Association

MEETING WITH DR. HENRY A. KISSINGER

Wednesday June 25, 1986
World Trade Center Amsterdam

Minutes of Meeting

Welcome address by Mr. R.S.L.M. de Vilder, President of the
World Trade Center Amsterdam Association

Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Special occasions call for special welcomes.

We are especially delighted today to have here three outstanding speakers. Among them the man who was in charge of the foreign policy of the united states.

Mr. Kissinger, you will speak about your views on the current
development of world politics and business. We are more eager now
that you are here. May these remarks be a stimulus to be as frank
as you can.

Dr. bolkestein, the ties of your ministry, especially the export
promotion part, have grown strong during the last years. We
consider this one of your greatest achievements. By being here
today, you underline that you also consider...

Dr. dreesman, you have come from an traditional retailfirm. By
your own way of doing things and getting things done. The impact
of your personal ideas to the grouping... Is often mentioned in
the press and admired... It will be most interesting to have your
views.. To all three of you a special welcome.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, first let me use this opportunity to
attract your attention to local affairs. We are living in a period
where.. That it can take initiative in which it claims rightful..
In the economic and cultural life of western Europe. Examples
being our sophisticated financial markets, the prominent position
of Schiphol, and last but not least diversified and... I'm proud
to be able to cooperate with others to the software of this trade
center Amsterdam. That so many members are aware of the importance
of our local developments. And hopefully taking active part in the
discussion later. It is however that the world trade center feels
the thrill what is going on in the Amsterdam air. Which bits I
trust will have the full support of all of you.

We welcome the new Amsterdam teleport. And the official opening of
the opera house. Reasons enough for a special welcome. A welcome I
pronounce also, on behalve of the president of the Amsterdam
chamber of commerce. It is now my pleasure, to introduce to you,
first speaker and chairman of this meeting, Dr. A. Dreesmann.

-1-

[L.C.]

Introduction by Dr. A. Dreesmann, President of
Vendex International.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I warm up for the discussion, somewhat later on, I would like to say a few words about the specific situation you have come to.

Fourty years ago, Harry Lewis of Time Magazine wrote: american experience is the key to the future. America must be the older brother of the nations of the brotherhood of man. And if you look now fourty years later, there is a book, with subtitle "America and the world". And that gives a key of what happened in the last 40 years. The present situation looks somewhat bewildering. The third world countries denounce uncle Sam who has been instrumental in the decolonisation process as the enemy of mankind. The common recipee is demonstrate at if you not bomb. The allies of the us nervously shuffer. And don't want to be to closely associated and connected with the US.

Recent examples: Nicaragua, South Africa, Libya. Next to this, Japan and West Germany have become commercial rivals of the US. The youth population even in western countries is sometimes rapidly anti American and looks sometimes like khomeiny crowds. And last but not least, the United Nations, a creation of Washington DC. Of course this only can partially explain.

Russia has gained nuclear parity with the US, Japan and West Germany have gained economic parity. America's ethnocentricity is one important factor. It's a logical one. The general public lacks knowledge of other cultures, except when they are westerdized. The US has as the mightiest country in the world, a preference for simple solutions, like in Libya. They still carry a messianic strain, illustrated by Wilson in 1918. They have an inability to accept that western capitalism may not suit all people. And they have as a last point, an isolationist inclinate.

Twelve authors of the book, which I advise you to read, are of course liberal men. Their sophisticated viewpoints are not so easy to communicate. It's not so easy to translate as fallwell and the fundamentalists. The educational level in the US stresses American values and american dreams.

And with all these lelements together, Mr Kissinger, we see a recipient leadership of which we certainly don't know... One side is the writers in the book liberal minded and the other point, the ethnocentricity of a very big nation. If you take some parallels. Philips II of Spain and his rouse with France, the Dutch countries, and the same goes for Louis Quinze and later on Napoleon who had their military and cultural expansionist divided... In short, and that is a point we certainly have to look at, big nations have few friends and many foes. And with this situation in mind, there is a point which is completely different from the stand of the US, forty years ago, the free world has become very nervous. Not only politically, but also on the economic side.

