russian bear."

MR. KISSINGER: I think it's a false dilemma. I do not believe we would antagonize Russia. Russia, throughout history, has always wanted a veto over its neighbors. I believe it would be possible to bring these countries into NATO --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You're talking about the four, not the big, long list.

MR. KISSINGER: No, not the big, long list -- and I would not include Lithuania. But I would concentrate on the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. I think those could be brought into NATO.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You would bring them in now.

MR. KISSINGER: I would have preferred that the issue did not come up now, but if -- once the issue has been raised, I would now bring them in.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, how are you going to handle Germany? Germany is -- as a member of NATO is not going to permit NATO forces to be used in the territory that it occupied in World War II, correct?

MR. KISSINGER: No. Germany has agreed that it would not let allied forces advance beyond the NATO demarcation line in peacetime, so that East Germany is under NATO protection, but has only German forces. I think that's not a bad arrangement. It could be used for
.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 7

01/07/93

.STX

Eastern Europe. One could have put Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary under NATO protection but, say, no American or other non-Polish, Czech forces will advance into that territory.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The other problem is the economics of it. We are already burdened by a defense budget of $280 billion, probably $100 billion is spent on NATO. Would you agree -- $100 billion?

MR. KISSINGER: It's -- I don't know the exact figure. It's --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We've got about 150,000 troops on land over there --

MR. KISSINGER: Yeah, but --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Here's the question. If you want to pull Poland in, and the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, and Hungary, that means more

01/12/94 13:18

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

008

[L]

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

one-on-one-kissinger 3rd 5595

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 12:39 1994

TIMIN

3:05

one-on-one-kissinger 3rdadd t5587 01-07 0520

one-on-one-kissinger

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

01/07/93

.STX

x x x NATO.

Those are two incompatible approaches. That --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Partnership for Peace relates to that long
list of nations that I read earlier.

MR. KISSINGER: If the president has --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The president wants to bring those in on a very
graduated basis. Right now this is the way he describes it: "The
Partnership for Peace invites Europe's democracies to take part right
away in military and political cooperation in NATO with NATO members
as well as with each other." They're already in NATO, walking the
halls, collecting information as it helps them in their own internal
security problems.

Then he goes on to say this one more sentence: "Those states
that join the partnership can participate in military planning,
exercises, and operations. The partnership will help foster
democratic practices that can prepare these states for full NATO
membership." So he envisions that long list of states coming into
NATO on a full membership basis. What do you think of that?

MR. KISSINGER: I think it is one of the poorest ideas we have
had in foreign policy in a long time because it's not just -- he
includes in this partnership Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.
All of them are included in this partnership. It means that the
threatened -- the countries that feel threatened, rightly or wrongly
-- and we ought to ask ourselves --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Those countries?

MR. KISSINGER: Yes. Those three or four countries. And we
ought to ask ourselves what do we know that Walesa and Havel do not
know? Why do we say they are not threatened when they say they are
threatened? And we are saying "You feel threatened by Russia,
therefore you ought to join the club together with Russia."

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It makes no sense.

MR. KISSINGER: It makes inherently no sense.

Secondly, if the administration had said the question of formal
membership in NATO for those three is premature but we will discuss
joint exercises with them and joint planning, I would have said -- I
.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 10

01/07/93

.STX

would not question that. That's a tactical decision on which I might
have a slightly different view. It's not a question of principle.
But what the administration has said is different. The administration
has said "You three joined the other 37 in something called a
Partnership for Peace." So suddenly Uzbekistan is part of NATO
planning. Uzbekistan is at the border of Afghanistan. You can say
"Why shouldn't Afghanistan be in it?" So now we have a mushy kind of
thing in which --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Multilateralism?

MR. KISSINGER: -- in which the victim is grouped together with us
threat and in which Middle Eastern countries become part of NATO and
in which we say "We don't want to give a guarantee where the danger
is, but we give a guarantee 600 miles back of the danger," and I

01/12/94 13:19

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

009

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 2

believe this is going to lead to an undermining of NATO. I think
those are two problems that should have been separated, and I think
the president should still separate it when he comes back.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We'll be right back with Dr. Kissinger.

(Announcements.)

