This is a matter for the German people. Let this evolution take care of the question -- that is our role. With the Thousand Points of Light beginning to shine in Eastern Europe now, what is the future role of NATO? And should we recast it according to the new political realities, or should it just remain as it is for awhile? Which -- repeat it again. A Thousand Points of Light are shining, and we see -- -- Well, they are beginning to shine in Eastern Europe, obviously, so the role of NATO probably has to take on another cast. Well, I see the role of NATO as an alliance continuing. As I have tried to indicate here, levels of military involvement have a way of being negotiated, have a way of changing from time to time. But NATO has a rubric under which you can discuss economic conditions. So, the Western alliance threatens no one. It is not a threat to anyone. And I do not see its obsolescence. I do not predict, if that is the question, an obsolescence of this. You might see under different circumstances different kinds of mission. But I will approach this meeting with Mr. Gorbachev that this alliance is very, very vibrant. As the ENTITY, I owe my alliance partners total consultation, and I do not really see that changing in the short-term future. But just to follow, I guess, in the longer run, how do Europe's great alliances evolve? Ten years out, do you still see NATO and the Warsaw Pact right against each other? Listen, I cannot see 10 days out, and I do not think you can. How can I predict what the conditions are going to be? Well, I really do not want to go beyond where events have us right now because I think if I made a prediction on NATO, then you'd say how do you get there? What are the steps that get you there? And I do not want to do that. So, I do not do that. I do not see any factor emerging that would diminish the friendships and the associations between these Western countries because we are bound by common values. It is our values that bind us. And then, we have common military interests. Fine -- we do -- but I really cannot predict that for you because I cannot see it that clearly.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


So, what we do is move down this path in a way where we make clear that our resolve to be a strong NATO partner is known to everybody and that we look for opportunities that might suggest the kind of change that I think a lot of our NATO partners would like to see -- less tensions with neighbors in Eastern Europe and all of that. But I really want to stop short of predicting what it might be like 10 years out, although it is a very good question, and I think a lot of thinking is going on about that, a lot of thinking by our best people here, under different scenarios. But we are at a very delicate time now. And I think what I had better do is address myself to the present and the near-term future. And that is why I think this meeting with Mr. Gorbachev is going to be very interesting. Has that thinking increased since you have planned this summit? I mean, it was initially just sort of get to know you, get acquainted. Yes, because the genesis came before the rapidity of the change in Eastern Europe. I will tell you one of the things that stimulated my interest was my visit to Poland and to Hungary. And then I sat with our NATO partners. I think I asked a couple of them do you think it would be a good idea -- I was not going to say a summit meeting -- but do you think it would be a good idea to have this? And you know, what we have picked up since then was keen interest from a lot of countries that are not in NATO or are in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union. And some of it is almost overly euphoric in terms of expectation. So, what I have tried to do here is dampen euphoric expectation because I want the visit to be seen as a success. And if you just get together and discuss change, that is my definition of a success. Whether you all will buy it or not, I do not know. I am a little skeptical about that. ENTITY, do not you fear that the U.S. may lose its leadership in the Western alliance if things move too fast, and NATO will change? If you will excuse some chauvinistic pride as we approach Thanksgiving, why, that is one worry I do not have. We will continue to be, whether it is in the Pacific or whether it is in Europe.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Sir, you mentioned the ties that bind both countries, the U.S. and Mexico. But those ties are also-those issues are extremely politically charged in both countries-trade, immigration, et cetera. So my question would be, where do you expect to lead the U.S.-Mexico relation in the next 3 years? First, I think it is very important for both President Fox and myself to explain to both our countries the benefits of $300 million two-way trade-well, nearly $300 million in the year 2005 of two-way trade. In other words, it is one thing to talk trade, and I fully understand that unless those benefits are translated to more and more people, people begin to wonder whether or not trade is worthwhile. You will find that here in America, we are having a debate as well, over trade. I said in my State of the Union that we have got to reject protectionism because I believe that trade, when it is done right, free and fair, is beneficial to the parties. And I strongly believe that the trade between the United States and Mexico has been beneficial for Mexico, as it has for the United States. But as a leader, I have got to continue to explain to people why. I have a different perspective than many because of the relationship between-because of my time as Governor of Texas, and I remember full well what life was like on the border before NAFTA. And if you go down to the border now, you see vitality on the border, you see that- and vitality on both sides of the border . There is been-commerce has helped people get jobs, and commerce has helped people realize a better life . And it is important for us to make sure we continue to explain that because if not, there will be protectionist tendencies that will tend to emerge, not only in our two countries but around the world. And in my judgment, leadership has got to fight off protectionist tendencies. I think that would tend to isolate each other and make it more difficult for us to realize the benefits of our relationship. anticorruption measures; free press; free religion; institutions that sometimes can be challenged in the course of politically-development within our neighborhood and around the world, for that matter. So the common value theme is a very important theme for me to continue to work with Vicente Fox and whoever were to replace him-obviously, we have got a lot of human issues to deal with.

Interview With Foreign Print Journalists


The migration of people across our border is a vital issue that must be done in the same way to protect and honor people's lives. Americans are-I am disgusted by a system in which people are snuck across the border in the bottom of an 18-wheeler. There is a lot of big issues that confront us. But in order to make the relationship vital, we have got to explain to people exactly why-you know, the consequences of, for example, not having commerce flow as frequently as we do. Over a million people across the country have marched in support of legalization and against H.R. 4437, the Sensenbrenner bill. Since you are opposing amnesty, sir, would you agree on a language that puts the undocumented on a path to earn legalization-- Let me tell you what I am for. First of all, there is a-the legislative process is one that-obviously, it goes through the House and then the Senate, and if there are differences, it has got to be resolved. And what people are now doing is reacting to a legislative process. I believe that any immigration bill ought to make sure that we are , one, able to secure the borders. That is what Americans want; that is what any country should want. And I also recognize that part of securing the borders requires a guest-worker program. In other words, the two go hand in hand. I do not believe people who have been here illegally should be granted citizenship status right off the bat. I just, as a matter of fact, gave a speech to a group of citizens that have become U.S. citizens today, in my presence. They had stood in line. And I do not think a country that relies upon law ought to say to somebody who was here illegally, you get to be ahead of the line. In other words-so therefore, I think that part of a rational worker program is- say you are here on a temporary basis, and if you choose to be a citizen or want to be a citizen, you get in line. But like I said today, I have called upon Congress to increase the number of green cards. To me, that is the most rational way of dealing with the citizenship issue. It is essential that we not have automatic amnesty or legality. First of all, it would send a signal that said, all you have got to do is get here illegally and eventually you get in the head of the line.


But what if they get in line behind those who are waiting for their green cards now? That is why I said I think one way to deal with this is to increase the number of green cards. And right now part of the problem is that the green cards are limited. And that is why I have spoken before and again reiterated my position that there ought to be a temporary-worker program; people who want to be here should not get-be a citizen should not get ahead of the line but ought to be waiting in line. And if the Congress so desires, they ought to increase the number of green cards in order to take the pressure off the system. It is a plan that-again, I know people are saying, Well, the House bill did not have a temporary-worker program in there, and I think any bill should be a comprehensive bill including a tem-porary-worker program. I have spoken out on it ever since I have been the ENTITY, and I think it is the best way to go, because I realize that, one, it is important to enforcing the border-that being a temporary-worker program; secondly, that it is a humane way to deal with people who are making a contribution to our economy. In other words, if something is illegal, then people will figure out ways to get around the system. That is what creates the coyotes; that is what creates the smugglers; that is what creates the document forgers; that is what creates these places where people are dumped for a period of time and then smuggled across and then told to walk; that is what creates the dangerous predicament for people coming across the desert. And so there is a-and that is why people- that is what causes people to hide in the shadows of our cities. And there is a much more rational way and much more humane way to deal with people who are doing jobs that Americans will not do. Anyway, that is why I think the work component is a vital part of an immigration policy, and I believe border-I know border security and a guest-worker program go hand in hand. In other words, one supports the other. I guess I wanted to ask you about an issue on the northern border that is of some concern. Your administration has proposed a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which would require passports or pass-port-like documents for Canadians and Americans coming and going.


