FIRlnGLlne. FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL. WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. SUBJECT: "THE TWO FUTURES OF THE WORLD"

Transcription

1 The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material. Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. FIRlnGLlne HOST: GUEST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. VERNON WALTERS SUBJECT: "THE TWO FUTURES OF THE WORLD" FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL. This is a transcript of the Firing Line program (#955/2223) taped in New York City on January 12, 1993, and telecast later on public television stations. copyright 1992 NATIONAL REVIEW

2 What used to be the Soviet Union is most commonly r e f erred to for t h e sake of economy as Russia. We have in fact the Russian Federation and X number of separate republics. What presses most on the nerve centers of the world, until so recently terrorized by communist expansionism, is the painful evolution of Russia. The explosive moment came very recently when the Congress of People's Deputies forced President Yeltsin to dismiss his prime minister, Mr. Gaidar. The inflation in Russia is very serious, the reduction in the scale of living on the order of 40 percent, and the shortage of hard currency acute. We need to speculate on where it is going and what US policies are likeliest to advance its prospects as a democratic and free market society. To give us his views and to perfect our own, we have Vernon Walters. General Walters has several times been our guest and is renowned all over the world for his accomplishments. He served in the army from 1941 until his discharge as a lieutenant general in By that time and in the years ahead he proved his indispensability to every president, beginning with Harry Truman. Among other things he is fluent in seven languages, and if you gave him a week, he would be fluent in eight. He was conspicuous during the Reagan administration as international troubleshooter, as our ambassador to the United Nations and then to Germany. He recently reminded us that unless we involve ourselves in some way on the Russian front, we will be headed toward the day in the year 2010 in which people concern themselves about the German-Chinese frontier. Let's begin by surveying the economic scene. General Walters, my own impression of it is that the economic picture in Russia is less than chaotic. Arn I correct? I think that's correct. This winter will not be as tough as last winter I do not believe. They've got themselves a little more organized, a little more food in the stores, and they're a little bit more organized. Now, do you assume a correlation between the state of the economy and political composure, or is the legendary Russian stoicism an important political factor? Well, I think the legendary Russian stoicism is an important one. They have a phrase they use about thernsel ves: 1~~. ga:;:+' ':y '~.F-g~ :: 9 ';t;fie?;!: f) : R\i# '.; :g Old, long-suffering Russia. They p -.rtde theriiselves. ori the ability. In world war II 35 percent of European Russia was occupied by the Germans, and they still went on to win. They're a tough people. And we mustn't delude ourselves that we beat the Russian people. What l

3 we beat was an inefficient, despotic, tyrannical, unworkable system. But we didn't beat the Russian people, and I think it's wrong to say we've beaten the Russians. I think it's a serious mistake psychologically. In their present need, they should not be humiliated. No, I agree. Now let me ask you this. Is there any evidence you can point to that you think does humiliate them? Well, I think-- For which we a~e responsible. I think when we give them aid, we've got to do it in a way that is not humiliating. You know, I was present at the creation of the Marshall Plan. And we got the Europeans to organize a body to receive the aid and spend it in useful ways for the whole economy. So we've got to get that done in Russia. We have great difficulty in having continuity of interlocutors in the Soviet Union. You deal with one man one week and then come back next week and there ' s somebody else there. They've got to get more stability in that. But we've got to do it in such a way that it does not appear like charity. Three quarters of the difficulties in the Soviet Union in my estimation come from the infrastructure. They have not discovered or found and do not have the physical means of getting food, for instance, from where it's produced to where it's consumed. They lose--and I've had them argue in front of me--between 30 and 50 percent of the agricul tural production of the country on the way from the farm to the consumer. I heard that figure in Moscow a couple of years ago and I was astonished by it. How do we help them with their infrastructure without humiliating them? Do we simply not send them the bills as they materialize? No. Do we begin by not pressing them for the $38 billion that was lent to Gorbachev? That's the beginning. Then we get them to set up some kind of a council to meet with a counter.part council from our side and they establish a program. I drove two years ago--three years ago--i drove from Germany to Moscow and to Leningrad and various other places. Almost never did I cross a paved road. The one I was on was paved, but not many of the ones across were paved. The last three Soviet five-year plans called for building 60,000 kilometers of paved road in the plan period. They didn't build them. The life of a truck on a dirt road is one sixth what it is on a paved road, and in a marginal 2