MORE

.ETX

Jan 07, 1994 12:35 ET

.EOF

01/12/94 13:19

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

010

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

TIMIN

one-on-one-kissinger 4th 5597

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 12:42 1994

3:45

one-on-one-kissinger 4thadd t5587 01-07 0639

one-on-one-kissinger

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 11

01/07/93

.STX

x x x (Announcements.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Here's a copy of the current European -- now, this is a newspaper with which you are very familiar. In the upper right-hand corner there's a small picture of the First Lady, and it says "America Standing By Her Man: Portrayed in the Embattled First Lady". So there's a collection of embarrassment that the president faces. There's Whitewater, there's Madison Savings and Loan, and there are the stories, the raunchy stories of the state troopers. Is that affecting his status or does it affect his performance ability, do you think, in the international community?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I hope not. We have gotten into the habit of tearing down our public figures on peripheral issues. And I think the president ought to be judged on his substantive policies.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay. There are those who believe that the world is settling into a new world order which can be described as having four dinosaurs, four -- a quartet of powers. One is the United States, one is Europe, one is China, and the fourth is Russia. Candidates for entry into this Four Dinosaur Club -- candidates -- is Japan, surprisingly enough -- not in the club -- and possibly a hypothetical power center in the Muslim world: not India, because of its isolation geographically and its frail economy; not Brazil, which will be living under our eagle protection for some time to come. What do you think of that and the notion that these four -- this quartet will be jockeying with each other in the future for alliances, and what bearing does that have on how we perceive and utilize NATO?

MR. KISSINGER: I believe that the so-called new world order after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the communist threat, will be characterized by four or five, six powers. And as we can argue who should be included, I would include Japan, I would probably include India, but it doesn't change the basic principle. And I believe also that the problem will be the arrangement of these groupings with each other.

This is a novel experience for the United States. We've never had to conduct foreign policy on this basis. And it's one reason why I believe that our relationship to the West European and Central European democracies should not be dissolved in a sort of a multilateral mishmash of 40 other nations.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why do you say it's a novel experience for the United States? Isn't it -- isn't it back to the future: we are now dealing with alliances, we're establishing teams?

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 12

01/07/93

.STX

MR. KISSINGER: No.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It would seem as though there are those that are going to naturally convene with each other and meet with each other who have common interests --

MR. KISSINGER: Historically --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- and there are those who are going to be -- continue glaring at each other.

MR. KISSINGER: No. Historically, the United States has been

01/12/94 13:20

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

011

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 12:54 page 2

either isolationist or dominant. The United States has never had to
operate an international system the way, say, Britain had to in the
19th century. We entered World War I and World War II after other
nations were engaged, and we were not involved in the decision to get
involve. The cold war was a two-power war: us against the Soviet
Union. This is the first time that we have to deal simultaneously
with five, six power centers with which there's no particular
ideological conflict except if the Islamic world gets organized on a
fundamentalist basis and in which the national interest of the United
States has to be our guiding principle. We have usually justified our
foreign policy on more general and more abstract principles than the
national interest, and that is the big challenge before the Clinton
administration.

(Announcements.)

MORE

.ETX

Jan 07, 1994 12:35 ET

.EOF

01/12/94 13:20

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

012

mkennedy

Fri Jan 7 14:17 page 1

WIRE SLUG STORY FROM MOVED

one-on-one-kissinger 5th 5607

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 13:39 1994

TIMIN

2:18

one-on-one-kissinger 5thadd t5587 01-07 0381

one-on-one-kissinger

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

01/07/93

.STX

x x x (Announcements.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Dr. Kissinger, would you use your vast volume of
mind to rate the Clinton overall handling of foreign policy?

MR. KISSINGER: There at the beginning they haven't developed an
overriding concept yet.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think Bosnia was -- Somalia and Haiti --

MR. KISSINGER: No, I'm not --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- were as disastrous as has been said?

MR. KISSINGER: No. On Bosnia and Somalia, I basically agree
with him. They started down the wrong track -- or what I consider the
wrong track, but they wound up in the right position. On Haiti, I
have my doubts about getting too involved.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Should we send 25,000 peacekeeping troops to
Bosnia in the event of an agreement?

MR. KISSINGER: No. Because I don't think -- it would depend
what the agreement is: if I were absolutely convinced all parties
really want to keep it. But if our troops have to fight there, I'm
against it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In North Korea, that poker game, do you -- do
you think the Clinton administration's handling of it is okay, or
good, or bad?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I'd like to see the outcome. But I'm a
little bit worried about what seemed to be escalating American
concessions, because the danger is that if a country by starting a
nuclear program can get itself a basketful of concessions to stop the
program, we're going to see a lot of programs scattered around the
world.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: A quick question. We've got about ten seconds.
Do you like the appointment of Bobby Inman as secretary of defense?

MR. KISSINGER: Yes.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you know him?

MR. KISSINGER: I know him well. I think I agree with it.

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

01/07/93

.STX

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think anybody else in the foreign policy
team should be replaced?

MR. KISSINGER: No.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You do not?

MR. KISSINGER: I think it isn't a question of replacing
individuals, I think it's a question of establishing discipline and a
coherent approach and a consistent presidential participation in the

01/12/94 13:21

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

014

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 14:18 page 1

WIRE SLUG

STORY

FROM

MOVED

TIMIN

one-on-one-kissinger 6th 5612

FNtfnsbiiu

Fri Jan 7 13:55 1994

5:33

one-on-one-kissinger 6thadd t5587 01-07 0953

one-on-one-kissinger

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 15

01/07/93

.STX

x x x here.