And there is been some concern in Canada that this will, in effect, do more to harm economic trade and tourism and do little to actually improve security. And I am wondering, when you are moving towards, sort of, a more integrated approach to security on things like NORAD, why move ahead with something that really amounts to a bit more of a restriction? Well, I think-first of all, we have the same issue to the south, by the way. How do you come up with a policy where there are thousands of border crossings a day, without-and trying to have a rational approach to determining who is coming in and who is going out of the country, without endangering workforce, tourism, trade? Our goal is to, obviously, consult with our partners to develop, you know, passport and/or passport-like document, you said, and I think that may be the operative word as a plan develops. There is a desire for a lot of our citizenry-and it is reflected in the Congress- to know, as I said, who is coming in and who is going out and why. And I think that-I am pretty confident that if we work closely, we can develop such a plan that enables a scanning device or a card that can be dealt with on a scanning device to not stop the flow of traffic of people who make a daily routine of it, and also make sure that we know who is coming in the country. The purpose is not to impede trade and/ or cross-border relations. The purpose is to expedite them in a way that gives both countries, or all three countries, comfort in knowing who is coming across. In Texas, for example, like in El Paso, on a daily basis, there is thousands of people that it is just a part of their daily routine. And the idea would be to develop a document that could be scanned as they just walk across the bridge. It is the same concept for Canada as well. You could not just do it through a driver's license? Well, that is what they are working on. First of all, we have found in our own country that drivers' license are not necessarily a secure document. I mentioned to you that this is a-the document forgery is a significant problem for our country, primarily for people coming in from the south.


And you have got a person looking for somebody to help build an apartment building, and people show up, and they flash a document, and the employer is not equipped to be a document checker. It is not what they do. And the truth of the matter is, there is a whole industry out there to provide fake documents for people doing work that Americans will not do, because the system needs-the system says-just has not been rational, let me just put it to you that way. And therefore, there is a skepticism about certain documents which can be forged. And that is why you are seeing the notion of trying to develop one that is tamper-proof, for not only border crossings but also for working. And it seems to me to make sense without-again, I understand the sensitivity. I am very aware, and I am sure Stephen and Vicente will bring this up. I have already talked to Vicente about the issue in regards to Mexico. Look, again, this is an issue I am very familiar with because of my time as the Governor of Texas. Immigration issues and border issues are-it is been a part of our State's history for a long period of time. You are not going back to migration, are you? I can see it is on the tip of her tongue. The question would be, though-if you excuse me, a few months ago, or a year ago, you said that you would invest political capital in the issue of-the immigration issue. You did come back to it. Yet in the last couple of weeks, there have been a lot of people in this town talking that your political capital is wasted. Is this Congress underestimating you? But I will keep speaking out on it. One thing is I am -I believe it is very important to get this issue-to reform the immigration system. I have spoken out on it before, and I will continue speaking out on it. It is now coming to a head. And I will continue to call Congress to have a comprehensive package that is more than just border security but also enforcement-interior enforcement, as well as a guest-worker program. And I am going to say it again, that-particularly for the American audience-the two go hand in hand. A temporary-worker program that enables people to cross our border legally to do work Americans will not do takes pressure off of Border Patrol agents who are trying to stop illegal activities, which makes it easier to secure the border.


If I may, sir, then what would you expect-or what would you propose or expect or hope that the Mexican Government would do in this case? No, I appreciate that. I think it is very important for the Mexican Government to continue doing what they have recently done, which is to make it clear to the American people that we have responsibilities on both sides of the border. And I thank President Fox for putting out those statements. You are aware of, I am sure, a series of advertisements in our newspapers that said, we have an important relationship with the United States. And it requires the understanding that we will work together on our border-as well as, by the way, working on the southern border of Mexico, because many of the folks that are now coming into our country are coming up from Central America, for example. A lot of folks from Central America have been crossing into Mexico and across. And part of making sure that our borders are secure-all our border, when I say our borders, I am talking about Mexico and the United States borders in this case-is that we work hand in glove in the north and also help in the south. And Vicente has told me he understands that there is an issue on the southern border of Mexico. The truth of the matter is, the long run for the issue is going to be for Mexico's economy to extend its promise beyond just certain regions. Look, I strongly believe most people want to be able to find decent wages at their home, where people are able to provide for their families. And I have told our people ever since I have been involved in this issue that-and the way I like to put it is, family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. In other words, moms and dads in Mexico are anxious to put food on the table for their children. And therefore, many of them are willing to come great distances and lengths to be able to provide for their families. And I think most people would rather be providing for their families close to their homes. And so part of a larger strategy has got to be to make sure that we work in concert to develop-to encourage economic growth so that there are meaningful jobs throughout the country. That is why I am a believer in trade. I believe if we were ever to stop our trade, it would make it harder for prosperity to spread. And I appreciate Vicente's understanding that education programs are vital.


People have got to have a skill set in order to be able to make sure that jobs are-that jobs spread throughout the country. And for a period of time, many people used to come across the border from the border regions, but prosperity, as I mentioned to you, is visible. The life has changed on the border. But the prosperity on the border has caused people from other parts of the country who are looking for work to migrate north, come across the border, and try to find jobs in the United States. And I believe that the immigrant worker has helped grow our economy. In other words, there is jobs Americans will not do, and it makes sense to have a legal policy that says, if there is a job Americans will not do and people are willing to do it for the sake of their families, we ought to encourage them to do so and make it a legal, temporary experience. And we will negotiate what the definition of temporary is, and we will negotiate the kind of documentation necessary to make sure that they are not- there is not a lot of fraud. And we will- and also the issue of citizenship. And again, my own judgment is, is the best way to deal with the citizenship is to not say- to say to somebody, If you are here illegally, you do not get to take somebody else's place in line who is here legally. The reason we have lines is because of the green card issue. And Congress has the right to increase the number of green cards. Sir, do you believe there is a difference between amnesty and earned legalization-- What does earned legalization mean? Why do not you give me your description, and I will answer your question. According to Chairman Specter, is they have to pay a fine-the undocumented, I am talking about-pay a fine, get in line, prove they have a job, that they have paid taxes, that they do not have a criminal record. But get in line, you said? That is exactly what I just said. Somebody, in order to become a citizen, must get in line. In other words, there is no line; you are just it. You know, you have been here, undocumented; you are legal; boom, you do not have to wait in line. Getting in line is exactly what I just said. You can call it by any way you want to call it.


I would say that it is a system that does not-that rewards and understands people here are doing jobs Americans will not do-take out rewards -understands that there are people doing jobs that Americans will not do, but you do not get to be an automatic citizen. You have to get in line. So you agree with Senator McCain, then. Look, I am just telling you exactly what I am for. And what I am for is a program that is not amnesty. In other words, amnesty means you are automatically legal. And the reason I disagree was, one, it undermines rule of law. In other words, there is a lot of people here trying to become a citizen that are waiting in line, and all of a sudden-and they are doing it legally, and all of a sudden, you know, by law, it means that those who have been here not legally get ahead of the line. Secondly, I think it sends a wrong message. In other words, basically, It is okay; fine, all you have to do is come, come in the country, be undocumented, and in a matter of time, we will make you legal. And I think that will cause another group of people to come. So therefore, my view is, is that, yes, you can become a citizen, but you have to get in line. In other words, you cannot get ahead of those who have been here playing by the rules. And the bottleneck is the number of green cards the Government issues. And that can be changed, and that is why I called upon Congress to increase the number of green cards. One of the things that is very important is that this issue be conducted in such a way as it brings dignity to our process, that immigration is emotional and the people who are speaking out on the issue must understand its emotional nature and must not pit neighbor against neighbor, must treat people with respect. After all, we are a nation of immigrants, and I believe has helped-it helps revitalize our soul. I think it is a very important part of our Nation's history. And America should be viewed as a welcoming society that supports its laws, and the two do not necessarily contradict each other. If I could ask you about-a bit of a two-parter. I know you do not like two-parters, necessarily. It has not stopped these people.


Did it stop you, Nedra , the two-part question, or are you still giving them? You mentioned that there is skepticism in Canada about the U.S. And I am wondering, over the last few years, you have had some-- Let me just make sure that-first of all, I believe most-I believe people on both sides of the border think it is a very important relationship, and there is great friendships. Having said that, the Canadians have, oftentimes, taken independent view of decisions the United States makes. And there is concern about some of the decisions I have made, yes. I just want to make sure that it is not, kind of, universal skepticism-kind of, define it to the proper source. You were the star in one of the former Government's campaign ads. It did not work for them. I wonder whether that is tarnished your image of Canada at all, and whether- one of the issues that is caused a lot of skepticism-- If it did tarnish my image of Canada, it would also tarnish my image of my own country, because part of being in the political scene is that people-it is the great thing about free societies, people speak their minds. That is what happens here in this country as well. Well, do you see the opportunity for better relations, and specifically on the issue of softwood lumber? That is an issue that is caused a lot of skepticism. People are looking for a strong signal from the ENTITY. First of all, the relationship is much deeper than softwood lumber. And there will be- I will comment on softwood lumber in a minute. First of all, I'd like to get the issue solved. So the strong signal is, is that I have told our folks that, let us work hard to bring this issue to conclusion. And we were close to getting it done at one point. And so my strong signal is, yes, let us get this behind us. I predict, however, that there will be other issues that arise because of our- when we trade as much as we trade, nearly half-a-billion * two-way trade in '05, there is going to be issues that come up. I can remember the potato issue-I do not know if it had as much impact on thought that softwood lumber did, but it was an important issue. I guess it was mainly confined to the eastern part of the country.


