You first time met with President Putin in Slovenia, and now in Slovakia is going to be your 12th meeting. Do we need a fresh start? And what do you expect for this meeting? First of all, we do not need a fresh start in my personal relationship with Vladimir Putin. It is important so that we can he and I can have good talks, and we can understand each other and understand the decision-making process. Vladimir makes a lot of decisions. And I make a lot of decisions. And I like to talk about him about, Well, why did you do this? or Why did you do that? And I suspect he likes to ask me the same questions. Secondly, we have got the framework for a good strategic relationship, which is important. The campaign came, and in American public life, I mean whether it be foreign policy or domestic policy, often you kind of shut down when the campaign comes. People were not really sure who was going to be the next President for a while. I'd call it reinvigorate. We have got the framework, and it gives us a chance to move it forward. Your father was a pilot, was a hero of Second War. What the best the people who can to those who won the war. What can you say to the patriots?  My answer is, is that, thank you for your sacrifice. The Russian veterans the people of Russia went through an unbelievable period of time of sacrifice. The stories of courage and bravery against the onslaught of the Nazis was really fantastic. I mean, it was a great lesson for bravery. And same in our country they call it the Greatest Generation ; that is what they call the World War II people because they sacrificed. And it still this world still requires sacrifice in different ways. And I am looking forward to the celebrations. The wartime alliance, do you have lessons for us now? We have again the common enemy. He sees clearly the common enemy. And we will talk about that common enemy that is still active. The enemy there is a set of beliefs they believe in, and I believe the best way to defeat those beliefs is by spreading freedom and democracy. Free societies spend more time listening to their people and the demands of their people as opposed to being able to fight and spread in this case fighting an ideology that is an ideology of hatred as this as your good country full fully understands. American-Russian relationship what was the biggest success during your first term? And what are your plans for next 4 years?

Interview With Russian ITAR-TASS


VH1 Save The Music, you have been involved for a while. When did you first hear about the program, and why did it draw you? Well, I am trying to remember whether I first heard about it from my wife or whether I read something about it. But I actually wrote a letter to John Sykes because I was so excited about what they were doing. I had been in school music when I was a young person, starting at the age of 9. And I had been really, really upset about all these schools dropping their music programs when I was Governor. And Hillary and I redid the school standards in Arkansas. We tried very hard to protect the music programs and the arts programs and the physical education programs for the people who were not in team sports. And so I realized that all over the country these schools were under more and more financial pressure, and they thought that maybe the path of least resistance was just to get rid of the music programs. And so here was someone trying to do something about it. Growing up I know, I have watched a lot of tapes on you. We did Rock and Roll ENTITY a while back with you. I loved it. They gave me a copy of that. Music education was really important to you, obviously, growing up Looking at where you are now, arguably one of the most important people on the planet, what did music education do for you, and how has it come to play in your life now? Well, first of all, it gave me an outlet for all this energy I had. It gave me a constructive way to be creative. It also taught me discipline, and it taught me that to create something beautiful required hard work and discipline. It taught me how to be to create alone and also how to work with a group, in a band, a jazz band or a combo. It is such a wonderful when I was a kid and I'd have a tough time, as long as I could play, I could always be okay. I could just be in a private place. And it fueled my imagination. And it gave me an appreciation of things in life that has stayed with me to the present day. I can still go in my music room that Hillary built me upstairs in the White House and play for 15 or 20 minutes, and all the cares of the world go away. So you guys have got to remember that when you are playing. Clinton said it.

William J. Clinton Interview With Rebecca Rankin of VH1 in New York City


Let us talk about, there was a resolution passed in Congress a few days ago, unanimous resolution, saying that music education was extremely important. Why is it so important that this was passed, and what is it going to do in the future? Well, I think it was important that it was passed because it shows that the Representatives of the people of both parties have now are acknowledging that it is important and it is a problem because there are so many schools that do not offer it anymore. And I think it will tend to increase public awareness of this, public support for maintaining the music programs. The ENTITY's Advisory Commission on Music and the Arts did a study a couple of years ago, and Hillary was the honorary chair of the committee. They found that local pressure, parental involvement, community involvement was the single most important factor in either keeping or restoring music programs to the schools. I think also, though, the Congress and the ENTITY have a responsibility to keep putting as much money out there to the schools to pay for their other expenses as possible the buildings, the teachers, to have smaller classes so the schools will have the money they need for the music programs. But you know, there is lots and lots of research on this now which shows that if a good school music program increases academic performance, that a lot of young people learn in different ways and are dramatically stimulated by music. So that is another reason we ought to be for this. It actually will help the overall learning enterprise. That is an important point because I think everybody thinks of it as just an art, and it stops there We have had a lot of artists helping us this week with VH1 Save The Music week and the Today Show. Mariah Carey was out yesterday; A.J. McLean from the Backstreet Boys; the Goo Goo Dolls. Today we have Bon Jovi playing at the Today Show in Rockefeller Center. I love Bon Jovi. I am a music fan of his. I like his acting. He is doing very well in the movies now. He is been to the White House to visit Hillary and me on several occasions. And I am pleased for his success, and I am grateful that he is helping today. What does it say to the public to have such important sort of star power behind a program like VH1 Save The Music? Well, I hope that it increases the public's awareness. I mean, these people could all be doing something else.