One of the spokesmen put a seperate part in the Economist a couple of months ago, of three protectionists blocks that are not en- dangered but are there in place and will not go away.

[L]

A Europe with high labour cost and compulsion to improve on automatisation and a protectionist group in itself on the outside, trying to protect this safety net, the US a lowering labour activity, many forces are involved in protectionist move, and thirdly Japan, the infrastructure is so difficult to get in. And the trade gap what they have will not have an easy solution. Reminds of the 30s now at starpe is the omnibus trade bill. It will most probably carry the Senate and then the president problems.

Larry Speaks although he has defended that this administration is for free trade, but that they had more protectionist against them. And the US itself has called on self restraint in japanese cars and in even machine tool industry. They complain that the swiss and the west germans and japanese are killing the inland machine tool intrustry that weakens the US as an industrial country in the future. That has been said in a book "US on top" with a protectionistic view.

There are discussions about inflation. Raw materials, the US dollar is down and it brings a deflation process all over the world. And Business Week had a whole number talking about the problems of deflation and making shillings similarities between 1929 and 1968.

Agricultural land values going, the machine tool industries, that is another scenario that convenes with the first one. The other problem is the ticking timebomb, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa. Those negative scenarios are picked up by european administrations. That has to do with the problems of who is going to be the locomotive after the US. And they are very negative. The interest differential is the probleem. As soon as the US waits, have to go down because of to prime the pump somewhat better and they want to lower. If that happens, than the danger is that the difference between japanese, german and US interest rates becomes too small and the japanese go elsewhere instead of funding the US. That becomes a probleem, and even had a special number in which was stated explicitly. And buying treasury bill on large scale. If that happens, and it is quite possible, it will put a break on US improvements and in the trade balance and then we have all three elements coming together. And this rather I would like to enhance the feasibility of the US and the US as the natural leader of our freedom and world and liberty, and we look for leadership. Small nations can complain, large ones have to act. We look for leadership in holland and I would like you to...

-3-

[L]

Bolkestein.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is what you call a trader. Thank you for..
Ladies and gentlemen,
two world powers are today capable of influencing the world for good or
ill. One is a young and dynamic nation, hardly older than 200 years,
powerful, coherent and sele confident, willling and able to take on
aneone.. The other is a group of nations with a history of thousand of
years with wars among themselves. Now the bear is on his way to.. The nex
few days we will see the leaders of the ec trying to take new steps towards
unity.

Us and the communicy of free european nations have a lot in common.
Most of all the conviction thad human consparity and pursuit of
happiness are bets served by an envirenmont of polical and
economic freedom. This conviction brought us togethier and still
unites us in organizsa: such as nato and ec. No one can deny however,
that present the political climate and crrsh in washington and most
european capitals is not.. On a number of key isslicital as well as
econo mic, are views diverse. Our relationship often token for
grantet, are mor.. Although i also remember that the secretary of
stapes in 1973 declares that year the year of eurorpe. The jom kippoer
war urgently declared his apt attention elsewhere.

The reputed weaxningk of the partnership us europe. It implies thad
long term stra itegies and agreed upon... May no longer be supported by
an underling political will and decision taken ind an.. I would
venture to suggest that in the long term the implications.. Are sto..
That the policital leadership on both sides of the atlantig should
devopte must morte tame crr time. Today i shall try to make a modest
contribution to the preservacion.. By touchoing upon what i see.. That
appear to be in euro american relations.

About policies regarding our.. It is here that i see ... On both sides of
the oceans and between.. I have the distinct feeling that public opinion
in the us increasingly doubt the willingness of europe to stand up
against the soviet union. Leaders in europe tend to look for
accomodation with the klemlin, and evenr worse, with mentally la.. Is
this american ption of european move corrct? I think not.