But with as much trade as we have got going for us, there will be other issues that arise. We are dealing with, you know, tomatoes, on occasion, or corn syrup, I think it was-yes, corn syrup. And it is just very important to be in a position to have a relationship such that we can work through these problems. It is a chance for people to express themselves. Sure, there were some harsh words, but- at least from my perspective, the people tend to discount the polemics and the, you know, kind of, just how politics works, and they want to know whether or not there is a genuine commitment to friendship. The migration issue, obviously, as you can see, has created a great deal of, at least, questioning, because it is on people's minds. Would it help if there was a little more maturity in the relationship, in terms of how Canada deals with the U.S.? Because there is been a perception in Canada that we have not always been-dealt with you square on issues like missile defense or-you know, there have been a few things. I do not view-I, frankly, view the relationship as a good and strong relationship. Look, people-face it, part of the problem that we had was because of my decision to go into Iraq. And the Government of both countries did not agree, and I understand that. And yet we are still able to maintain good relations. When people are dealing with the subject of war, there is a lot of emotion. And I fully understand that. So I view the relationships both as not only important and vital, but I do view them as mature. As I said, this is the third Prime Minister with whom I will have dealt, and I-there is a certain camaraderie that takes place by virtue of our close ties and close history. And I bear no ill will whatsoever, and I understand the strategic importance of being close to our friends and to have a capacity to talk among ourselves. The great competition for our respective economies, in the long run, will be coming from the Far East. And therefore, the more close our relationships and the more we are able to deal with cross-border issues on trade and other issues, the more we will be able to work in concert to keep our standard of living high.


When our group discussed the framework of this interview, it was very hard to achieve a consensus regarding the priority of questions. We hope there will be no such problem at the summit meeting in Bonn, which is, of course, the main purpose of your visit to Europe. The world is faced with the problem of if the economic momentum can be sustained and secured after the great locomotive seems to be slowing. How do you see the economic scenario in America and globally? And what would be, in your view, the best outcome in Bonn? What should be done at the summit meeting? I am not going to attempt to set an agenda for it. I know that we will be talking about political problems, we will be talking about this economic situation, and I know that our economic recovery did get out ahead of the others. I think one of the things that is of great importance that we want to be talking about is another round of trade talks, to resist the protectionism that raises its head every once in awhile and to see if we cannot come more and more to open trade between ourselves and other industrial countries. That will be, I am quite sure, prominent on the agenda. I know that in the last two summits we have also exchanged ideas about what we all can do to help in the recovery, and I am glad to see recovery beginning to take hold in those other countries. It will, hopefully, equalize the currency values and so forth. I know that just as one country, our own, can export inflation and economic problems, it can also export prosperity and help to the recovery, and I think that we are having a hand in that. Especially for Western Europe you recommended recently at the New York Stock Exchange, I remember, to follow your recovery program of '81 by cutting taxes, spending, and overregulation and throwing off the weight of government. What kind of tax cuts did you mean? High tax rates do not necessarily mean high revenues for government. As a matter of fact, this, we think, was responsible for our recent recession-our government was taking too big of a share of the private sector. And I think that other countries-some of our allies and friends-are looking at themselves to see if this is the same situation. When we reduced the rates there was an increase, a surge in the overall revenues because of the economic expansion that resulted. Incentive, whether it is for business and industry or for individuals, does result in higher earnings.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


There was an Arab philosopher about 1,400 years ago by the name of ibn-Khaldun who said that in the beginning of the empire the rates were low, and the revenues were great. And he said at the end of the empire the rates were great, and the revenues were low. ENTITY, I wanted to ask you something about the dollar and the international monetary system. The dollar has lost in the past month about 20 percent of its value and before then, in a matter of a few weeks went very, very high, reaching high records against the Deutschmark and other currency. Your Secretary of the Treasury said that he was willing to do something about it, and it seems that something should be done. How strong is your commitment for a high-level monetary meeting, that should be hosted in Washington, and what concrete steps are you willing to take to improve this shaky system? Well, I am afraid your question is too specific for the answers that I have available at this time. Two years ago at the Williamsburg summit we all agreed upon embarking on a study-the European Ten, ourselves and others, our trading partners-and that study has been going on for 2 years. The study will be, and the report will come in in June, after the summit conference in Bonn. And I think when we get that report and see the recommendations and what has been proposed, then it can be determined whether a meeting of the kind that has been suggested is warranted and what the agenda would be, as that meeting would then take up the report of this 2-year study. So, until then I cannot comment on an agenda. So, are you backing off from the statement of Mr. Baker who said that Washington will host a- No, I think that this is also what he was trying to say-that we are perfectly willing, but we feel that we should wait and see what is the result of that study, what are we going to be hearing and seeing as a result of that. And of course, to the preface to your question there about the dollar declining, we think that that part could be attributed to the economic recovery of our trading partners. We think also that some of the fluctuation has to do with speculators, those people who read all the economic signs and then go running out and either buy or sell other currencies or our own. And that this can, on a simple buy-and-sell market, result in changes.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Frankly, we were very pleased with the decline in value. Let me ask a question with regard to trade, ENTITY. How are you going to deal with the trade conflicts between Japan and the United States, and do you think that you have to berate Mr. Nakasone for his inability, even at the meeting of the Bonn summit? Well, we think we have been making great progress in the bilateral meetings that we have been having. I can tell you that Prime Minister Nakasone, I think, himself, is committed to a belief in more open and free trade between nations. I realize that, just as all heads of state do, he has some political problems, too, in opposition to some moves he might want to make. The same would be true of me here in our own country. But we have made great progress, and I think we will continue to make progress in opening up markets to open trade between allies. And I have a great admiration for what he is doing and what he has set out to do. ENTITY, in recent years your trade policy officials have made much of their efforts to promote the multilateral trade system. At the same time, they have used the possibility of bilateral deals with individual countries as something of a lever to bring other trading partners to the bargaining table. There are experts who suggest that subjecting a fifth or a quarter of your trade of the United States, external trade, to a deal, perhaps with Canada, could weaken the multilateral trading system. A, how you feel about that; secondly, what happens if there is a new GATT round? What happens to the bilateral deals at that point? Well, because of the direction the bilateral is taking between us and Canada, we have been, for each other, we have been the greatest of trading partners. Here we are with a very unique border that extends for several thousand miles with no guards or forts along that border. We have a pretty common heritage in this country. It is been reflected in trade, and sometimes there have been efforts here and there in particular areas to curb trade. Just as we are meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone, we have been meeting with Canada to eliminate some of the problems that, in reality, are peculiar to our two countries. And I do not think that that in any way does anything but even strengthen or add to our multilateral efforts. It just demonstrates that countries can mutually benefit from free and open trade.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


ENTITY, I imagine that there'll be a number of leaders in Bonn who would like to discuss with you your Strategic Defense Initiative during your visit there. The question I wanted to ask was that the British Foreign Secretary recently raised some concerns about your initiative. He warned that there would be no advantage in creating a new Maginot Line, which could be outflanked by simpler countermeasures, and he also suggested that the huge research program might acquire an unstoppable momentum of its own. I wonder what your reaction would be to those two points? Well, I think that is in a sense borrowing trouble. We are embarked on a research program. We do not have something ready for deployment; we are not talking about deploying. What we are researching to see is if there is an answer to the nuclear threat to all the world. We have a situation now between the major powers where we have a deterrent based totally on offensive weapons, and in our own country, it is called the MAD policy, and what it stands for is mutual assured destruction, meaning that-and to me, there is always been something a little immoral about that-that our deterrent is if you try to blow our people up, we will blow yours up. Now, in the whole history of the world, every offensive weapon has always led to a defensive weapon. an effort to reduce greatly the number of such weapons in the world to the point that we do not leave as a heritage to our children this threat of destruction, literally of the world, if some madman comes along someday in one country or the other and decides to take that action. And I have made it perfectly plain that if our research-while I have any claim to it-is successful in any way, before there would ever be deployment, I would want to sit down with our allies and discuss this totally and share. And I have not even ruled out sharing with our potential adversaries. If we could substitute for simply an exchange of offensive threats, either totally defense or a combination of the two, so that we were not just living under this total threat that threatens even the rest of the world who might not even be participants-except in the destruction. Still on this subject, ENTITY, President Mitterrand of France has invited other European countries to joint efforts to create European technological cooperation. I was wondering what you think of this initiative and if you do not think that SDI has set the stage for a technological confrontation between Europe and United States?