Next week, ENTITY makes his first visit to Europe as ENTITY. a summit with NATO heads of government, talks on the Middle East with , and meetings with the Governments of Spain and Italy. Today, ENTITY has invited us to the White House to discuss the issues facing the West. It is the first time an American ENTITY has met European journalists in a television program of this kind. ENTITY's travels come at a pregnant time. He leaves an America somewhat doubtful about its world role as it absorbs the sudden, final collapse in Indochina. He faces a Western Europe hungry for reassurance, but again somewhat doubtful of America's present will and capacity to back up that reassurance. ENTITY, we are gathered in the room from which Franklin Roosevelt delivered his famous fireside chats to rekindle the American spirit during the Great Depression of the thirties. Do you see your travels to Europe as necessary to rekindle the spirit of the Atlantic Alliance? I think the trip has a perhaps broader aspect or implication. First, I should say that the closeness between the United States and the Western European countries has a long history and an important future. The trip, as I see it, is aimed at solidifying and making more cohesive this relationship-economically, diplomatically, and militarily. I also see it as an opportunity for us to take a look at the past and consult about the future and to make our personal relationships even better. And if we approach it with that attitude or with those viewpoints, it is my opinion that we, as well as the other allies, can make substantial progress. So many commentators see the Europeans in need of some reassurance. Do you feel that is part of your mission? I am sure that my presence there, and what we intend to say, and what we intend to indicate by our actions, will be very, very helpful in this regard. Has your handling of the Mayaguez incident, in effect, done some of that work for you by reaffirming America's will to respond when challenged? I am sure that both domestically in the United States, as well as worldwide, the handling of the Mayaguez incident should be a firm assurance that the United States is capable and has the will to act in emergencies, in challenges. I think this is a clear, clear indication that we are not only strong but we have the will and the capability of moving.

Interview With European Journalists.


ENTITY, it seems to me that the handling of the Mayaguez incident proved your own determined character, but not necessarily the American will. It was short, and it did not need any Congressional decisions. What has weakened the credibility of the American commitments, I think, in the eyes of the allies are these restrictions and limitations that Congress has put on the Presidency. And then there is also feeling that a kind of neo-isolationism is rising in Congress. I was wondering how you would deal with this doubt in American credibility? Now, I believe there are some new indications that indicate that Congress is taking another look, and perhaps the Mayaguez incident will be helpful in that regard. There were some limitations, but we lived within them. But it was rather short, and it did not require an extensive commitment. But there are some things taking place in the Congress today that I think ought to reassure our allies that the United States--ENTITY, the Congress, and the American people--can and will work together in an extended commitment. Let me give you an illustration. This past week, the House of Representatives, in a very, very important vote, defeated an amendment that would have forced the withdrawal of 70,000 U.S. military personnel on a worldwide basis. And of course, that would have affected our commitment to NATO. And the vote in the House of Representatives was 311 to 95, as I recall. It was a much more favorable vote this year than the vote a year ago. I think this is an indication that the American people are getting out from under the trauma of our problems in Vietnam. Senator Mansfield--the Democratic leader in the United States Senate--has always, in the past, been demanding and favoring a withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from NATO. Just the other day, he publicly stated that he was reassessing his position and wondered if it was not now the time to perhaps keep our strength there until certain other circumstances developed. During the debate in the House of Representatives, the Democratic leader, Congressman O'Neill of Massachusetts, said this was not the time or not the place or not the number for the United States to withdraw troops from overseas. What I am saying is, we may be entering a new era, an era that will be very visible and very substantive in showing the United States capability and will to not only do something in a short period of time but to stick with it. Are you taking a Congressional delegation with you to Brussels?

Interview With European Journalists.


It might not be very helpful for Members of Congress to explain the situation in Congress, and it may also have some advantages vice versa. We have a continuous flow of Members of the Congress, Senators and Congressmen, traveling to Europe, and I think it is good. They meet periodically with their counterparts in various European countries. So, there is no doubt that the attitude of Congress will be well explained to heads of state and to other parliamentarians. I do not think it is necessary to take on this trip Members of the House and Senate. May I focus one moment on the shade of difference between the political and the military type of assurances the United States can give to Europe? Europeans are concerned not as much at the link between the American security and the European security but between American security and what we may call the future of European democracies, which are in trouble in some cases. How do you look at the all-political problem from this point of view? We, of course, have to be most careful that we do not involve ourselves in the internal politics of any country, European or otherwise. We, of course, hope that there is stability in any and all governments, in Europe particularly, and that the political philosophy of the party that controls the country is one that has a relationship to our own political philosophy, not in a partisan way but in a philosophical way. And when we see some elements in some countries gaining ground--the Communist element, for example--it does concern us. We, of course, were encouraged by the fine vote of the Portuguese people. I think the Communist party got only 12 percent of the vote and the non-Communist parties got the rest. But, unfortunately, that vote has not as of this time had any significant impact on those that control the government, but nevertheless we approve of the political philosophy of the people of Portugal. We are concerned with some of the elements in the government. ENTITY, could I come back to the Congressional question for a moment. Are you saying that as a result of the trends you see now in the Congress that you are no longer, as you were at your press conference on April 3, frustrated by the restrictions Congress has placed on the Chief Executive? I said this was the beginning, perhaps, of a new era. Could it lead to the Congress reversing itself on the War Powers Act? I doubt that. I think the Congress felt that the War Powers Act worked reasonably well in the Mayaguez incident.

Interview With European Journalists.


But there are some other limitations and restrictions imposed by Congress which I think are counterproductive or not helpful--for example, the aid cutoff to Turkey. Turkey is a fine ally in NATO. We have had over a long period of time excellent political and diplomatic relations with Turkey. I am working very hard, for example, to try and get the Congress to remove that limitation on aid to Turkey. We have been successful in the Senate. We hope to do so in the House. But there are some others, plus that, that I hope we can modify or remove in order for the ENTITY to act decisively, strongly, in conjunction with the Congress, but not hamstrung by the Congress. ENTITY, the Europeans have been deeply struck by a poll recently indicating that the American people would only accept military intervention to defend Canada and no other country. Now, this seems to indicate a deep sense of isolationism or at least neo-isolationism, and I wonder what you feel about that question, what you think of that poll, and how you think you can react against that trend in your own country? I am positive that that poll was an aftermath of our involvement in Vietnam. I believe that the United States, the American people, will completely live up to any international commitments that we have. That poll was taken in isolation, so to speak. It was not related to any crisis or any challenge. I think the record of the American people in the past is one that clearly indicates we will respond to a challenge, we will meet a crisis and will live up to our commitments. The history is better than some poll taken in isolation. You do not feel that there is, then, an isolationist mood in America at this stage? I think there was one developing during and even to some extent after the war in Indochina or in South Vietnam. But now that we are freed of that problem, it seems to me that the American people will feel better about their relationships around the world, will want me as ENTITY and will want the Congress as their Congress to live up to the commitments and be a part of an interdependent world in which we live today. ENTITY, could we move on to the relations with the Communist world and the question of detente.