4 economy like that, that's a tremendous expenditure. So you're paying a huge cost for that. Now let me ask you this. People speculate about a line beyond which the Soviet people will divide and threaten a civil war. Now if there were a civil war, would it be over frontiers or would it be ideological in its component parts? I think it would be somewhat ideological in the sense that really it would be the hard-liners against the reformers. Let me just tell you an unpleasant joke that is circulating in Moscow. A man gets up in the morning, flips on the light and the light comes on. He says, "Gee, the light's back." He goes into the kitchen, he turns on the water. There's water. He said, "The water's back on." And then he said, "I bet the gas is working." He turned on the gas, the gas is working. He said to his wife, "To the barricades! The Communists are back!" [laughter] That's a very macabre-- That's right. Yes, the paradox from that is-- --pretty frightening. Well, there are two schools of thought that I have run into. Tell me which one you subscribe to. One is that the sense of liberation from the commissars is such that anybody who threatened a real revanchism would be very quickly dealt with. The other school of thought says, no, the memory is primarily of the relatively stability and the worldly prestige that they had under the Communists. Which of those two strikes you as the more correct? intellectuals. The latter, unfortunately. So that-- See, the liberation has touched the They're important. Not as important as they are here, but they are not-- If they were as important as they are here, I would say we could count on that. [laughter) Do you understand what I mean? Yes, I do, I do, I do. So for once we have the elite on our side-- 3

5 commensurate. --in Russia. But their influence is not The farmer doesn't read Yevtushenko. No, no. Although the circulation of their dailies and their magazines is extraordinary by our standards- you know, nine million, eight million, 12 million. When you think that every municipality in the Soviet Union has to subscribe. That's right, that ' s right. Yes, yes. Okay, so what-- I don't think you will find those circulations today. I think you did in the days of compulsory reading-- --when every party officer had to have them. I have read those have come way down, yes. I don't think you will find those today. Now, what about--what has been impact of the liberalization of television? has television and sees exactly how the West weren't permitted to see before? the cultural Now that everybody lives, which they It's working in Yeltsin's favor. They can put on good programs. I don't know whether you've seen some of ~ Cl.ilia programs here, which means "motherland," "birthplace." Ver well done. And what is the predictable effect of such programs? I hope to increase patience through the difficult economic times. I see. Yes, yes. But you see, when I look now--the reason why I made that remark about the German-Chinese border is right now 64 percent of the aid that's going to the Community of Independent States is coming from Germany. The Europeans, as far as I can tell, are doing almost nothing. They're doing some joint ventures, but they are not giving any real aid. And if the Europeans were included, it would be much less humiliating than if it's just us. 4

6 Sure. If you understand what I mean. We are the G_l:gy:~j"o~ y rak:. We were the main enemy. So if they' re getting lf 1r6m.' the British and the French and the Italians and the low countries, it's not nearly as humiliating or bothersome to them. Now, are the people you are talking about concerned with the protocols under which the money is received? Do they ostensibly borrow it, when in fact it's Marshall Plan? Well, in the Marshall Plan we gave the Europeans roughly five percent of our gross national product for four years. Now, roughly in amounts, the British got $2 billion-8, the French got $2 billion-3, the Germans got $1 billion-8. So that would be-- But that was all money we had approved under programs submitted to us by the Organization for European Economic Cooperation for programs that would be regionally effective, and not just in one country, because the whole dedication of the Marshall Plan was towards the European community. Although we in fact offered it to Russia- or offered it to Czechoslovakia. We offered it--and Finland. The Russians ordered the Fins and the Czechs out who had accepted. That's right. Right. But they a~so came through with a thing called counterpart funds, you remember, which-- Every congressman used to get when he'd get off the airplane. That's right, that's right. Now would there be- Well, let's get down to the basic question. Five percent of our GNP right now would be $300 billion. No, it would be too much. It's too much. In the first place, they probably couldn't absorb figures of that magnitude. 5