Interview With Foreign Journalists


I do not know that I can answer that. I imagine that I will be hearing about that at the summit, and I will be looking forward to the discussion of it. The only restriction we have ever wanted to place on technology is letting or giving that technology to a potential adversary, who then could use it to an advantage over us militarily. And that is been the result of COCOM, which we have with our allies in our restraint on providing such technology to the other country. I know that we, on SDI, we have invited all of our allies to come in and compete for contracts on the research and to participate in the research on that weapon. I think on that previous question, I left out something or other there that I should have said in addition, and that is that on SDI, also, that in the meantime-no, we support France and England in going forward on their own nuclear weapons. We are, as you know, going forward with ours-with the MX, with the B-1 bomber and even a bomber beyond that, and with the Trident submarine-because that-to use one of our own expressions, that is the only game in town. Now, did I finish with yours?  ENTITY, NATO is today much stronger than it was in '81, when you assumed the Presidency, thanks to the United States. But is NATO in these days strong enough? I think basically-for a deterrent, yes. There is no question we do not match the Soviet Union in its military buildup, either in the strategic or in the conventional. But I think in the sense of a deterrent that a war, trying to take advantage of their superior forces, they would face more damage than they would want to accept. So, I think that from a deterrent standpoint-yes. You stopped the stationing of the Pershing II in Germany.  Geneva- -yes, we have not arms control talks? we have not stopped that on a basis of changing a policy-no. We are going forward with that plan. Those countries requested those weapons of us, and the Soviets have continued to augment their intermediate-range weapons that are targeted on European targets. No, we would like, in the talks going on at Geneva, we would like something that would indicate that they were willing to reduce those. You know, our original proposal on the intermediate-range weapons was total elimination, zero-zero. Well, we gained half our point.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


The Soviets agreed to zero for us, but not zero for them. Incidentally, I want you to know also that SDI and the research that is going forward is not just aimed at strategic weapons, such as a protection for ourselves. It would be very definitely a factor with regard to those SS20's, those Soviet intermediate-range weapons, for protection of the allies. Yes, ENTITY, we are going to have very soon in Italy local elections, and the Communist Party has said that if it should win those local elections, it would give them a political, national meaning. And they would want to be in charge of the government, to put a crisis on the Craxi government and have a new government headed by Communists. How would you feel about that? They were talking about NATO and all of this. How would you feel about the Communists taking the leadership in Italy? Well, if you look at any country in the world that is run by a Communist government, you see that the people are denied all the democratic rights that we and our societies have come to believe are democracy and are the rights of the people. I cannot quite believe that the Italian people, with their love of independence and freedom, would settle for what the Communist government would mean to them and would take away from them. But if it does, from what I know of your people, I would think the Communists might get a rude surprise when they started to implement their ideology. It seems that Europe is at a balance. You have asked Europe to take responsibility on the economic side, and it is also a quite balanced point of equilibrium from the political side. And how do you feel about a unified European monetary system to balance the general equilibrium? Oh, I do not know that I want to get into things that are purely- But it seems to me that, as you so graciously said about the alliance and its closeness now, it seems to me that there is a greater bond-certainly in Western Europe, which is all we can talk about-a bond, between the countries than I can remember in my rather long lifetime, a friendship, and now with the Congress that I will be addressing there that represents all the countries of Europe, elected directly by all the people of Europe, and the European Community-all of these things I think represent great progress. European monetary system. I just do not feel that I could comment on that. I have not done any study on my own of what that could mean or what the problems might be.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Well, let me throw out my question on trade. Do you think that the Bonn summit would be able to set early 1986 as a target for starting a new round of multilateral trade talks? Well, that is what we are going to ask for, that the trade round begin early in 1986. And I have a feeling that we are not going to be alone in that. I think there are others that want to see another trade round. So, I am hopeful that will be an outcome of this summit. Are you really optimistic about this result, outcome of Bonn? Well, so far everything has shown progress. There have not been very many setbacks in the sense of countries adopting more protectionist measures. My own feeling is that protectionism just leads to a restraint in trade and a lowering of prosperity for everyone involved. And I know in our own Great Depression back in the early thirties, I believe that depression was worsened and was maintained over a longer period of time than need be because our country turned to a thing called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. And I think that was a great factor in our decline. Just on that same point, ENTITY, if there is no agreement for a 1986 start to the GATT round, is it your feeling that another Smoot-Hawley can surface quickly, and it will be beyond your control? Is that what you are saying to the world? No, because I know that there are factions in our country, as there are in every country, who want protectionism. But I think the progress we have made so far and the economic recovery we are having, I believe we can defeat those protectionist factions. Now, what could happen if others suddenly adopted protectionism and strengthened the hand thereby of those people in our own country; I do not know. But I do not see any threat of that right now. The less-developed countries, of course, are not at the table in Bonn. They have a special interest in what takes place. Of course, their debt problems we all know about. Will you be pushing your fellow summiteers to perhaps drop their own protectionist policies with regard to the Third World? Textiles comes to mind, sugar quotas. I think it could help those countries. We have all expressed a desire to help the lesser developed countries. And too much of the time that has taken the form of just economic aid, handouts. I think that we should be directing ourselves more to helping them help themselves.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And in that connection, I have to say, our own country, this country, has purchased more of the production, particularly manufactured goods, of the lesser developed countries than all of the rest of the world put together. And I do not think it is hurt us; our recovery continues. But your Caribbean Initiative, for example, explicitly excludes textiles. We have had a setup on textiles with regard to growth because-and this, I think, every country agrees on-that here and there, when an industry is faced with a crisis, a temporary situation, to help rather than let them go down to destruction. Yes, we have all done that, and we have done it. We have a steel program in our country that is only invoked in the event of unfair competition first, but also if it is leading to a disaster. And then we have temporarily invoked some regulations to help them get on their feet again. ENTITY, when Mr. Gorbachev took over as Soviet leader, Mr. Shultz greeted the event as a moment of opportunity for an across-the-board improvement in relations. Do you think that the killing of the U.S. major in East Germany and Mr. Gorbachev's latest accusations about the Geneva negotiations mean that we are now in for another rough period of East-West relations? Well, I think it was in keeping with what has been the Soviet attitude on other things of that kind, including the shooting down of the Korean airliner. We certainly, out in the Western World, I do not think can quite understand that kind of attitude. I think they missed a great opportunity to achieve some stature in the world by not admitting that this was a most regrettable thing and a tragic thing and extending an apology to the widow and child of the major and, yes, offering some compensation. ENTITY, it is been announced from Moscow that Mr. Gorbachev will come to New York for the United Nations session next September. Could you tell us today if you will meet him at that time? I have expressed the belief that we should have a meeting, and his letter to me acknowledged that and said that he felt the same way. Now, I do not know what his schedule-he will be coming here for the United Nations-whatever it is, if that should be the time. I certainly could arrange mine to accommodate and have that meeting.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Let us talk about Mars. It is much in the news right now, some new discoveries on Mars that suggest there is at least a real possibility that this was once, some good long time ago, a land of lakes. That puts it on the radar screen. All along, our people have thought there was some chance, based on other research that had been done, that there might have been some kind of life on Mars, at least for the last couple of years we have had some evidence of it. Now, these new pictures that we have seen indicate that there might have been water there, quite near the surface, and much more recently than had previously been thought. So I think it is important that we continue our exploration, that we continue to take photographs, and that we keep working until we can set a vehicle down and get some things off the surface of Mars and bring it back home so we can take a look at it. We had a couple of difficult missions there, but we learned some things from them. NASA was very forthright, and they came up with a new plan, and I think we should keep going at it. The question is how you should keep going at it. As you mentioned, there had been a couple of losses, and that is been a hard public relations blow to get by. This new information at least raises what is going on in Mars, to the public's attention, a little higher. Well, I think the NASA people will be the best judge of that, but they are and they should be committed to Mars exploration. They should continue to do more, I think, with the photographs. We should get as much information as we can from observation, in the greatest detail we can. And I think they should keep working on trying to get a vehicle to land on Mars that will be able to not only give us more immediate photographs but actually, physically get materials off the surface of Mars that we could then return to Earth. I think they should keep working on it. You recall President Kennedy saying there should be a concerted effort to put a man on the Moon. I think it is just a question of when, not if.

Interview With Forrest Sawyer for the Discovery Channel


I think that now that we are committed to space exploration in a continuing way, now that we have got the space station up and the people there are working, and they are there 3 years ahead of the original schedule-I am very proud of them-I think that what we should do from now on is to figure out how much money we can devote to this and what our most immediate priorities are. The space station, I think, is going to prove to be an immense benefit to the American people and, indeed, to all the people of the world, because of the research that will go on there and what we will find out. And so I think it is just a question of kind of sorting out the priorities, and the people who will come here after me in the White House and the space people and, of course, the interested Members of Congress will have to make those judgments. But I think the- what we know from Mars is that the conditions of life may well have-for some sort of biological life-may well have obtained on Mars at some point in the past. Now, we know also that our solar system is just a very tiny part of this universe, and that there are literally billions of other bodies out there. And we cannot know for sure what the conditions are on those bodies. The International Space Station is not without controversy, and you have pushed hard for it. It is, in good measure, risky. Well, first of all, it is expensive. It will cost us about $40 billion over about 10 years. That includes the cost to put it up, our part of the cost, and then to maintain our part of it over 10 or 15 years. But I think it is important for several reasons. First of all, it is a global consortium. There are 16 nations involved in it, each of them making some special contributions. The Russians, for example have-because they had the Mir station and we conducted some joint missions to Mir, I think nine of them over the last 2 years and 3 months-have made it possible for us to expand the size of the station and the number of people we can have there. I think that it is important, because we can do a lot of basic research there in biology. We can see without the pull of gravity what happens with tissues, with protein growth. We have got a whole lot of things that we might be able to find out there that will help us in the biological sciences.