Interview With European Journalists.


It seems to many that the United States is moving into a new emphasis in its foreign policy away from detente towards more support for the allies; in fact--Secretary Kissinger has even used the word--of a need for a new abrasive foreign policy. How would you describe the post-Vietnam foreign policy, and is it shifting away from detente? I do not think there is a contradiction between reaffirmation and strengthening of our relationships with our allies and a continuation of detente. The United States, through many administrations following World War II, has had a consistent foreign policy. It is my desire, as ENTITY, to build on this foreign policy that has been developed over the years. It does encompass working with our allies in Europe, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, and in other parts of the world, and I think by strengthening those relationships, it gives us a better opportunity to use detente for the purposes for which it was designed. Detente was not aimed at solving all the problems. It was an arrangement-and still is--for the easing of tensions when we have a crisis. Now, it cannot solve every crisis, but it can be very helpful in some, and it can have some long-range implications; for example, SALT I and hopefully SALT II. What I am saying is that our policy can be one of working more closely with our allies and, at the same time, working, where we can, effectively with our adversaries or potential adversaries. ENTITY, Secretary Kissinger has just repeated the American commitment to West Berlin. He called it, as I recall it, the acid test of detente. Now, the Soviet Union has recently challenged the four-power status of Berlin by raising some questions about East Berlin. Do you think that this is helpful for detente or that this is something which goes into the general area that you just described? It would seem to me the broad description I gave can be very applicable to the problem raised involving Berlin. If the allies are strong, that will have an impact on any attitude that the Soviet Union might take, and at the same time the existence of detente gives the Soviet Union and ourselves an opportunity to work in the solution of the problem in an atmosphere with less tension.

Interview With European Journalists.


Do you get the feeling in Congress that there is a certain suspicion that the Russians are getting more out of detente, as some of the leading Members of Congress have said, than the United States? I think there are some Members of Congress--and perhaps some in the United States in the nonpolitical arena--who have the impression that the Soviet Union has been a bigger beneficiary than the United States. I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. I think detente has had mutual benefits. And I would hope that as we move ahead, the mutuality of the benefits will continue. I do not believe that those who challenge detente and say it is one-sided are accurate. I think they are completely in error. May I put the question differently? Since detente is a way of looking at current affairs, do you subscribe to the argument that the United States should only do what it finds in its own interests, no matter how appealing detente may look at times? Should the United States stick only to what it finds in its own interests, no matter how appealing detente may look? You mean in the United States interest vis-a-vis the Soviet Union or the United States vis-a-vis its allies and friends around the world? Also, in terms of, say, the European Security Conference, for instance, where the question has been raised as to what the usefulness of this whole exercise would be for the Europeans and the Americans without a counterpart? I would hope that detente would have a broader application than only in our own self-interest. But I must say that we have to be very certain that what we do does not undercut our own security. Detente has been used on some occasions, if my memory serves me correctly, to ease tensions on a broader area than just in U.S.-Soviet Union relations. Could you tell us whether the recent talks between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Gromyko1 have helped to overcome some of the obstacles that you encountered on SALT? They, of course, went into the status of our SALT II negotiations. I do not think I should discuss any of the details. I think they will be helpful in the resolution of some of the negotiations that had to follow after the Vladivostok meeting last December.

Interview With European Journalists.


Do you feel that from now on, when there are certain problems going on the periphery of the Western world and of detente, you should take the Russians to task on those subjects in a harsher way than you have done up to now--in Vietnam, for example, and the help they gave to the North Vietnamese? We have indicated quite clearly that we did not approve of the supplying of Soviet arms to the North Vietnamese. We have clearly said that detente is not a fishing license in troubled waters. I think that the implication of that statement is very clear. We intend to be very firm, but detente gives us an opportunity to be flexible and flexible in a very meaningful way. So, it will be orchestrated to meet the precise problem that is on the agenda. ENTITY, on SALT, one more question, if I may. Do you think, sir, that to solve the problems that have come up in SALT II, it requires a political impetus and decision by the two leaders involved, namely, yourself and the General Secretary? We found from the meeting in Vladivostok that there were certain issues that had to be solved at the very highest level, and Mr. Brezhnev and myself did do that. I suspect that as we move into the final negotiations it will be required that the General Secretary and myself make some final decisions. And therefore I would hope that the preliminaries can be gotten out of the way and most of the issues can be resolved, and then the final small print, so to speak, can be resolved when Mr. Brezhnev and I meet, hopefully this fall. you said a moment ago, talking about detente, if the allies are strong, detente will work. A lot of commentators--and one noted one in Newsweek this week--see a perceptible sliding among the allies in Western Europe with the growth of pacifist spirit, a growth of Marxist philosophy in certain governments in the West, and wonder and are asking whether they are not going to end up in the embrace of the Soviet Union in making an accommodation with the Soviet Union. Do you have any slight fears as you set out for Europe that that is what is happening to the Western alliance and you need to do something about it? I have followed the recent meeting of the secretaries of defense, so to speak, and the report I got back was encouraging.

Interview With European Journalists.