Mr chairman,.. What some commentators of both sides of the ocean
suggest, in.. There still is widespreadplatical support for the
alloincte. Most european.. To put up credible defence effrts.

But there are differences thabd ore real in our ap. Economic.. The
boundary between east and west may. For ahk europeans it is a reality
that is only a few hours drive away. For germans in particular, the
suckestion of family tragediess, an.. In a common european heritage.

For some us policy makers euro may be one of.. For europeans thisc piece
of political divided.. It is a stage of our existence. It is theirfore
only national that.. Should stress the prevention of conflixt in
europe. And for the same reason we tend to play down.. Politically there is
little need.. In elections that were held, the cp in itself an accepted
political movement in our land.. This theatre,.. Also gives uf
different perspectives..

-4-

[L]

I'm convinced there is basic agreements between europe and us that it is necessary to achieve a balance in forces at the lowest possible level. Public debates here about the deterrence and disarmament also deflect an... The intensity and protectiveness of the ine debates in democratic europe, therefore doues not reflect lack of will, but rather an difference of perspective. For average european, a small nuquear conflict, can not be won,.. A difference of perspective is usually connected with.. Americans tembd to see europeans common agricultural policy as the root of their farmer's problem. Trade policy issues in themselves, usually of limited importance. Have a detremental effect on west west relation that is bad for the us, for europe and also bood for the third world. Let me mention a few of those challenges where europe and the us should together aim for solution. Our common go shall be the strengthening of democracies in the third world. And this should have its effect on economic policy. More specifically, areas of euro american relation should be the international debt situation. Secondly, the development of afrika where institution should play a greater role. Thirdly, liberalisation of international trade. We should morelly benefit.. In this latter field of economic policy, two major occurrences One is the falling oil prices, and the other is the disaster at Tsjoernobyl. The second hav brought severe damage to the popularity of nuclear energy. Still the world will face energy... Where future energy shortages will be.. Left alone, the international market in energy,. Lee times are too long. Political factors as the instability in major oil producing. I would suggest that europe and the us should... And three paths could lead us there. First if the.. We all know that the statistical safety of reactors is extremely good. Better than some devices people use every day. The second line of action should be development of truly clean coal burns. And thirdly, i think western government should encourage research in new and durable energy sources. In short especially now man meaw.. That we have surmounted the energy problem, a major initiative is needed. N... Now some of you may ask why this short presentijtion i am leaving oupt japan. I certainly do see the japanese as a common enemy. Nor will the three of us are on the same sides as. Still in my opinion there are greater differences between the two of us apart on the other hand han there ore between europe and us.

-5-

[L]

Remarks by the Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger.

Mr chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Before I begin my speech, I have to say of the american ambassador, make clear that I speak here personally. My views do not necessarily represent those of the US administration, though I usually support them. As a matter of fact, I agree with them usually, but there can be differences between my views and the official views. You should remember that only 20 thousand experts of the state department cannot always be right. I tell you frankly, I was not fully clear from the extensive, which proceeded my visit here, what was expected from me. A series of questions were sent to me in the economic field, that I thought, were not all in my primary field of expertise. But the previous speakers have said and so I won't talk about the contacts in european-american relations.

In the US many of my critics say: Of course, Kissinger is european himself, so it's natural that he has a natural attachment to Europe. It is also said that I think like an european and not like an american. My experience in Europe was not all that elevating, that I would form an extreme attachment to Europe. I was 9 years old in Germany when Hitler came to power. And so during the rest of whatever years I spent in Germany I did not develop a great incentive. Still there is a great deal of attachment. It shows that where one is born even when one lives under difficult circumstances, one creates attachments, and patterns of thinking. That overcomes even difficult political circumstances. I mention it only, as a matter that I should be thinking like an European according to many Americans.

Now the relations between Europe and US.