PBS SEGMENT

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Regarding North Korea, why doesn't the United States just consign this problem to China and say, "They're on your border, and this could lead to a Japanese nuclear buildup if it's not resolved"?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, a conceivable approach would be to say exactly that, to say, "It's at your border. We need (to do a ?) Japanese program. Both of these are greater threats to you than to us, and there's limits to what we will do, at any rate, short of Chinese support." That's a possible approach.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There's no doubt that the United States is the world's super power. We have a purchasing power that is roughly equal to Europe's -- all of Europe -- and it's about 600 times bigger than Russia and 200-times-plus bigger than China. We also have a nuclear capability which puts us in a class by ourselves, and that's not just because of numbers, but it's also because of satellites, computer, technology.

MR. KISSINGER: No question.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So are we supposed to intervene in situations like North Korea instead of confining it to regional resolution?

MR. KISSINGER: The spread of nuclear weapons in North Asia is not a minor matter. What we, however, should be careful about is not to get ourselves into a negotiating situation where in return for a single inspection of acknowledged facilities and no inspection of facilities that we suspect but do not -- haven't been acknowledged. We make a whole basketful of concessions, and thereby may tempt other nations to develop nuclear weapons to see what basketful of concessions they could get.

Now, the United States is clearly the world's strongest military power, but what we have to learn in the period ahead is to distinguish between those things that are essential for American security where we have to intervene, those that are peripheral, and those that may be in between where we might intervene together with others. We cannot possibly be the policeman of the whole world or the schoolmaster of the whole world; therefore, we have to learn to establish priorities.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And this administration has been somewhat inept at doing that, do you not agree?

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 16

01/07/93

.STX

MR. KISSINGER: Well, the administration is at the beginning of

01/12/94 13:22

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

015

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 14:18 page 2

its term in office. The administration does not like to admit that
there is such a thing as a national interest. They like to operate on
the basis of general universal principles, and that is not likely to
work in the period ahead.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think we should normalize relations with
Vietnam?

MR. KISSINGER: I think we will be heading in that direction. I
have an emotional block about that being -- having been so much
involved and having seen so much suffering that they have caused, so I
usually stay out of that debate.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In 1974 you said this: As a professor, I tended
to think of history as run by impersonal forces.

But when you see it in practice, you see the difference
personalities make.

Is that statement -- assuming the accuracy of that statement --
it is accurate?

MR. KISSINGER: It's an accurate statement.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Insightful and accurate.

MR. KISSINGER: Accurate.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Assuming it to be an accurate reflection of your
views, do you see it being verified and implemented, so to speak, by
de Klerk in Africa and Nelson Mandela, two strong personalities who
have driven the process, and even more so, perhaps, by Rabin and
Arafat, who have driven the process, and it was a less a conveyor belt
of history than it was the dominance of these personalities?

MR. KISSINGER: Well, I think both elements are needed.
Individuals cannot invent circumstances, but it takes strong
individuals to recognize that the right combination of circumstances
exist, and courageous individuals to take that recognition the next
step and make some of the lonely decisions like de Klerk and Mandela
had to make.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Some quick questions. You supported NAFTA, did
you not?

MR. KISSINGER: Very strongly.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Very strongly. Would you like to see an
integration of the whole hemisphere trade-wise -- a free market?

MR. KISSINGER: Absolutely. It's the most creative thing we can
do.

.ETX

ONE ON ONE/KISSINGER

PAGE 17

01/07/93

.STX

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay. Would you like to lift the economic
embargo against Cuba?

MR. KISSINGER: Not until Castro is gone.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You want a hard landing, not a soft landing.

MR. KISSINGER: No, I want a soft landing, but I want Castro to

go.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, suppose -- it's more likely that he will
go peacefully if at least the embargo against tourists going to Cuba
is lifted. Don't you agree with that?

MR. KISSINGER: No, but you could also argue the fact that he is

01/12/94 13:22

☎202 296 2285

OLIVER PROD. INC

016

amkennedy

Fri Jan 7 14:18 page 3

more likely to go if the people of Cuba learn that there has to be a
change.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: A few Kissingeriana items. Why is it that no
matter one goes -- and I picked these up in travel overseas, and
you're in a magazine here with -- celebrating your 70th birthday in
London with Princess Diana pictured here, and Baron de Rothschild.
Why is it you show up in Hola (?) Magazine, and there's another issue
where you are also in Madrid giving out an award to Oscar de la Renta.

MR. KISSINGER: No, the award I gave out in New York. I'm
fortunate enough to have a lot of friends. I don't put myself in
magazines, I don't read Spanish. You'll have to ask the editor.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you still hold a great deal of interest --
widespread interest on the part of the world, I guess. How do you
account for that?

MR. KISSINGER: My accent.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Laugs.)

....

END

.ETX

Jan 07, 1994 13:53 ET

.EOF