7 No. But what is it when-- That is the problem. They don't have the infrastructure to absorb it. Exactly. That's right. When Jim Baker went to Princeton a year or so ago, he was afraid to use the term $500 million, so he said, "Two dollars per American is what we want." Because $500 million would have sounded exorbitant, given our straits and circumstances. What can President Clinton effectively hope to raise in pursuit of this strategic goal? Oh, more than I think he thinks now. The recession was not caused by Mr. Bush. We are coming out of it and there will be more money available. And of course, in things like cutting the defense budget, people don't understand that nearly 50 percent of the defense budget goes for salaries, which means jobs, which means as you cut it, you're cutting out jobs. You've got to find jobs elsewhere. Compared to what it would cost us if the other side wins, where are we? Yes, but people don't think that way. Somebody's got to have the courage to tell them. Mr. Roosevelt had the courage to drag us into the war over violent overwhelming popular opposition. Right. Well, we've got Congress-- Most of Roosevelt's stratagems did not depend on the cooperation of Congress. No, he had it automatically. He had it automatically. And on the renewal for the draft, he won by one vote in Congress. But what is it that James Baker-- Thanks only to scheming. 6

8 What is it that Clinton could do that involves money that doesn't have to first work its way through Congress--which means it has to have a popular appeal? Well, first you are going to have to be-- Mr. Bush committed us to paying 20 percent of the bill--19 percent--of whatever assistance is given to the Soviet Union-- --and that's hard to go back on. I think as the economy develops, and it will shortly, people will be less conscious of these things. And I believe there are--if we are moving in the right direction and it looks like Russia is going to become a democratic state, we can seriously cut the defense budget, and I believe there will be some funds available there. Most of all, we can lean on the British and the French and the-- Of course their economic situation is much worse than ours. Everybody thinks our recession is the only one caused by Mr. Bush. That's nonsense. Unemployment in Britain, France and Italy is around 12 percent. Here it is 7.4 and we think we are at the bottom of the pit. It's going to require some psychological conditioning. It's going to require someone who will point the alternative if we don't help, what may happen if the hard-liners come back, the Russian combination of Communists and nationalists. Everybody forgets.adolph Hitler was the first one who combined National Socialist German Workers' party. You couldn't get a more leftist title than that. I didn't think it was oxymoronic either. No, it was all of them. Let me ask you this. Since you remember everything, do you remember the Kem A.fueiidmefi? :. :-:-:-::.:=:-: :-;::-:::-::: :- :;:::;:;.: No. It was submitted by Senator R.g\t\--I think he was from Missouri, I forget--but it was as a rider to the Marshall Plan. And it said no country engaged in socializing its basic industries will qualify for a loan, on the grounds that anybody who is engaged in socialism is not engaged in economic rehabilitation. time. Which everybody in Europe was engaged in at that 7

9 Which everybody in Europe-- Yes, yes. Especially England, of course, was subject. Oh, yes. So it was defeated on the grounds that it would be too humiliating to tell Clement Atlee that he should resign for this-- No. Well, I don't think we should put that kind of-- Now, we have found more subtle ways of making these points, but the points ought to be made, ought they not? Now, question-- Absolutely. They ought to be made privately to all of these people. advisor. Now, with the dismissal of Gaidar in Russia-- But he is still retained as the economic we? The principal economic advisor. But we don't know whether that's a formalism, do Oh, I think that Mr. Yeltsin was compelled by a parliament which was elected under the old Soviet system to do it. But I think that you will find that his business as the chief economic advisor has more authority than the minister of economics. So is it your opinion that the orientation is correct, but the problem is gestation: How long does it in fact take? Absolutely on the head. On the head. And there will have to be some compromises along the way. We can't get it to go in the tempo we would like and exactly the direction. But the whole mass 8

10 movement is in that direction, the tidal movement is in that direction, I think that's the best we can do. Okay now, what about the basic currency problem? For instance, is there a crisis building in Ukraine-Russian relations-- for the-- --as a result of the question of how do they pay The Ukrainians announced the ruble would no.~c::>.r.19~.:t:' _1'1:ave effect in the Ukraine. You would have to have gµ;tffe.;ypf;~, which, you know, comes from The Russians promptly retaliated and said the Ukrainians will have to pay for oil in valuta, whereupon they've reached an agreement. [laughter] the republics. There there was a balance of power. But that isn't necessarily true-- On oil it's necessarily true with almost all of That's right. Most of all of the oil, except for Azerbaijan, which is now exhausted, comes from the Russian federation. Yes, yes. That's right. Okay, now let me walk into the dark shadows. Can you visualize a situation in which the existing inventory of nuclear arms becomes once again a threat to the American people? If the hard-liners take over, I certainly can. Well, would they take over under the banner of ideology or simply under the banner of nationalism? The banner of, "Let's stop all these crazy reforms that are destabilizing the country and breaking it up into small components." This could have various degrees. You could have the ultra-nationalists, who say, "Where do these people think they're going? They're coming right back here, or else." Or you could have tolerance for that and so forth. So 9