To some extent it is true. To some extent is it inevitable. What we tend to, is the great days of the alliance. Reflected a very special set of circumstances. When the US emerges into the post war period in the late 1940's. US produced 52% of the world's national product and Europe was in poverage by the war and its political foundations shaken by the war. When you have 52% of the world's national product and a monopoly, you do not have to set priorities. What you have to do is allocate resources. And as far as the europeans were concerned, they considered good foreign policy to be gaining influence on the american decision making process, by the balance of risks, incentives, on which traditional foreign policy grew out.

Therefore, an adjustment in politics, between Europe and the US, was inevitable. Secondly, to get on my remark of the beginning out of the way, I read very often that Americans are simple-minded and Europe is used to sophisticated diplomacy and there is something in there. But european sophisticated diplomacy created two world wars in 25 years without any help from the US. And that so far our more impetuous naive policy has managed to preserve peace. It is not evident which style of policy is inevitably the best.

-6-

What we try to do, if you read the speeches that were made in 1973, our theme was that the conditions that created the atlantic alliance have changed. Let us therefore create some new commitments rather into a new period not based exclusively on defence issue, to start a new matter of consultation that would see us into another generation. For a variety of reasons, that project never succeeded. Some where tactical, some had to do with the fact, just as we were putting it forward, every leader of the Western alliance had difficulties. Nixon in Vietnam, Pompidou, Chancellor Brandt were in political difficulties and all the leaders of the alliance were.

So therefore there was no high incentive to pursue that initiative. And also, for example, we were accused of putting forward a proposal for more consultation, without consultation. We were accused of saying: America has world interest, Europe has local interest. Now it's the opposite.

I think the issues that are attemped to be addressed, are still of interest. We are beginning to lack a generation on either side of the Atlantic that has the same approach. Differences of opinions are inevitable, for the reasons that were eloquently stated. But differences of opinion are not the issue, but to agree on some agreed range of discipline.

It is my vision that one of the problems of modern democratic governments is that in almost all countries, governments are so preoccupied with the next election, whenever that is, that it is very difficult to find a constituency for dealing with truly long-range issues. And that therefore everybody is trying to get through an immediate crisis, and let the future take care of itself. Now for example, it was said here, that Europeans do not want a nuclear war on their territory. That is absolutely a correct attitude, and a very understandable attitude. But on the other hand, Europeans insist that the defence of Europe must be based on nuclear weapons. It therefore means that the nuclear war must be fought on American territory. Now it's not all that self-evident to an American public why countries that will not have risk of nuclear war in defence of their own territory, should have a strategy that relies on mass extermination of americans. Now I have made a nuisance of myself for really a decade and been regularly disavowed by my government, by saying that the threat of general nuclear war is not credible anymore as a policy for the current or as a strategy. I'm not saying that because I don't want to do that, if I was secretary or president. I'm saying that because we cannot go on year after year telling democratic publics, that their extermination is the key to their security. That has nothing to do with my personal view. It must lead to disarmament and pacifism.

But we have a lot of other priorities. And for ten years, the conventional build-up has reached a marginal improvement, a statistical improvement, but I defy anybody to make a serious analysis to such questions as what is the lowest supply level of critic lines among the conventional forces in the western army. How can anyone visualise a defence in which every national union has its own supply systems. And in similar questions, of course, there have been improvements, but it is the question, you either have enough or you don't have enough. There is nothing in between. And therefore frankly, I believe that the domestic debate is shattered by an unwillingness to countrergrips with certain...

-7-

[L.C.]

It is shadowed by almost liturgical... Some of you may remember, that I spoke at The Hague in the summer of '82. And at that time I said, since we are observing, we ought to ratify SALT II. The extreme displeasure of the then Secretary of State, my former deputy, general Haig. But now a sort of a weird debate is going on. I defy anybody to explain to me, by what rationality, the US should observe a treaty, it has not ratified; that would have expired, if we had ratified, and we had claimed, that the Soviet Union had not kept their word.

But since for five years he didn't ratify the treaty. So the practical consequences are not exactly revolutionary. I'm talking about the fact, why should we make that a test of american sincerity. Secondly, it has become a sort of common wisdom at the end of this process there will be a grand congress, the US gives... Nobody, including governmental people, can interprete the numbers anymore.