Secondly, I think we will learn a lot about material science without gravity, how can you put different kinds of metals together and things like that. And the revolution in material science here on Earth is a very important part of America's productivity growth. It is just like our revolutions in energy that are going on now, our revolution in information technology. Advances we have made in material sciences are very important to our long-term productivity and our ability to live in harmony with the environment here. Then there are a lot of basic physics things we are going to find out there. So I think the whole range of scientific experiments that we will discover will be enormous. And we have been able to keep literally hundreds of Russian scientists and engineers occupied who otherwise would have been targets of rogue states to help them produce nuclear or biological or chemical weapons or missiles or do some other mischiefmaking thing. But I believe in the potential of the space station, and I think that over the years we will come almost to take for granted a breathtaking array of discoveries, what they will be beaming back to us. The critics are saying, ENTITY, we have been doing work in weightless conditions for 20 years. And when you take 16 nations, each one of them contributing a piece, this is enormously complicated; it makes it much more expensive; and frankly, for the astronauts, it can make it more risky. First of all, we are ahead of schedule. We are doing well up there, and we have never been able to keep people up, essentially, continuously. There were limits to our previous manned missions in outer space and the period of time in which weightlessness was available to them. You are going to have now, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year, for more than a decade, to see this work done and develop. And I believe in its potential. The scientists who believe in it sold me a long time ago, and I have never wavered in my belief that it is a good investment, and it'll pay back many times over what we are doing. I think you said $40 billion for the United States part. And what the critics say, not the right calculations. In fact, all you have to do is look at the Russians right now, and they are not contributing what they were expected to contribute at all. And that could happen with the other nations, as well.


What I think about the Russians is that as their economy comes back-and it is important to realize they went through a terrible, terrible economic crisis at the same time oil was less than half, almost a third of the price it is now-so I think as their economy comes back and they become more financially stable, I do not have any doubt that they will pay their part. Do you have any question in your mind about sharing technology with a nation that is certainly more politically unstable than we would like-and that includes sharing missile technology? Well, we try to have some restraints on that. But I think, on balance, the technology we are sharing up there, the benefits of it, the benefits of cooperation, the sense of the-what we get by working together and how much greater it is than what we get from being in competition with one another, I think makes it a good gamble. What do you see the space program transforming to? Well, I think we will focus- I think we have already talked about it. I think there will be more and more focus on how we can do specific things with enormous potential in the space station. And I think there will be a lot of interest in Mars, in terms of exploration. And then with our powerful telescopes, I think there will be more and more emphasis on what is out there beyond the solar system. And to those who say, ENTITY, famine, the countless problems that array themselves before us right here on Earth, those billions of dollars are so precious to those problems-you say? I say, first, we should address those things. But the United States has tripled the money we are putting into international ENTITY program. We pioneered for the last 2 years the largest international debt relief initiative in history. It is one of the finest achievements of this Congress that they embraced in a bipartisan fashion the legislation that I presented them on debt relief. We should continue to move ahead with those things. But you all must take some of your wealth to invest toward tomorrow, the long-term tomorrow. And that is what our investment in space is. It is the investment in the long term. We have to know more about the universe, and we have to know more about what space conditions, particularly the space station, can do to help us with our environment here at home, to help us deal with diseases here at home, to help us grow our economy here at home. I believe this is an investment that has a return.


And I feel the same way about other scientific investments. We have increased investment in basic science. You can argue that, well, it has a long-term payout; maybe we should spend something else on that. I just do not agree with that. I think you have to-societies have to take some of their treasure and invest it toward the long run. And that is how I view this. Let us come back down to home, then. Earlier this week you set aside thousands of square miles of coral reefs off Hawaii, to be protected in perpetuity. Now, if my calculations are right, since 1996, you have 13 times established national wildlife protection areas. And you are considering some more? Yes, we have set aside more land, through legislation-we have established three national parks in California, the Mojave Desert Park. We saved Yellowstone from gold mining and saved a lot of the old-growth forests, the redwood forest in California, and we are recovering the Florida Everglades over a multiyear period. We have basically protected more land in this administration in the United States than any administration since Theodore Roosevelt, about a hundred years ago. And the coral reefs are important because what is happening to the oceans as a result of global warming and local environmental degradation is deeply troubling, long-term, for everybody in the United States and everybody on the planet. Twenty-five percent of the coral reefs have been lost-are now dead. Over the next several decades, we will lose another 25 percent of them within 20 to 25 years unless we do something about it. We did not end all fishing. We did not end all recreation. Indeed, we are preserving for the natives, the Hawaiian natives who live in that area and for those who come as tourists-leave live, vibrant coral reefs. But we had to protect them. And others will have to do the same thing. We have got big challenges to the Great Barrier Reefs in Australia, big challenges to the magnificent reefs off the coast of Belize, and these are very important sources of biodiversity. So I am glad we did it. I am looking at-I have asked the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to follow the same process we followed the whole time we have been here, to look at other potential areas for protection, make some recommendations to me, and we will take one more look before I go to see if there is anything else I should do.  which happens to be near a military bombing range.


Will you set that aside for protection? Well, I am looking for a recommendation from Bruce on that, but I think there is a lot of support out there for that, across the board, members of both political parties and all the different cultures that make up Arizona. And we are trying to work through that, and there are some very compelling environmental arguments there. And when he gives me his recommendation, I will make a decision. But we are both very interested in that, and of course, he is from Arizona, so he knows a lot about it. The military wants its flying rights to continue, and you would approve that? We are working on that. I have not made a decision yet. We have got to work through all that. You know that a lot of folks are talking about the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Some suggest that you could, by executive fiat, establish it as a protected site from oil drilling. As a national wildlife refuge right now, oil drilling is not legal there. There are some people who believe if I were to make it a national monument, as I have created national monuments, for example, and a million acres around the Grand Canyon to protect the watershed area there, that it would have extra protection. Now, as a legal matter, I do not believe that is right. That is, I do not think-sometimes I do not think people understand that in order to have drilling there, I believe legislation is required, regardless. So there may be some other reason to establish some part of the National Wildlife Refuge as a national monument, because it would have other beneficial impacts during the time a monument existed. And of course, it depends in part on what happens in the ultimate resolution of this election, because one of the candidates, Vice President Gore, is against drilling; the other, Governor Bush, is for drilling. But he would still have to get some legislative acquiescence or approval of drilling even if it is a national wildlife refuge, just like it is now. I have not made a decision on that, but I will just say I do not believe that the drilling issue should be the determinative factor, based on the research I have seen so far. I do not think it has-in other words, I do not think that it would make it any harder to pass an act of Congress. And I think that as the land is now, it would still require an act of Congress.


There may be other reasons to do it, and as I said, I am going to talk to Secretary Babbitt, and we will look at what the arguments are. May I ask how many other areas you are considering? I think there are three or four or five that we have been asked to consider by people around America or things that we have been interested in. We always like to get out and talk to the local people in the communities and see what the arguments are, pro and con. Which one stands highest on your radar screen? I do not want to talk about it until I can give the recommendation. No point in stirring everybody up unless we are going to do it. High tech underpins all of this. And we have been going through a bit of a resettling period here. I know that a lot of the dot-com companies have been up and down, just like biotech companies go up and down. But that should not be surprising, because a lot of these companies do not make money in themselves, that they really have value, inherent value for what they can do and how they might someday add to some other enterprise. So that should not surprise people. But I think that the continued explosion in information technology and in biotechnology is inevitable. I do believe that the vagaries in the market should strengthen the resolve of Members in Congress of both parties who care about science and technology to keep up the basic research budget. For example, one of the things I have fought very hard for is a lot of investment into nanotechnology, or super, super microtechnology, because, among other things, it will enable us to have computer capacity the size of a supercomputer some day on something the size of a teardrop. I have a piece of nanotechnology in my office. It is a little outline of me playing the saxophone that has almost 300,000 elements in it, and it is very tiny. So I think that-what does this mean to real people? It means that if you take nanotechnology and you merge within it the sequencing of the human genome and the ability to identify defective or troubled genes, what you are going to have before long, I think, is the ability to identify cancers when they are just several cells in the making, which-and if you could do that and you develop the right kind of preventive screening, you can make virtually 100 percent of cancers 100 percent curable.