11 I don't quite know. Apparently the Russian government has control of the strategic nuclear weapons pretty much entirely. The Russian Cruise are still in the silos i n the Ukraine-- --in Kazakhstan. But they don't know how to set them off, huh? Yes, they do. They do. Well, then when you say they have control, you mean to say exactly what? I mean the central government has control. What would happen if there was a breakdown in the authority of the central control, what those individual Cruise in the silos, what the local regional commands would decide, I would not venture that far into the shadows. I'd rather not. No, no. But what, assuming a dark situation of the kind you describe, what would be the casus belli that would make them threaten us? They wouldn't immediately threaten us. It would just be the fact that you would not have a government which has renounced these weapons as an instrument of national policy. And after all, on their side and on our side, it was always deterrence we were after. And they might want to use them to deter us from intervening supposing they decided to take the Ukraine back. Now do we, in your understanding, have a formal position about the independence of the Ukraine? We've recognized it formally. They have been elected to the United Nations with our consent. Yes, but we are not a party of any. treaty that makes an attack on the Ukraine equivalent to an attack on Iowa. 10

12 No, but it makes it an attack on a member of the United Nations-- --which makes it more complicated for the hard liners. So the same sanctions available against Iraq would theoretically be available-- Theoretically. Except we don't act that way towards nuclear powers, do we? No. Two weights and two measures. When you were ambassador to the United Nations, was this always necessarily the first consideration? There are certain things you can no to Chile about or to Israel--well, not even Israel, but you cannot to-- I didn't very often, because Chile voted with us more often than any other country in South America. I s that right? By a long way. One of my astonishing surprises was to learn there were 19 countries in the United Nations that voted against us more often than the Soviet Union. Now that's hard to understand. Yes, it is. Algeria, for instance, voted against us on almost every issue. Yes, Algeria was number one when I was in the UN. They still have been. Now I don't know, with the new military government that was formed to keep out the fundamentalists. See, we have a couple of things that are working in our favor. The Russians fear Islam, Islamic fundamentalism. If you go to Russia--and no one notices--they 11

13 notice the double-barred Orthodox cross. They don't notice what it's standing on. It's standing on a crescent at the bottom, signifying Russia's victory over Isl am. They are very concerned with Islamic fundamentalism. Every single one of the Islamic republics that were formerly part of the Soviet Union has a crescent somewhere in the flag. They are very concerned with that. Well, do they see a movement from the south, from the Islamic part of the old Soviet Union that is threatening in any serious way? power or-- Yes, yes. How would they exercise that threat? By military They would like to form a coalition, and let United Nations resolutions take care of it. But even in a place like Gorki, Nizhny Novgorod, there is a large Islamic community still there from the Tartars who came 'there in the Middle Ages to the fair. And you've got sporadic Moslem communities spread throughout even the Russian Federati on. Well, to what extent are their impulses anarchic? There is a considerable amount of anarchic impulses. When you have been held in that kind of a tight discipline for a very long time-- They just want to explode. Okay, now if France and Italy and Great Britain do so little on that particular front, is that a terminal discouragement to Americans who want to build up American enthusiasm for help to Russia? I don't think it's-- I think part of the peace dividend could be well used to prevent the extremists from taking over in the Soviet Union, if you understand me. And we have. We have reduced the defense budget about $10 billion a year for the last two years. I think you could do part of that, but I think we should lean more heavily on the British and the French and the Japanese also. I mean, to heck with their islands. I hope they get their islands back and everything, but they've got a duty to the world--a duty to the 12