In the 19th century it used to be said about the Schleswig Holstein question. Only three people understood it. The second was in a lunatic asylum, the third had forgotten.

... by the people who are advocating arms control and are associated with peace groupes.

As long as we can kill 300 million russians,... Second, any government that engages overkill is immoral,... One argument is: we have overkill, let's have 30% cut. But 30% of overkill leaves you with overkill. It is my view that there is no way that you can improve the situation in arms control by simply cutting offensive forces at the level you have now reached. Whether you go from 12 thousand to 8 thousand, does not significantly change the situation. Those of you who have computed, go ahead and distribute. In any manner you want, and then prove to me that it either cuts the danger of a sudden attack or that of extermination. But my point is, if one were looking at this in a lecture, one would say, the only hope is to negotiate a balance between offensive and defensive forces, so that the incentives of both of these are significantly reduced. But defensive forces are stigmatized by the media or the peace groups. And that has been accepted. Why? And indeed, I would say that president Reagan who those of you who follow american domestic politics will know, has not always expressed himself about me with the same admiration as my mother. So I speak not necessarily as his advocate. I think that doesn't mean that all of his reflection is it, that we cannot have a debate between US and Europe on what level of defensive forces should be negotiated.

Why is it that everything has to be put into the framework that these crazy Americans do not want an agreement? The Sovjet Union wants 30% cut. In fact, that debate, which is also an internal american debate, slappens negotiating into a number scale. I think we will get an agreement. I think, the real danger is that we will not get an agreement, fit in our opportunities. And that gets me into another fundamental issue.

It is too late. What in east west relations. Now some of it is to the American internal debate. Americans really have never had to feel hostility in the world. Most americans believe that peace is the normal condition and that therefore people who are agressive, are an abberation. So most americans wait for conversion, rather than negotiation. Indeed our liberals and conservatives are agreed on that issue. The liberals say they are conversed, the conservatisves say not.

LQ

In all books on negotiating, nothing is said about what we should negotiate about. And the Americans were sort of moralistic, and felt themselves superior to these Europeans. And that including roosevelt, that we were going... Now we've been forced into considering. Peculiar american manner... The europeans have been raising towards our ... And now since they are no longer concerned with local balances of power, we deal from the Europeans great analysis how the Soviets have changed and how we must put the Soviets at ease. It is true, the Soviets have been invaded very often. But if you take an historic atlas, then you see that the Russians managed to expand their territory in every century. It is a historic fact that the Soviets never felt sure unless they had their troops on both sides on the borders.

In my experience the maximum amount of time you get... And my point is, east west relations are... Our conservatives, hold up the flag, liturgical opposition. The Soviet system: you have to do something to change it. The europeans say give a little trust. And some opposition parties are going to make a moral parallel between the US and the Sovjet Union.

I believe we have an opportunity to negotiate. That opportunity, in my view, resides in the complexity of the system. I believe that the Soviet system has problems of political structure, it has problems of economic structure, it has problems of nationalities, on the political structure, a system in which 70 years of its existence, there has never been a legitimate succession, in the sense that everybody was overthrown by a coup. So there is no inherent... It always means that every group in the Soviet Union begins with new plans and ends with stagnation.

And when everybody says, Gorbatsjov is younger, I say he is only a year younger than Brezjnev when he came to power.

In economics it has been shown you can't run a modern economy with planning. And what the Soviets have said, is the best... of their economy. Exact! If they change it, it changes the whole relationship of forces in the Soviet Union. And Gorbatsjov's problem is that his apparatus is also the apparatus that runs the economy. At best, they produce quantities. But when one ministry provides the raw materials, and another the consume goods. And therefore the Soviet system is bound to fall more behind. In the end, maybe it will collapse. On the other hand, Gorbatsjov who will increase production, will not decrease the basic problem of technologically and economically falling behind. Therefore the real crisis of the soviet system will come in the middle 90's. When they recognise it doesn't work.