For any of these things to be accomplished, Government has to function and function well. And we are living in an extraordinary time. As you look forward, whoever becomes President, is that President running the risk of not being considered legitimately the President of the United States? Well, I think-first of all, it is a difficult question to answer, because it depends on how this plays out. If Governor Bush is elected, there will always be some Democrats who believe that Al Gore not only won the popular vote in the country but also had more people in Florida who wanted to vote for him, and perhaps more who did, which is-one good argument for counting all the so-called undercounted ballots and all the punchcard counties is trying to help resolve that. But once we actually get a determinative decision, that if it is in accord with our Constitution-and the Constitution, you know, our Founders foresaw close elections and tough fights, and they have prescribed all kinds of ways to deal with it. Back in 1800, we had 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before we resolved it. And it produced Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferson turned out to be successful because he was mindful of how divided the country was. He served two terms. He retired in honor. A member of his party succeeded him, served two terms; a member of his party succeeded him and served two more terms. So then, in 1876-nobody ever really quite felt good about it-the President who won did not run for reelection, and then everything was sort of up in the air for a while. I think it depends a lot on whether the constitutional system is followed, the will of the people is determined, and then it depends on how people behave once they get in office. I think what a lot of people are worrying is that it is very difficult to determine what the will of the people is when the country appears to be divided right down the middle and, in fact, Congress is divided right down the middle. And we have the Democrats on one side saying, What we really want when we have a 50-50 split in a Senate is cochairmen, and we want an equal split of everything. And the Republicans are saying, Not on your life. Now, that looks to me to be a recipe for gridlock.


You know, I am leaving the budget in pretty good shape, and they are going to ride up the surplus a little bit, although they should be cautious about that, because, again, these surplus numbers are 10year numbers, and I always believe in taking them with a grain of salt. Our success here these last 8 years has been based in no small measure on being conservative on economic forecasts and trying to make sure we had the numbers right. And I personally believe that America is best served by continuing to pay the debt down. I know it is not as appealing as having a bigger tax cut now or having the money go to-all to some spending program or whatever. But I think that if you keep paying that debt down, you are going to keep interest rates lower than they otherwise would be, and that is money in everybody's pocket-business loans, car loans, home mortgages, college loans, credit card payments-and it keeps the economy stronger. But still, even if they do that, they will still have money for a tax cut; they will have money to invest in education; they will have circumstances that will argue for cooperation rather than conflict after the election. Your worst critics admire your political acumen. When you look at what is happening in Congress right now and the pushing and shoving that is going on, where is the resolution? How do you resolve the Democrats saying, I want cochairmen and the Republicans saying, It is not going to happen ? Well, of course, if all the Republicans vote together, they can stop it, because they will have-if the Vice President is elected President, then Senator Lieberman leaves the Senate and his Republican Governor appoints a Republican Senator, and they have a 51-49 lead. If Governor Bush is elected, and then all the Republicans vote with him, with Vice President Cheney, they could vote 51-50 for whatever system they wanted. But since in the Senate it only takes 41 votes to stop anything except the budget, that is a difficult sell. And I think-all I can tell you is, I think the country would like it. The country would like to see that one House of the Congress shared the resources, even-Steven, and shared the responsibilities. Somebody could chair a hearing today; somebody else could chair it tomorrow, because as a practical matter, to pass any of these bills, they are going to have to have broad bipartisan cooperation anyway.


And I think that it-we know that there is kind of a dynamic center in America that has the support of two-thirds of the American people, and if they could reach out for that in the Senate, it might be quite exciting. Now, it is also going to be interesting in the House. Now, there will only be, depending on-I think there are one or two recounts still going on in the House, so there will be, in effect, a three- or four-vote difference in the House-margin. And they need to decide whether that is going to change their rules any, because individual House Members or even our whole caucus in the minority, no matter how narrow the minority, very often cannot affect a rule. So in the House, debate tends to be cut off much more. So they are going to have to think, should they change the procedures in the House as well, at least-not necessarily to have cochairmen, because they do have a narrow majority in the Republican Party, but at least to have the opportunity for more options to be considered. But I would not assume it is going to be bad, because they do have more money. They have a strong economy, and if they keep paying the debt down, it will keep going for some time to come, I think. Let us look at what we have learned from this extraordinary period. Should we now consider voting reform, looking at these machines, looking at the vote count? For one thing, even-I was impressed-I did not know very much-I am probably like most Americans; I did not know very much about some of this beforehand. When I voted absentee, most of the time I was here in the White House, from Arkansas, instead of a punchcard system, we had a system with an arrow by every choice, and you had to take a pencil and fill in the arrow. There was a gap in the arrow, and you had to fill it in. So it was much less subject to misinterpretation. And I think-the question I think is, can we find a way to both simplify the ballot but also feel good about the return? For example, in northern California this year, in a county there was an experimental computerized voting system, where you punched on a screen the person you were for, and it would say, You have voted for Ralph Nader.


If that is correct and that is what you meant to do, punch 1, and you punched 1, so it had a guarantee. None of these 3,400 predominantly Jewish voters that now think they voted for Buchanan-or did vote for Buchanan, who apparently meant to vote for Vice President Gore-you could not have that happen there. The only question I would have with that is, every computer from time to time goes down, so you would not have any error in the voting there like you did with the 19,500 doublepunched ballots in Palm Beach County or the 10,000 African-Americans who apparently were told they had to vote on two pages, and then they wind up voting for some of these minor Presidential party candidates they never even heard of and did not know what they were doing, so that is 10,000 more votes out the window that were lost. You could probably fix that with electronic voting. In other words, there may not be any perfect system, but it seems to me that-I think particularly troubling to people is the evidence that is come out that these punchcard systems where there was most of the trouble had a plastic coating underneath, rather than the original sort of spongelike design which would have made it much easier to pierce all the way through-that they tended to be in the counties that had lower per capita income voters, and therefore, the people that maybe needed to vote the most, that we have always tried to bring into the political system, lost their votes because of a flaw in the system. But the only thing that bothers me about the northern California system is-I think you can probably design it, but to have the confidence in the voters-because every system has to be subject to a recount at some point if it is a close enough election. Even a computerized system has got to be very hard-like in Canada. Of course, they only have 30 million people in Canada, but in Canada, interestingly enough, they all still vote with paper ballots, and they have like 100,000 counters, so they count all the ballots within an hour of the polling close, even though they are all paper ballots. He played golf with me over the weekend. And I said, Do not you all vote with paper ballots? And I said, How did you count them all? He said, We have 100,000 counters.


He says, Every community has equal-all the parties are represented, and then there is sort of a judicial overseer type. And we all sit there and look; everybody can watch everybody else; and you just count the ballots right away. You are an advocate of hightech. You are an advocate of applying science to technology and applying that to our lives. Should that not also be applied to the way that we choose our representatives? Yes, I think anything that increases the likelihood that a legal voter will have his or her vote counted in the appropriate way should be done. Anything that increases the likelihood that every legal voter will actually fully understand the ballot and not make the wrong choice by accident should be done. Yes, this is what I ordered; this is what it cost; this is what I know. If you can simplify the voting that way, that would be good. The only question I have is, what do you do if the computer goes down, and how do you know for sure that no votes are lost, so that there has to be a recount, you know that the tabulation is accurate, because that is also very important? You are never going to have a time in America where we are never evenly divided over something. So anyone who runs for office ought to have access to some sort of legitimate recount if it is very tight or if it is a deadeven vote. But I think that, surely, a lot can be done to make sure that no one ever goes into the polling place in a national election with ballots as confusing and as subject to error as we have seen here. You just think how you'd feel if you were one of the people who had lost his or her vote. We have a lot of friends with kinfolks down in Florida who think they may be some of the people whose votes were wrongly cast. ENTITY, we are talking about science and technology. And your administration is coming to a close. In years to come, looking back, how would you like the administration to be remembered in this area? First, I would like to be remembered for a serious commitment to pushing America forward and keeping us on the forefront of science and technology in two or three areas. We reorganized and revitalized the space program, kept it alive, and kept it moving. We had a very serious attempt to deal with the climate change in the development of alternative energy sources and conservation. We finished the sequencing of the human genome and began to work on its practical implications.