14 world by the fact that they are covered by our shield. Well, you are talking normative--you are making normative points, but not really points that have all that much political muscle behind them, because that's been true for a very long time and Japan has done relatively little to involve itself in-- Japan is entering a recession right now too. Yes, I know they are. I know they are. And they may become slightly more cooperative under such circumstances. They would love to get their hands on the development of the resources of Siberia, on the Tyumen oil fields, on the new lands, on the new things. I mean, it's a dream--a dream area for them cooped up in their islands. Well, we have certain symbols that we are engaging right now. For instance, will Bonn vote to allow German soldiers to fight outside Germany? They don't have to. There is no such article in the German Constitution. When I was ambassador I asked every Socialist leader I knew. And one of them got blown up in the same village in Italy in which I did. I said, "Which article do you want to change?" He couldn't give me an answer. There is no article. I've read the German Constitution carefully in both German and English. There is no such article. There is an article which says German forces may not be used for aggressive purposes. So as far as you understand the German constitutional situation, they could tomorrow send a detachment to Bosnia for peacekeeping service. They could. I don't think it would be a good idea because of their past record there. But at the end of the Gulf War there were German soldiers in Turkey, in northern Iraq and in Iran, and there were German ships in the Gulf. Well, what's this debate in Bonn all about? I don't know. The Socialists are trying to make an issue of it and they have taken it to the Constitutional Court at Karlsruhe, and I think the Constitutional Court at Karlsruhe will tell them. I have talked to Rupert Werner, who is the biggest constitutional authority in Germany and he said, "There is no such article in the German Constitution." So that's one that has to iron itself out, but you see no-- 13

15 > It won't be long. Okay, now would you say that within the Democratic Party as presently constituted--by which I mean with Clinton as sovereign over it--the impulse is greater or less than within the Republican Party to take an active role in helping Russia get over this crisis? I think there's a little bit of a balance. There is probably a little more isolationism in the Republican Party and there is probably a little more social sense of compulsion to do something about something and prevent rightists from returning to power in the Soviet "union. I think that sort of tends to balance out. So you would anticipate no situation in which the Republicans were the people blocking it in Congress or the other way around? No, no, no. What would you consider-- They might help Mr. Clinton out in a pinch against some of his own party. Well, the step that the Soviet Union needs like tomorrow is a suspension of payments of the debts incurred between 1989 and Now, that's primarily a German question, isn't it, since they were the people who-- --lent the most money. Well, Germany just let them off $10 billion. Yes, but-- Off. Canceled. See, the German government debts are nearly all governmental debts, unlike ours, which are largely private debts. So it's easier to handle obviously. Now is it anticipated that the other 18 owed to Germany will also be suspended? Yes, I think it's a pretty good idea. I think it's a pretty good possibility that the rest will be 14

16 , ' suspended--or rescheduled. You can't say suspended. You've got to say rescheduled so that they get three years' grace and then three years before payment. Now when we undertake to help the Soviet Union, for instance, pave their roads, are we talking about sending engineers there primarily or are we simply talking about making it possible for them to have enough hard currency? Right now the Germans are building housing in the former Soviet Union to take the garrison of East Germany back. That was 380,000 men. They are building part of it with Russian labor, part of it with Turkish labor and part of it with German labor. And the German contractors are getting a piece of it. We can do the same. Is that the most efficient way to go? I think that's the most efficient way to go, and the most efficient in our interest. Now-- That doesn't make it a total present. No, no. Now of course, the trickiest question. We talked about the problem of gestation. When might one predict that the average Russian would experience a slightly better sense of material comfort? In 1948 when we had the big currency reform in Germany-- Overnight. Overnight. But there's no overnight equivalent. Three years. Three years. So the idea is to keep the situation pacified for those critical three years. That's right. Now are the--i hate to use the word conservatives in this context, but are they bad guys-- context. I don't use it. I refuse to use it in that Yes, yes. I refuse to call Boris Yeltsin's opponents 15

17 > conservatives. Or Stalin, yes. They are extreme, leftist, Stali~ist Communists. Right, right. Is there a figure around whom their support is consolidating? Or is it still-- Well, there's Volsky, who could be, but Volsky isn't that far left. And he would not in your judgment lead a-- No. --a revolution. No, I can't see the Gaddafi or the Nasser, which might come from the lower-- --less than the top of the hierarchy either in the economic or political. Thank you very much, General Walters; thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 16