In the West the opposite will have happened. Even though I tend to agree with the first speaker that on the whole the trend in the west will be falling. So we will be at a moment of considerable technological improvements, but having no ideas on security policy. If that's a healthy situation I don't know.

It is for all these reasons, if the US and Europe will come to an agreement, that this in fact improves the situation.

But because we believe it will improve it. We are driven too much right now by Soviet propaganda and peace movements. And every government has an incentive to pull out some gimmy that will bring peace without being able to define what they mean by it. And therefore I'm not worried about getting an agreement. We're all worried about our own things. The problem is that will the opportunity that now exists, be used? Or are we going to some years of quiet.

The Soviets can have a few years of quiet. I'm not speaking of ultimatums. Any serious proposal to the Soviets must be coned in their interest. Nobody makes an agreement that is unilateral beneficial to the one side.

I'm against easy slogans. And that would be something to be worthwhile to concentrate on.

Now let me make two or three other observations.

Among one of the interesting aspects of our foreign policy. Somebody started in his academic life as a student of political theory is to what it stands, political problems and economic problems, in the end philosophical ones. If you don't ask the right question, you can't get the correct answer. And if you do stay a more or less... In technical solution can... I want to apply that briefly to two issues.

One is the latin american debt problem, the second the protectionist problem.

First, on the latin american debt problem. I do not question that to avoid a crisis between '82 and '86 has been a major achievement for the international banking system and the efforts of the international

monetary institutions and the banks together has avoided a catastrophy. I believe most people who know Latin America, will be of the view, that the end of the day the probleem is not an economic one but a political one. That at the end of the thay, the issue is what banks can be asked to assume as their responsibility. We now face immediately, the problem of Mexico. Now any number of technical solutions can be found how to get through this year's... Mexico owes its credits. If I understand the mexican situation, it is however, not the key issue. The key issue for the immediate future is first, the impossibility in the long term, to face whatever reforms have to be made in Mexico, on demands by international financiers. If the room has to be created, to match the solution, appear as a result of a Mexican decision, made for Mexican reason, by Mexican people, for the people of Mexico, and not for the requirements of foreign banking systems. Of course the foreign banking systems have... But it is interesting if one looks at Argentina and Brazil,... Will it be able to require, could be imposed with popular support. One stage emerges as national decision for national purposes.

Now it is therefore necessary to create enough of a space to permit this process to go on. And if one reads what the Mexican leaders are saying, that is certainly in my view their perception. The view that we can take to court if they fail in some of their application, it is naive. We cannot turn the relationship to our strongest neighbour, of whose population hands of millions live in the us in a legal contest. And to a greater extent, this is true all over Latin America. Now if Europe and the US want to work together, it seems to me that some process of growth for these countries, is an absolute prerequisite for the evolution of their political institution. I don't want to get into a debate whether mexican leaders were engaged in corruption or not. This cannot be solved by foreign banking. And it requires national leaders with sufficient determination to tackle. That seems to me a major objective.

The second problem I want to mention is the protectionist problem. I understand the difficulties with the protectionist feeling in the US. But it seems to me also that an analysis of world trade almost inevitably leads to the conclusion that some of the free trade premisses developed in the 19th century are not free in this sense.

-10-

The concept of free trade was developed in England, when Britain had a
monopoly on industry, on energy, and a superior political organization
throughout the world.

Of course, free trade works very well under those conditions. When
other industries, other european countries developed industries, they
all did it behind walls, they reduced those, and free trade developed
among 4 or 5 countries of similar cultures, all of which had markets in
their colonies. And there was a gold standard. Now we live in a world
in which some 35 nations at least are exporting, and are trying to
increase their exports simultaneously; in which currencies are
floating. The degree of political capacity to intervene is enormous.

One of the speakers mentioned entering the japanese market...

Now in the textbooks it says, under free trade everybody wins.