What is the main purpose of your trip to Australia? Are you hoping for greater Australian contribution to the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq? No, the main purpose is to thank the people of Australia and thank my friend John Howard for being strong in the face of terror and being understanding that we have a historic opportunity to bring peace and freedom to parts of the world that need peace and freedom. I would define our relationship as a unique relationship. And I am looking forward to it. They tell me it is kind of like Texas, which is another reason I want to go. But not everyone agrees-in Australia, agrees with you on the war. Some members of the opposition are talking about possibly protesting when you address the Parliament by wearing white armbands or turning their backs. Would that concern you? It is a- I do not expect everybody to agree with us, but one thing is for certain, the Prime Minister was strong. And I have talked to a lot of our generals and commanders about how the Australians participated, and they were just- A-plus was the rating. And I think a lot of people would like to hear that from the ENTITY, and I am going to tell them. And if somebody feels like they want to express discontent, that is okay. Well, what about the suggestion from your critics that while you won the war, the peace is being bungled? We are making great progress in Iraq. We have got a pretty steep hill to climb. After all, one, we are facing a bunch of terrorists who cannot stand freedom. These thugs were in power for a while, and now they are not going to be in power anymore, and they do not like it. And they are willing to kill innocent people. And secondly, that life is pretty darn good compared to what it was under Sad-dam Hussein. I talked to our Secretary of Commerce today. His exact-he is in Baghdad. He said, Look, he said, ENTITY, he said, You are not going to believe the world here is a lot different than some in America think it is. He met with women businessowners. I mean, there is excitement there about a free society emerging, and it is in our interests that this society be free. What is going to happen to them? And what do you say to people in Australia who think they should be either charged or released? Well, we would be glad to work with the Government on the issue.

Interview With Laurence Oakes of Australia's Channel 9 TV


And if John wants to discuss it, I am more than happy to discuss it. We are working with a variety of countries that have got people in Guantanamo Bay. These are people picked up on the battlefield. We are trying to learn more about them to make sure we fully understand-- We do not torture people in America. And people who make that claim just do not know anything about our country. Another issue between the two countries is the-possibly the free trade agreement. Do you think you will get it, and will you be using this to push it along? I told John that we'd like to get a free trade agreement done by the end of this year, and I think it is a good opportunity to say that again. And he and I will not sit down and negotiate the fine points. That is what we have got fine staffs to do, but at our level we can encourage the negotiators to move along. Let us resolve our differences. Australia is an important friend, an important economy, and I think trade is in our national interests. Australians have spent this week at memorial services for the victims of the Bali bombing. Can you hold out any hope for them that this-that the war on terrorism is actually getting somewhere? He is the guy that organized the Bali bombing. He will not be bombing anybody anymore. First of all, I understand what it means to be in a country that grieves over the senseless death of innocent life. And the Australians suffered a mighty blow. And the-matter of fact, the other day I was in Kentucky, you know, politics for a guy running for Governor. And a mother-a fine looking couple walked up, a mom and dad, said, You have got to know, our daughter died in Bali, and tears in his eyes. And I gave him a big hug. And he said, ENTITY, whatever you do, do not stop, so it does not happen again. The best way to deal with terror is to be on the offensive and to find these people and bring them to justice. That is why Australia is such an important partner, equal partner, in the war on terror. John Howard gets it. The Prime Minister knows that we have got to be tough and at the same time create the conditions where there is an alternative to terrorism, and that is freedom and peace. You are in trouble politically, if you believe the polls. Why do you say that? The polls show you dropping in popularity.


This is the Oval Office in the White House. First, ENTITY, let me thank you for this opportunity to give us an interview before the Moscow summit. I am from the YLE, Finland. And I am here with Edward Stourton, ITN, Britain; Antonclio Marescalchi, RAI, Italy; Kenichi Iida, NHK, Japan; Wolf von Lojewski, ARD, West Germany, and Jacques Abouchar, Antenne-2, France. And, ENTITY, you are soon in Helsinki, and next Friday you will speak from the very same stage where the Helsinki document was signed in 1975. And at that time, President Gerald Ford was criticized by going there and signing on to something that was cause of detente, which only served the Soviet interest, as it was said. How do you evaluate the document now? Well, I value it very much because it specified the agreement of a number of governments to recognize those basic rules of freedom for people. And since our country, this country here, is the first one that ever declared that government is the servant of the people, not the other way around, we heartily endorsed it. Right now our concern, as I am sure the concern of a great many other people is that there has not been a complete keeping of those pledges in that agreement by some of the participants-by the Soviet Union, particularly-in recognizing the fundamental rights of people to leave a country, return to a country, worship as they will, and so forth. has moved that direction after this document- I am, I think, reasonably optimistic in view of the summit meetings that we have had, and the meeting we are going to have, that we have made progress with the Soviet Union on a number of those things under the present leader. ENTITY, you hoped, I think, to have an agreement on strategic nuclear weapons ready to sign in Moscow. You have not got one. Is it still realistic to expect a START agreement in the lifetime of this administration, or is Mr. Gorbachev simply going to sit on his hands and wait for the next President? Well, I do not know whether he necessarily wants to do that and gamble that much. But we are working as hard as we can, and it is a far more complex treaty than the INF treaty, which we did sign here at the summit in Washington.

Interview With Foreign Television Journalists


We will continue to work there at the summit if it is not completed, and none of us really think that it will be because of the complexity. But I think that it is possible that we could have that, yes, while this administration is still here. Since the last time you saw Mr. Gorbachev, your former press spokesman has said that he manufactured quotations on your behalf, including one at a summit. Your former Chief of Staff has said that astrology played a part in your scheduling, indeed, in summit planning. How do you think that may change the way Mr. Gorbachev views the President and the administration he is dealing with? Well, I hope Mr. Gorbachev has heard some of the things that I have been saying about those charges, because no decision was ever made by me on the basis of astrology. And some of these other things-the quotations by a former Press Secretary-actually, I have to say he was not too far wrong with some of the things that were being said in our earlier summit meetings. I remember that the General Secretary and I, together in a room, one on one, remarked about the uniqueness of our situation and that very possibly, between us, war and peace for the world could be decided, depending on what we did. And I remember also saying to him that I did not think that we distrusted each other because of our armaments. We were armed because we distrusted each other. And therefore, while we were going to talk about weapons and reducing the number of weapons and so forth, at the same time we should recognize that we ought to try and eliminate those things that cause the mistrust between us. Among the many discussions you will have in Moscow, probably you will talk with Mr. Gorbachev about the Middle East. What is your opinion for the future of the occupied territories? And do you know there is a projected program of a possibility of sending some European troops under the United Nations flag? What is your opinion about that in the Arab-occupied territories? Well, I do not know about the sending of troops or anything of that kind. I'd like to be a little more optimistic and say that I believe there is a desire in the Middle East to settle once and for all what is still technically a state of war between the Arab nations and Israel. We have made a proposal, and this proposal could involve putting together an international conference of nations.


not an international conference to dictate a settlement but to be helpful if we can, to give advice and to make proposals that might help them arrive at a fair and just peace. And if the Soviet Union is to be a member of that conference, I think there they have a step they have to take, and that is to resume diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. But who will represent the Palestinians-the PLO? And actually I think that a lot of that has to do with the feeling that some of the Arab States-because I know that there is a great difference in many of the nations about who could be a proper representative for the Palestinian people and a great feeling that that could hardly be Arafat's element, since here again you have a group that refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a nation. ENTITY, do you honestly support a statement made by British Prime Minister Thatcher that the West should support Mr. Gorbachev's domestic reform because it is not only to the benefit of the Soviet people but also to the West? Well, yes, I think that if there is any way that outside nations could be helpful in this they should because many of the reforms that he is undertaking are aimed at the things that we have always criticized in the Soviet Union. And if there is a way to be helpful in that, and certainly to at least acknowledge our approval of what he is doing, that we should do that. Could you tell me what is your personal opinion of Mr. Gorbachev's ability to reform his country and chance of success? Well, I think it is evident that he is running into opposition, that there are those who want to cling to what are more the Stalinist policies, and yet he is apparently going forward with the recommendations. Just recently it became public information that he had met with the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church and discussed some loosening of their opposition to worship. ENTITY, with Mr. Gorbaehev running into some kind of opposition and your term of office expiring, have you ever discussed what is solid and will definitely remain of the arms control process, for example, whoever is in the White House, whoever is in the Kremlin, or do you see the chance that this thing might falter, for example, like detente did? We have to recognize, I think, that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.