We do have to upgrade, we do have to modernize our military capability in the Alliance, and I think we will. I am convinced that in the political area, the meeting we are going to have will be helpful and beneficial in that regard. So, although I see some problems in one or more countries internally, I think basically the Alliance is strong. And as long as our allies in Europe see that the United States is not going to pull out, that the United States will continue to be a strong partner, I think this will strengthen the forces favoring the Alliance in our European allies. Therefore, you believe that these problems can be settled without too much difficulty? I certainly recognize the problem between Greece and Turkey involving Cyprus. There are to be both Karamanlis and Demirel in Brussels, and I hope to meet with both and see if we can in any way be helpful. I think this is a solvable problem and there is a beginning of the negotiating process that hopefully will lead to a solution. We have to recognize that everything is not perfect, but that does not mean we cannot solve those problems that are on our doorstep. Now, ENTITY, there is another problem which is perhaps more important still, which is the one of Portugal. It is going to make, I suppose, discussions in NATO very difficult with a Portuguese Government which is dominated by the Communists. Do you think that eventually a new law or new regulation should be made so that countries who do not follow the ideology of the Western world can leave NATO or should be encouraged to leave NATO, such as the pro-Communist Portuguese Government? I am concerned about the Communist element and its influence in Portugal and, therefore, Portugal's relationship with NATO. This is a matter that I will certainly bring up when we meet in Brussels. I do not see how you can have a Communist element significant in an organization that was put together and formed for the purpose of meeting a challenge by Communist elements from the East. It does present a very serious matter, and it is one that I intend to discuss while I am in Brussels. ENTITY, it has been reported that when the Portuguese elections were approaching and it looked as though the Communists were going to do much better in the elections than they actually did that you were in favor of some action by the United States to reduce the possibility of their success and possibly using the CIA in some form. Could you tell us about that? I do not think I ought to discuss internal matters that might have involved another country.

Interview With European Journalists.


We had no involvement. So, I think I should leave it right there. ENTITY, you and your mission in Europe will be very close to Portugal. You will be stopping in the Iberian Peninsula, in Madrid. Spain is one country which does not belong to the NATO community, and it does not belong to the Europe of Nine , either. The Spanish people have been asking for a long time to be more closely associated with the European defense--collective defense setup--and your Government perhaps has looked with even more sympathy of recent to the Spanish request. How do you view this policy by the Spanish Government at this time? Well, the United States has had a long and friendly relationship with Spain. In 1970, we signed a friendship agreement. In 1974, we had a declaration of principles that involved our relationship in many, many areas on a broad basis. We think Spain, because of its geographical location, because of other factors, is important in the Mediterranean, in Europe. We believe that somehow Spain should be eased into a greater role in the overall situation in Europe. I am not sure that is something that has to be done at the present time, but it does seem to me that Spain, for the reasons I have given, ought to be brought more closely as far as our relations in the Alliance. Has the Portuguese development, ENTITY, speeded that thinking? ENTITY, in your first speech when you became ENTITY--first important speech--you talked of Europe, you talked of alliance, and you never mentioned the word Europe, and you were criticized for that in Europe. And you still since have given the impression that, for you, Europe is more the NATO organization than the Community. I would like to ask you, do you consider Europe as an entity? Do you think it should have its own independence and its own unity? What are your views on that? I do consider Europe as an entity. On the other hand, we have direct relationships with the major nations in Europe through NATO. On the other hand, we do in the future and have in the past worked within the economic system with Europe as a whole. For example, we have worked very closely with the International Energy Agency, which is a very important part of our efforts to avoid future problems and to develop some solutions in the field of energy. We look upon Europe as an entity, but on the other hand, we deal in a specific way with Europe, or major nations in Europe, through our NATO alliance.

Interview With European Journalists.


How vital do you think is Britain's participation in Europe? I do not believe I should get involved in how the vote is going to turn out on June 5,2 but I think Europe is strengthened by Britain's participation. I think our overall Western world economic strength is likewise improved and strengthened by Britain's participation. You mentioned the international energy organization, and there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among European governments that they have done much more in reducing the consumption of petrol than the United States has. I know you have tried, and I was wondering now, in view of the fact that Congress did not come up with a bill, are you going to raise the import tax by another dollar? I agree with you entirely. The European nations have done a much better job in reducing the consumption of petrol, or gasoline as we call it, and I admire them for it. As ENTITY, I have tried to convince the Congress that they ought to pass a comprehensive energy program that would aim at conservation on the one hand and new sources of energy on the other. Now, I am going to make a decision in the next 48 hours as to whether or not I will increase by $1 the import levy on foreign oil. They have done literally nothing affirmatively to solve our energy problem. Perhaps the imposition of the extra dollar will stimulate the Congress to meet the problem that is important from the point of view of not only ourselves but the consuming nations--those in Europe, ourselves, Japan. I am very disturbed, I might say, about Congress' lack of affirmative action. The statement by the Shah that he is going to increase the price again by 25 percent has not helped you in Congress, has it? I think it probably has helped us, because if the price of oil is increased and we have no defense against it, it proves the need and necessity for the United States to have the kind of an energy program that I have proposed. If we had that program in place, the one I recommended to the Congress in January, the threat of an increase in the oil price would be far less. It is the lack of action by the Congress that puts us more and more vulnerable to price increases by OPEC nations. So, I hope this prospective or threatened oil price increase will get the Congress to do something such as what I have recommended. Then we would not have to worry about that.

Interview With European Journalists.


Did you try and persuade the Shah not to raise the price of oil, as he is quite influential in the group of OPEC nations? We talked about it. I did point out that it could have very adverse economic impacts, not only on the consuming nations--like Western Europe, the United States, Japan--but it could have very, very bad effects on the less developed nations, who are more of a victim than even ourselves. I would hope that there would be a delaying action, but in order to make ourselves less vulnerable for this one and for other threatened increases in the future, the United States has to have a strong energy program, an energy program that is integrated with that of Western Europe through the International Energy Agency. And I can assure you that we are going to keep urging and pressuring and trying to move the Congress so that we end up with the kind of a program that will preclude these increases. Could I ask one other question on energy? Defense Secretary Schlesinger said in an interview this week that if there came another oil embargo, the United States would not be so tolerant this time and could act, and he even mentioned military action. Now, could you explain what that means? I would rather define our policy this way. We have sought throughout the Middle East to have a policy of cooperation rather than confrontation. We have made a tremendous effort to improve our relations with all Arab countries. And we have continued our efforts to have good relations with Israel. If we put the emphasis on cooperation rather than confrontation, then you do not think about the potentiality that was mentioned by the Secretary of Defense. Since we do believe in cooperation, we do not consider military operations as a part of any policy planning that we have in mind. Well, we put emphasis on cooperation, not confrontation, so we in effect rule out the other. In the spirit of cooperation, we are looking at the United States for leadership in the area of development of alternate sources of energy. We are particularly looking at you for obtaining a nuclear fuel---enriched uranium, natural uranium--and, very important for us, access to technology. you plan to do in this area--in this critical area for many countries of the world? I will be making a decision in the relatively near future as to how we can move affirmatively in this area to provide adequate sources of enriched uranium. We must do it.