Everybody wins on the average, but in specific countries somebody wins
and somebody loses. The losers go to their political process for their
protection. That is the basis for protectionism. Therefore, what
Philips describes, may well be the shape of the future, whether we like
it or not. Now, my preference would be for the freest possible trading
system. I believe personally, that this can be achieved by having
industry negotiations. Because it always means that the industry that
is most severely wounded in one part, leaves competition in one area.

So the only hope I see is some global agreement in which targets are
said of what is tolerable in a quality. Now what I would like to
stress, I am not sure that the real problems between Europe and the US
are entirely differences of americans and europeans having totally
different perspectives. I think part of the problem is that there is so
much... That we don't take a look at the long term. One of the previous
speakers mentioned energy. On the one hand, we are all very happy about
the fall of the oil prices. On the other hand, it is likely that the
conditions of the 70's will reoccur. What are we doing to deal with the
middle 90's? What has been done? Much of the agitation tried to weaken
the position of the nuclear energy. And there are no alternatives, that
seems to me the fundamental problem.

I know a Chinese proverb that says: When there is turmoil under the
heaven, little problems are dealt with as big problems and big problems
are not dealt with at all; when there is order under heaven, great
problems are dealt with as little problems and little problems are not
obsessing. I should say, that when there are too many little problems,
there is turmoil under the heaven.

And now my absolute conclusion. My intention was to answer to the
complex and profound question, but this is to the fact... That I
represent anything serious...

-11-

Panel discussion under the chairmanship of Dr. A. Dreesmann.

Dr. A. Dreesmann:

And now I personally came from Hungary and passed through Vienna and saw the beautiful picture of... Und jetzt zurück zur zukunft. Now we have a wounded Austria sitting there with all those past reflections. I met a serious speaker in Hungary who told me that Waldheim in his official period, before minister of foreign affairs, did not allow the austrian investor to give visa. And that the Austrian ambassador nevertheless opened his embassy. They were having long talks about the problems in the eastblock. The Soviet Union, Yougoslavia were the greatest supporters of his candidacy of secretary general.

Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger:

What Waldheim did during the Yougoslavian... I saw them in German newspaper. My view is, that this is an Austrian problem, not a world problem. Everything that has been said here, one can have whatever views about the appropriateness of staying in the race.

Dr. A. Dreesmann:

It concerns the secretary general of the uno.

Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger:

I cannot in good confidence say that I found him one sided, I do not think that Waldheim... The people who have the most right to object are the Yougoslavians, the Bulgarians and the Greeks. So in America I kept out of the Waldheim debate. I really do not think that it is any..., maybe when he visits a country, but I really don't think in relation to the issues I discussed, Waldheim is a factor one way or the other and I do not believe that whatever the soviets and yougoslaves had in mind,...

Dr. A. Dreesmann:

The comecon has for the last ten years denied the existence of the common market. Only bilateral situations were seen, and the common market simply did not exist. Now several weeks ago, they declared, they knocked on the door as comecon, being prepared to speak with the common market. Do you think this is a breakout or a small part of the communist tactics?

Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger:

Many of the credits of the Soviet Union policy is described as being carefully planned, well organised. My impression of Soviet policy that they have a strategy of a lot of tactical moves. One of their tactics is to split up Europe and the US. And to stress that Eastern Europe and Western Europe have more in common than Europe and the US. I would deal with the proposals they made. I do not believe that the Soviets have made an intellectual break through towards real coexistence. I believe that what Gorbatsjov is doing to gain field to do the things domestically, and to do this, he wants to keep the secret police and foreign policy quiet by doing soft.

What I would like to see that we would do proposals to him. But our own division in our country makes that difficult. If we do proposals, the first reactions are... What we have to decide is to have an agreement or change of policy.

LQ

### Question:

It seems that it is possible for Western Europe, America and Canada to come together in one economic and political block, which is free, democratic, and is expecting human dignity.