Once you engage in that kind of conflict, how do you declare a victor if their country is so poisoned by radiation that there is no place for the people to live? And that is what would result if we began exchanging the weapons that we have today. I think that is what has led us to some success in the reduction of nuclear weapons, is that recognition. Possibly in the Soviet Union it was their tragic experience with Chernobyl and to see that how an area would be made unlivable for the people who had lived all their lives there. And when you stop to think that that explosion was less than the power of one single warhead, and we are talking about exchanges of thousands of warheads. I was interested one day not too long ago, back around the time of our summit meeting here, to hear in this room my own words coming back to me, not with any acknowledgement that they were mine-maybe he did not know it-but from a Soviet official who word for word said, a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. The Germans, for example-there are a few people across a political aisle who after INF believe-or are very nervous about modernizing short-range nuclear missiles. They say the shorter the range of the nuclear missiles in central Europe the more dead are the Germans. How can you reconcile these people? Well, I know, and I have talked with the Chancellor many times about this. And they see the possibility of-if such a war would occur-they would be the battlefield, largely. But at the same time, as I say, those weapons-I have to repeat myself-those weapons are the thing that right at the moment are kind of wiping out the imbalance in conventional weapons. And when you look at that imbalance, you have to say that the Soviet Union's military does not really represent a defensive force; it is far beyond the bounds of what is needed for defense. And so, you look at that as an offensive force. And since the nuclear weapons have been hailed as a deterrent to prevent war, I think that it is only logical that if we negotiate those battlefield tactical weapons and their reduction or elimination, that must be accompanied by the same kind of negotiations with regard to conventional weapons so that we come down to a parity and do not suddenly eliminate a form of weapon that leaves the other side with a great superiority. That might be too much of a temptation to some future leader.


In the last 2 years, France has obtained the release of 10 French hostages while 9 U.S. hostages are still held in Beirut. So, what is your idea about it? Do you think the French are more efficient than you are, or do you suspect the French to have made a deal with the terrorists? I cannot say, and I cannot hazard a comment because I know none of the elements that were involved in that transaction. I still think that all of us want our hostages free. I believe it is the duty of government when the citizens of a country are-their human rights are being unjustly denied by a means of that kind of kidnaping-that the government should take advantage of everything it can to get those people free. At the same time, we must recognize we cannot do something in the form of ransom that creates an advantage for those other countries in taking hostages. I have labored under a misapprehension here-well, worldwide, I guess-about the so-called Iran-contra affair. We were not dealing with the Khomeini or with the Iranian Government. Some individuals had sought a meeting with us on the basis of better relations in the event of the passing of the Khomeini and that it would be a new government. And they had an idea of a different kind of government and a relationship with us. And at one time, asking us to prove our credentials, they made the proposal of us violating our policy and selling, really, a token force of weapons to them, and also that they could use those to build some prestige for themselves with the military, which they would need if they were to become important in the next government. Well, I said back to them that, yes, we could do that, even though it was against our policy of providing weapons for nations that supported terrorism. But they had made it plain that they did not support terrorism. And I said we have kidnaped now some Americans held hostage by an organization, the Hizballah, that we understand has a relationship with the Government of Iran, and said maybe you would have some influence, that if we did this, you could be helpful to us to try to get some of our hostages free. Now, we argued right in this room about it, and some people said that would appear to be trading arms for hostages.


Well, no, because we were not giving them to the Government, and we were not -or we were not giving them, I should say, to the kidnapers. We were doing nothing to make an advantage for them. And I likened it to if I had a child who was kidnaped. I do not think that you should pay ransom, but if I found there was another individual that could get that child back for me in return for my doing something for him, that would be all right. And the truth was we got two hostages back and had two more that were scheduled to be released in the next 48 hours. And that was when the story was leaked, of what was going on, in that Lebanese paper. And all of a sudden the world media was full of this and translating it as trading arms for hostages. And I went on the air and tried to convince all of them that we were not trading arms for hostages and tell them what the truth was, but that is what it is been made to appear. Speaking of Iran, France is reestablishing diplomatic ties with Tehran while the U.S. is still in a situation of undeclared war in the Gulf against Iran. How do you explain such a difference between close allies? We have been doing everything we can behind the scenes to try and bring about peace between Iraq and Iran. The U.N. proposal that was made about them coming to a peace was accepted by Iraq, but not by Iran. And our position in the Gulf-yes, it is brought us into combat with Iranian forces, but we have had naval forces there since 1949 to ensure that that international waterway comes under the international rules of freedom of the seas. And it is Iran that has been trying to close that off and shut down an international waterway, and we do not think that that should be allowed. And that is what we are intending to do, is to try and keep it open. ENTITY, you are going to certainly talk about Afghanistan while in Moscow. Is it United States policy now to support the rebels or give the Soviet Union a hand by trying to calm down the situation?


We feel that as long as the Soviet Union has provided support and arms and so forth and advisers to the Afghan force of their puppet government, that even though they go, we must continue to support the Mujahidin so that the people of Afghanistan can now, without the absence of the Soviet Union-I mean without the presence of the Soviet Union, that they can bring about a government that is a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan. And we do not recognize that the government there in Kabul is anything but a puppet government established by the Soviet Union. And so, yes, as long as weapons are being supplied to that other side, we are going to do whatever is necessary to support the Mujahidin. ENTITY, the Vice President yesterday broke publicly with you over the negotiations with Panama's General Noriega. He said he would not negotiate with a drug dealer. Is not his stand rather more consistent with the administration's hard line on drugs than your own? Well, I think that I have not changed my mind about the hard line on drugs. But you have me now in a situation in which I cannot comment on what has been going on because there has been no resolution as yet. I can see why the Vice President said what he said because the impression has been given, based not on information from us but based on rumors and news leaks and so forth, that we are in negotiation somehow over-or with a participant in the drug trade and all. And I think he was making himself plain that you do not negotiate with people of that kind with regard to their activity in drugs. Our goal, what we are trying to achieve, is the restoration of democracy in Panama. Right now we have a situation where, not legally but just through custom and tradition and started by a previous general, that you have a military dictatorship, in effect, in which even if the people elect a President, the dictator, using force, maintains control. And our goal is a democratic Panama with a government chosen by the people. When you speak about-I know you hate the word, the name, but they are Star Wars in Moscow-but at what stage are we? Could you elaborate a little bit about the Star Wars?


Well, this started a number of years ago when I first came here and I met with the military of our own country and asked, is it possible, can you foresee that our science and technology is such that we could create a defensive weapon against nuclear missiles, ballistic missiles, that could literally make them obsolete because there would be so much doubt as to whether, if they were once employed, they could ever get through that defense? And a few days later, they came back and told me that, yes, they believed such a weapon could be designed. And I said, go to it! It has made such great progress-some scientific breakthroughs-that the people involved believe that not only can we have such a system but that it will come much earlier than we had believed was possible. There have been a number of breakthroughs that have advanced the timing on this. And then, once you have such a weapon, I believe that that is when we could then really move worldwide, even if it meant sharing that weapon. And I would be amenable to that, that if we had such a weapon, a defensive weapon, that we could eliminate the offensive missiles. Now, the question arises naturally, well, then, why would you need that system if you'd eliminated the weapons? Well, you cannot wipe out of people's minds the knowledge of how to build a nuclear missile. And someday there could be a madman loose in the world, as we have seen in our own lifetime a number of times, who, with that knowledge, could then secretly build the only one. I have likened it to when, after World War I, the nations all met in Geneva and decided to eliminate poison gas. But everybody kept their gas masks. ENTITY, you deserve credit for including a Far East Asian region for elimination of INF at the Washington summit. What is your next logical step to ease the tensions in the Asian region, for example, Korean Peninsula, where, as you know, the Olympic games will be hurt? Well, now, I am not quite sure I understand your question there. How do you plan to propose to Mr. Gorbachev in order to ease the tensions in the Asian region? I think that all of us have an obligation to see that in the world tensions that nothing-if I am answering you correctly-in the area of terrorism or something could be employed to upset the Olympic games.


And I think what that would require are those nations that probably have a more friendly relationship with North Korea than we do, by virtue of the war that was fought there, that if some of those other nations would make it plain that North Korea should not take advantage of their proximity to the games and do anything of a terrorist nature to upset those games. ENTITY, how would you like to be remembered in history? I am asking about the Reagan legacy, something like that-just a remark. The two front-runners struggling for your succession-both of them seem to be of quite a different brand of politician, more the managerial type of candidate as compared to a Reagan revolution and inspiration and these kinds of things. Has the mood changed in America? I have to say something about the Republican candidate for President. Now I can safely say that since everyone else has dropped out of the race. I have to say that the Vice President has been an important part of everything that we have achieved in this so-called revolution in these last 7 years or so. I could just give you a figure here of one thing from the very beginning. I had always believed that Vice Presidents in our system of government were relegated to a kind of just standing and waiting position. And I think that is a waste of talent. I have always believed that your Vice President should be like a vice president in a private corporation. He should be an executive with duties and functions. So, one of the first jobs that I put on the Vice President was to set up a task force and find out how many government regulations imposed on the private sector, on people and on local communities and State governments and business and industry-how many could be removed. And that task force, under his direction, was so successful that we estimate that we have eliminated 600 million man-hours a year of filling out government paperwork on the part of the citizens and businesses and the local and State governments. The book that registers-or contains all those regulations-is only half as thick as it used to be. And then I put-in the next time, in the task force when the State of Florida-it became disgraceful, the extent to which drugs were being flooded through there into the United States-and put him in charge of a task force there. And for the first time, he put together the law enforcement agencies from the Federal, the State, and the local level, and including cooperation from the military.