Interview With European Journalists.


The basic problem is whether you do it through government on the one hand or private enterprise on the other. We will have a decision; we will get going because we cannot tolerate further delay. ENTITY, there is a great concern in the world about the proliferation of nuclear matter, and the more nuclear powerplants are going to be built, the more the United States is going to supply them, the more of that material will be available in the world. I was wondering whether--the question is the reprocessing of this material. I wonder whether it would be possible to find a multilateral way of trying to reprocess this material, because there is a question of prestige with so many governments involved. We are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear capability. We are trying to upgrade the safeguards when the powerplants are sold or made available. We think there has to be continuous consultation on how we can do it technically and how we can do it diplomatically. We are going to maximize our effort, because if the number of nations having nuclear armaments increases significantly, the risk to the world increases, it multiplies. So, this Administration will do anything technically, diplomatically, or otherwise to avert the danger that you are talking about. ENTITY, the oil and energy race is intimately tied up, of course, with the Middle East. You and Secretary Kissinger have said recently that your reassessment of policy in this most explosive and dangerous area, which has been going on for 2 months, is not yet complete. It is a little difficult to understand how you could have spent 2 months and are, as you say, meeting next week with no new policy. I think my meeting with is a very understandable part of the process. He, of course, has a deep interest and concern in a permanent, peaceful solution in the Middle East. I want to get firsthand from him his analysis, his recommendations. Of course, that meeting will be followed by one with Prime Minister Rabin here on June 11, where I will have the same intimate relationship, where he can give me his analysis and his recommendations. ENTITY, it has been some time since there was an authoritative statement of United States policy vis-a-vis the Middle East with reference to U.N. Resolution 242, which calls for secure boundaries and withdrawal from occupied territories. Would you care to state the policy once again?

Interview With European Journalists.


Of course, the United States voted for U.N. Resolution 242 and 339 , so we do believe that within the confines of those words, any policy in the long run has to fit. But the details, because they were quite general in many respects--the details will be set forth in the policy statement that I will make sometime after meeting with . Do you think that the question of Russian policies and overtures in the Middle East should be duly linked perhaps to other areas? The Soviet Union, as a cochairman of the Geneva conference, obviously has an interest in and a responsibility for progress in the Middle East. I notice that they have been meeting officially, diplomatically with representatives from Israel, and they have been meeting in the same way with many Arab nations. ENTITY , Mr. Schlesinger has again stressed the possibility of using force in case of an embargo in the Middle East, and he said that if there was another embargo, the United States would not have so much patience as last time. How do you feel about that, and in what case do you think military force could eventually be used? As I said a moment ago, the policy of this Government is one of cooperation, not confrontation. And if you put the emphasis on cooperation, then you do not include within any plans you have any military operations. I do not think I should go beyond that, because everything we are doing in the Middle East--the numerous meetings I have had with heads of states, the many consultations that Secretary Kissinger has had with foreign ministers-it is all aimed in trying to, in a cooperative way, solve the problems of the Middle East. And none of those plans that we have incorporate any military operations. ENTITY, if you could give us a longer perspective of history. Some of your aides believe that the West is in decline. And I was wondering whether you share that outlook? I think the West is in a very unique situation today. The West, so to speak, by most standards is technologically ahead of any other part of the world. The West, I think, under our system of free governments, is in a position to move ahead, taking the lead in freedom for people all over the world. It seems to me that whether it is substantively or otherwise, the West could be on the brink of a leap forward, giving leadership to the rest of the world.

Interview With European Journalists.


There is one aspect to the Middle East, ENTITY, which possibly concerns your visit to Europe this next week. Some of your officials have said that one of your concerns was possibly to suggest to the Alliance that it widen its sphere of attention and interest. Does that mean into the Middle East, and what exactly do you have in mind? I do not think the Alliance, as such, ought to involve itself in the Middle East. Of course, every one of the countries in Western Europe, including the United States and Canada, have an interest in a permanent, peaceful solution in the Middle East. And each of the countries will have an impact, some--for one reason or another--more than other nations. But I do not think the Alliance should, as a unified body, move into these very delicate negotiations. What is this initiative that you are reported to be considering to suggest that it does widen its sphere of attention? Well, it would be in a broad, but not substantive way. The impact of each nation, if we could all agree, whether it was done through the Alliance, would be extremely beneficial and most helpful in getting the Arab nations, as well as Israel, to resolve some of these longstanding, volatile questions. Do you mean asking individual members of NATO to do more in the Middle East? Back in NATO--I would like to move back to Europe very briefly--I would like to come back to your answer on your attitude towards the Common Market. I had a feeling by what you were saying that you have a slightly cool attitude towards the Common Market. Do you still believe and support the unity of Europe in the same way as supported it but which was less strongly supported by ? I give full support to the Common Market, the European Community efforts in trying to resolve some of the difficult economic problems. Under this Administration, under my time as ENTITY, we will work together, I hope. And there have been some recent illustrations where we have been able to resolve some very sticky problems in the field of agriculture in a very constructive way. And I have some good evidence, I think, by recent developments that will be the attitude of the Community. ENTITY, are you apprehensive of European rivalry? I am not apprehensive, because I think America is strong and we have the will and we have got the technical capability. I think we can compete with any segment of the globe. I do not like to discount it, but I think competition is beneficial to everybody.

Interview With European Journalists.