So Western Europe, America, Canada send Africa... Who believe in the same democratic system and come together, strengthen the unity, and then peacefully, face the soviet and its allies, whose system as someone denies the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, a system which for some of us is just not right for human beings. We don't want a wall between the free countries and the Soviet countries. But if those who are of the same policy and economy, then they will succeed in making the Soviet Union see that it is not possible for their own economy to expand. Do you see that this is possible, so that Western Europe becomes like one country, America and Canada the same, and Africa too. Then I think that peace for the world can be more sure than when as now, there is no coordination. America does sometimes certain things as if to say, I think, for instance, on the question of the attack on Libya, America did not get a sort of agreement of one tie with the other. Now that does not bring about confidence between Western Europe and America.

President Reagan acted, but then that is not enough. Holland, Germany, Italy, haven't been consulted and agreed before such an action has been made. Anyway, there is no time, serious efforts should be made, so that birds of the same feather would fly together.

I'm from Nigeria, I'm a businessman, interested in politics.

### Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger:

You said that an American retaliation to Libya has been prevented an... as there has been. Since the attack on Tripoli, American tourists started coming back to Europe. It was entirely the fear of terrorism.

90% of the Americans supported the attack. One of the cases, there was a total rejoint situation. The American public supported it. And frankly I don't think Europe can have both ways. Libya is outside, and secondly it must be consulted. If we had consulted Europeans, they would have said no.

At the same time one cannot ask an American president, and not coming winded up like Carter. Since then, Libya has noticeably been more quiet and Syria has significantly... For the terrorist base of its territory. I think that president Reagan acted extremely well in this conflict. But there are large areas where we should strengthen our ties, in Africa, Asia.

### Question:

You have been mentioning... (about the Libanon policy).

Of course, when one suits here alone, I don't want to pretend, that all the troubles of the world are due to the fact that no one is listening to my briljant ideas. If you don't find my answer satisfactory...

-13-

About the energy crisis. It is likely by the middle 90's. And of
northsea oil running out, and industrial production increasing by
forseeable percentages. Of course for those who follow middle east
developments, it could much earlier if Irak would collapse in the
war. It is hardly feasible... Which would force a dramatic drop in
the production of the gulfstate and products an oil crisis as well
political crisis in the Middle East and that could happen long
before the middle 90's, and it could happen. At some point that
war is going to end.

In the Middle East, one is the fundamentalists again the more
moderate groups. The other is the arab issue.

I suppose the fundamentalist issue cannot be solved, unless the
Iranians are kept from a victory in Irak. After that has
established, Iran will be driven earlier or later.

This is a question of timing. On the arab-israeli dispute, I see
the objective condition for a major settlement very good. The
Egyptians have their hands full domestically, Jordany... Now
could the US do more, but with a tremendous domestic fight.

Question:

Having made your brilliant remark about the past, how about the
future? What would be the disaster if in 10 years there comes a
reshaping. We can afford to living quietly. I would see a new
development of... Would that be really disastrous?

Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

Quite true that relationships have changed. That any nation who no
longer needs the alliance, should leave it. So if any nation wants
to leave, it has every right to do this and should do it. In my
view, as far as the European nations are concerned, I don't think
a situation they would be better off outside the alliance than
inside the alliance, because they should have greater defence
costs. I would be delighted, it is not necessary that American
should defence Europe. But I don't think the US should beg any
country to stay in the alliance.

I talked about the future in the sense of adjustments that should
be made. But that is my personal conviction

Question:

You have been discussing Europe-American relations and also Japan.
And about the Middle East and Africa. I should like your opinion
on South East Asia. Do you think that countries like India,
Indonesia should be really influential in the world situation. Do
you think there could be importance from the atlantic situation to
that region?

Hon. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger:

First, one of my friends, Eagle Burger, who predicted there could
be a shift from the atlantic to the pacific in American interest.
I think that is true only in limited sense. In the US the leader
groups have moved from the east coast to the south west and west
coast. People from the west coast have no emotional ties to
Europe. All of the leaders through the Nixon period were
emotionally tied to Europe.

-14-