Secretary Shultz did give rather a bleak news conference in Moscow and seemed to have struck out, coming back empty-handed. That may or may not be true; maybe you are getting private information otherwise. And what are your maximum and minimum goals for this summit? What do you really think you can get out of it? Oh, Helen , I have not tried to pin it down to success or failure or terms of that kind. We are going there to try and basically eliminate if we can or certainly reduce the distrust between our two countries. We have to live in the world together. And it is that distrust that causes the problems and causes the situation with regard to arms negotiations. As I cited to our Russian friends when they were in here the other day that statement-it is not mine, I wish it were-but a statement that I read in the press the other day that summed it up so succinctly; and that is that nations do not distrust each other because they are armed, they are armed because they distrust each other. Well, do you think you can get anywhere near a semblance of an arms agreement? Will you negotiate Star Wars at all? Well, I will be presenting the same thing that I told those others. My concept of the strategic defense system has been one that, if and when we finally achieve what our goal is, that is a weapon that is effective against incoming missiles-not a weapon, a system that is effective against incoming weapons-missiles-then rather than add to the distrust in the world and appear to be seeking the potential for a first strike by rushing to implement my concept has always been that we sit down with the other nuclear powers, with our allies and our adversaries and see if we cannot use that defensive system for the elimination of nuclear weapons. And that, certainly, I will discuss there and try to impress upon them how firmly we believe in this. I do not think the negotiation of facts and figures about which weapon and how many and numbers and so forth in weaponry should take place at the summit. I think that belongs where we have already put it and that is with the arms control negotiators that are already in Geneva. That is their kind of figuring that should go on. We should not be doing that with all of the things we have to discuss at the summit meeting. At that meeting there are a number of things-some of them I hinted at in the speech in the U.N.-regional situation.

Interview With Representatives of the Wire Services


In other words, try to, as I say, eliminate the distrust that exists between us. ENTITY, if I could pursue the SDI a little bit more. Considering what you told the Soviet journalists when they were here last week, there seems to be some discrepancy between your comments to them and your comments today about what the conditions for deployment would be. Could you explain it to us now? Yes, because I have already explained that to our allies at the United Nations, and this was the first misunderstanding that I have seen about it. I went through the transcript of that interview, and I mentioned it three or four times through there, in the transcript. And I think it was someone just jumped to a false conclusion when they suggested that I was giving a veto to the Soviets over this; that, in other words, if that thing that I have just described to you, that meeting, took place and we could not get satisfaction, that I would say, Well, then, we cannot deploy this defensive system. I could not find any place where that was anything but an erroneous interpretation of what I'd been saying. Obviously, if this took place, we had the weapon-I keep using that term; it is a defensive system-we had a defensive system and we could not get agreement on their part to eliminate the nuclear weapons, we would have done our best and, no, we would go ahead with deployment. But even though, as I say, that would then open us up to the charge of achieving the capacity for a first strike. We do not want that. We want to eliminate things of that kind. And that is why, frankly, I think that any nation offered this under those circumstances that I have described 'would see the value of going forward. Remember that the Soviet Union has already stated its wish that nuclear weapons could be done away with. You say today that you would go ahead with deployment if you had the system and there were not international agreement on mutual deployment. The other day you said that that deployment would be only on condition of what you call disarmament. This misunderstanding, it seems to me, on whoever's part has caused a lot of confusion. Does that disrupt your negotiations with Gorbachev, and what can he expect when you have said this to his journalists and now you are telling us something different? No, I am not telling something different.


I am saying that reading that transcript of what I told to the journalists-someone has jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I do not find anything in there-maybe it is because I have talked about this with so many individuals, as I have said, at the U.N. and all-that maybe having more of an understanding of it, I see it more clearly than some others might. But I have not-and I have had others now that look at this transcript and they do not get that interpretation, that I am giving anyone a veto over this defensive system. May I ask you, Mr. ENTITY, it seems that in the recent weeks you have been more flexible in the way you have talked about the SDI. You have not said that it could not be a bargaining chip, as you used to say it very often before. The demands that have been made on us already with regard to arms control are that we stop the research and any effort to create such a defensive system. And I have said that there is no way that we will give that up, that this means too much to the world and to the cause of peace if it should be possible to have an effective defensive system. In discussions here in the office, I have likened it many times to the gas mask-1925, when all the nations of the world after World War I and the horror of poison gas in that war. When it was over, all the nations got together in Geneva and ruled out the use of poison gas, but we all had gas masks, and no one did away with their gas masks. Well, this, in a sense, is how I see what this could be. The defense that would-it would be so practical and sensible for any country, including the Soviet Union, to say, why go on building and maintaining and modernizing these horrible weapons of destruction if there is something that can be implemented that makes them useless? ENTITY, Secretary Shultz held a press conference in Iceland today on his way back to report to you and with him was a senior official-not identified, but we can guess who it is-who held a background briefing for reporters. And he said that the impression that the American delegation got during this weekend's talks in Moscow was that Mr. Gorbachev was concerned that U.S. policy was influenced by a small circle of anti-Soviet extremists.


Now, if Mr. Gorbachev said that to you personally, how would you respond, Mr. ENTITY? I would respond with the truth as clearly as I could enunciate it. This is one of the things that I feel with regard to the distrust, that the Soviet Union tends to be distrustful and suspicious that things that are presented to them are perhaps concealing some ulterior motive. And I want to discuss with him the record-our own record, that if this were true, that if the United States was guided by some desire to one day assault the Soviet Union, why did not we do it when we were the most powerful military nation on Earth right after World War II. Our military was at its height. We had not had the great losses in the millions that the other nations had had that had been there longer. We had not been bombed to rubble as all the rest had, and we were the only ones with the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon. We could have dictated to the whole world, and we did not . We set out to help the whole world. And the proof of it is, today, that our erstwhile enemies-and there could never have been more hatred in the world than there was between the enemies of World War II and ourselves-they are today our staunchest allies. And yet here is a former ally-there are Americans buried in the soil of the Soviet Union that fought side by side against the same enemies. And so, I think we can prove by the record that any fair-minded person would have to see that we did not have expansionism in mind. We never took an inch of territory as a result of the victory of World War II or of World War I, for that matter. And on the other hand, to point out to him why we are concerned about them-that their expansionist policy is very evident. The gunfire has not stopped for a moment in Afghanistan. We could name all the other spots where they or their surrogate troops are in there. So, this is my hope, that I can convince him, if he is a reasonable man-and there is every indication that he is-would see that if we both want peace, there'll be peace. ENTITY, your remark that you think Mr. Gorbachev is a reasonable man brings me to another question.


I assume that you have been doing a lot of reading about Mr. Gorbachev, the man, and Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union, and that perhaps you have even seen some videotapes of him in action. What sort of an opponent do you expect to face across the table at Geneva? Ralph , I would think that any Soviet leader who reaches the office that he holds would be a formidable opponent. If he does not subscribe to the party philosophy, he would not be in that position. ENTITY, this Yurchenko case is very puzzling, baffling to everyone. Is it baffling to you? Have you ordered an investigation of the CIA handling? And have you gone even further to order an investigation of handling by any agency of defectors per se? Well, right now the Justice Department is investigating the INF and their- or INS, I mean, and their handling of the Medvid incident down in New Orleans to see just what led to all of that. I have to say that-coming as they do together-these three particular incidents, you cannot rule out the possibility that this might have been a deliberate ploy or maneuver. Here you have three separate individuals in three different parts of the world who defected and then recanted and, of their own free will, said they wanted to return to the Soviet Union. And in every one of the three incidents, we insisted on and did secure the last word, the final meeting with each one of them, to make sure that they understood completely that they were welcome here, that we would provide safety and sanctuary for them here in the United States. And in every incident that was repudiated, and we had to say that, of their own free will, as far as we could see- ENTITY and for whatever reason, they wanted to go back. So, were we had by Yurchenko? And is this a sort of a disinformation plan to disrupt- On the other hand, there is no way you can prove that it is. So, you just have to accept that we did our best in view of their expressed desires, and then they did what other defectors before them have not done, and they-oh, I think here and there, there is been one or two that went back. So, you cannot rule out personal desire, homesickness, whatever it might be.


I am sure that, as has been suggested by someone discussing this, that people who go through that must be under quite some strain, and it must be a traumatic experience to step forth from the land of your birth and denounce it and say you want to live someplace else, in another country. Either they honestly did feel they wanted to defect and then changed their minds, or the possibility is there that this could have been a deliberate ploy. It sounds like you are leaning toward the latter, that there has been something very systematic No, maybe I spent more time explaining why I did not think you could rule that out but-  I said there is this suspicion that has been voiced by more people than me- and all I have to say is we just have to live with it because there is no way we can prove or disprove it. Do you think that that makes the information that he did give the CIA worthless or perhaps even, you know, that it was misinformation? Well, actually, the information that he provided was not anything new or sensational. It was pretty much information already known to the CIA. So, that would tend to support your thought that perhaps this whole thing was cooked. If you want to take it that way. I am not going to comment on that one way or the other. Would you say you are perplexed by it? I think anyone is perplexed by this. I think it is awfully easy for any American to be perplexed by anyone that could live in the United States and would prefer to live in Russia. You'd better tell them one more time that there is no way to tell either way. You said it about four times, but the questions keep coming back. We got it. to the summit preparation. What do you expect from the summit on the human rights issue? You have been very cautious on the human rights issue in the Soviet Union. I have always felt that there are some subjects that should remain in confidence between the leaders discussing them. In this world of public life and politics, if you try to negotiate on the front page-some items-you have almost put the other fellow in a corner where he cannot give in because he would appear in the eyes of his own people as if he is taking orders from an outside government.


And the greatest success that, I think, has been had in this particular area has been with predecessors of mine who have discussed these subjects privately and quietly with- Are you encouraged by Yelena Bonner being allowed to have medical treatment in the West, or do you think it is just something to defuse the issue before the summit? I do not know, but I welcome it. But let me point out also this does not mean that human rights will not be a subject for discussion. They are very important to the people of our country and, in their view, of a relationship with the Soviet Union. But I do not think that it is profitable to put things of this kind out in public where any change in policy would be viewed as a succumbing to another power. ENTITY, talking of spies, some months ago-I forget the date-in one of your Saturday radio speeches, you said there were too many Soviet and East European diplomats in this country and too many spies among them. And you said, in effect or perhaps precisely, that you were going to cut these numbers down. Could you brief us on what has happened since then, sir? Well, we are having discussions about that and reducing numbers. We recognize that when we do anything of this kind there is going to be retaliation, but what we are trying to do is to simply arrive at agreements that will be mutual and with regard to reductions of staff and numbers in each other's countries. or within this administration? ENTITY, -this has been done at a ministerial level. If you could go quickly, we can get one more round, but you have got to do it quickly. Is Weinberger trying to sabotage the summit? And are you trying to overthrow Qadhafi? Secretary Weinberger is not trying to sabotage anything of the kind. He is been most helpful in all of the meetings that we have had on this. And all of the talk that we unhappily read about feuds and so forth; again, this is a distortion or misinterpretation of my desire for what I have always called Cabinet-type government, where I want all views to be frankly expressed, because I can then make the decision better if I have all those viewpoints. And the fact that we have debate and discussion in that regard, in that way, should not be construed as feuds and battles and so forth. I want all sides. You want it-it is okay in the public?


It is okay in public and on the front page? Well, not the way it is been portrayed on the front page. Well, but it'd been portrayed not in the spirit in which I just spoke of it. It is been portrayed as animus and anger and so forth, and it is not that kind. It is the devil-advocate type of thing where I hear all sides. Now, with regard to Qadhafi, let us just say we do not have a very personal relationship. Were you going to try to overthrow him indirectly? No comment on are you trying to overthrow him? I never like to talk about anything that might be being done in the name of intelligence. ENTITY, your health is vital to the long-range success of any progress that you make at the summit. Why will not you permit the release of the test results from your periodic examinations to reassure the public that there is no recurrence of the cancer? First of all, that term the recurrence of cancer -you have given me an opportunity to give an answer I have wanted to give for some time. I am deeply appreciative of the concern of people and all the letters of condolence and good wishes and so forth that I have received. But I feel the people have been doing this under a little misapprehension. The whole thing has been portrayed as that I was a sufferer of cancer, I had cancer. And then an operation took place, and now I have had a good recovery. No, the truth of the matter was, I had a polyp. There are two kinds of polyps in the intestines, and one kind, if allowed to go on, eventually becomes cancerous and then would spread. It is true that it, within itself, had begun to develop a few cancer cells, but it was still a self-contained polyp. The only way that type of polyp can be removed is by major surgery. So, in reality, the only real illness that I suffered in any way and at any time was the incision. And my healing was not a healing of cancer; mine was a healing of a 10- or 12 inch incision. So, I am delighted to get this out and on the table before you. Yes, they gave me a complete schedule, and they said we will want to do this down the line periodically, and then, it gets farther and farther apart as time goes on.


It would mainly be an examination, periodically, to see if any further polyps of that kind-if one could start, then, I suppose another could start. And then, if so, you'd want to get rid of them. The examinations that I have had are also spaced out, like this last time, are part of the kind of annual physical that I have had for many years and long before I came here. Where, once I used to go into the hospital for a few days and have all the whole physical done, well, now we do it in bits and parts. So, this last one, mainly I went in and they simply examined the incision-wanted to see how the healing was coming-and then I had some x-rays of the lungs, which had nothing to do with the operation, but that are a normal part of the general physical that I have. Now, there will be another trip there coming up in the near future and that will be the first trip for a look at the intestines for the possibility of polyps. And so, when the doctors come out and when the doctors-they say the same thing to me that has been said to you-maybe I will have them say it to you instead of me repeating it-when they stand there in front of me and say, You have had 100-percent recovery. I go out and tell you that and you think I am covering something up. I just would suggest that, while I am not suggesting we do not believe you, it would be reassuring to a lot of people to see the test results and know what is being done and how it is being done and- Well, the test result, in the cases of this kind, is simply to tell you what happened. For example, if they do the examination to see-to check if there is another polyp-well, the only test is they say to you there was not one or there is one; whichever way it comes out. So, it is a case of verbalizing. There is not any report to be given you that-oh, incidentally, I also had the blood check taken this time also with the x-rays. But that was done here a few days before, not at Bethesda. They take a little blood, see what it is. And that would be done, this would have been done, now, even without any physical examination.


They always do this prior to a trip abroad, make sure that they know what is there, and in the event of an accident or anything, they know what could be needed. ENTITY, we were talking about Qadhafi, but do you think the U.S. should give some aid to the rebels in Angola, as it is doing in Nicaragua or in Afghanistan? We were embarked on a plan of trying to negotiate the Cubans out of Angola and the independence of Namibia, and this also involved that in that there would be a reconciliation between UNITA, the Savimbi forces and the present government, which, more or less, was installed by the presence of the Cuban troops. Now, with the elimination of the Clark amendment, we are still most supportive of that, that we believe a settlement in Angola should involve UNITA, and the people of that country have a choice in making a decision as to the government they wanted to have. And so, all of this is going forward. So, you do not envision your covert aid to rebels in Angola because of the Clark amendment, as you mentioned, having been- No, I think there are some areas where we could be of help to them. I have no further questions, Mr. ENTITY. Well, how do you feel on the anniversary of your reelection? I wish the Congress would have a sharp memory of it as they are discussing tax reform and some other things. Do you have any particular goals for the next 3 years? tax reform, a program that will set us, even longer than 3 years, on a course for the elimination of the deficit; then, the achievement of a balanced budget amendment, so that once and for all we will be free of this. And I have had one tucked away in the back of my mind for a long time, that once we can do that, then, I would like to see us start on the reduction of the national debt. Well, then, would you veto the House version of the Gramm-Rudman as it stands now? Well, that is a general thing; this is talking about a particular piece of legislation.


Let me take a couple of questions. And if I were speaking to the Panamanian people, I would tell them that the affection of the American people for the people of Panama is still very much intact, strong. Secondly, I would say to the Panama Defense Forces, the PDF, they have a useful role to play, and they will in the future of Panama have a useful role to play. And if Noriega were to leave office, we would have good relations with Panama. We would have good relations with the Panama Defense Force. And clearly, the good feelings between the American people and the people of Panama would grow and prosper. And so, I would hope that Noriega would leave and that the results of this election would be recognized. The fraud in the election has been condemned by people all across the world; the European Community, leaders in our hemisphere, all the way to Japan -- people speaking out in indignation against this thuggery and against what the man has done. So, I just want to be sure that the people of Panama understand that relations can quickly return to normal if Mr. Noriega will leave and set aside his dictatorship and permit democracy to prevail. Do you think they have any doubt about that? And are not you calling for a coup on the part of the PDF? I mean, the Catholic Church in Panama also has basically been saying the same thing to the PDF. That I just said? Are you saying that you would like the PDF to get Noriega out? I would love to see them get him out. We'd like to see him out of there -- not just the PDF, the will of the people of Panama. It sounds like you are calling on the people of Panama to rise up and basically have a revolution. Is that what you are trying to say? A revolution -- the people rose up and spoke in a democratic election, with a tremendous turnout, said what they wanted. The will of the people should not be thwarted by this man and a handful of these Doberman thugs. That is what I am saying. What do you think the people should do now? The people should do everything they can to have the will of the people respected. They ought to heed the international calls, and they ought to just do everything they can to get Mr. Noriega out of there. Have you been in conversation and contact with President Cerezo and others? Venezuela apparently has offered Noriega asylum.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Corps on the Situation in Panama


Have you been in contact with the Venezuelans, and do you have thoughts on when and where Noriega should go? No, but I have no doubt that countries would receive him. Why, have you had any assurances indirectly on that? Well, I have a habit of not liking to go into detail with what I talk to others about. But I am just confident that they would receive him, and I think Noriega knows this, too. You said the other day that you would not favor dropping the drug indictments. But if he were to go to someplace that, either through prearrangement or postarrangement, did not have extradition arrangements with the U.S., how would you feel about that? Yes, because if he has -- no, he was saying, if there was a country that prohibited extradition -- and he ought to think about that. think we have any control over that. Would you allow him into a country that did not have an extradition But I am obligated as ENTITY of the United States to respect our laws and to go forward on fulfilling obligations under the law. But if he went to a place where there was not any extradition treaty, then that would be a different situation than if he went to a place where there was an extradition treaty. Do you care which one he does? Yes, I'd like him to -- well, I care that he does whatever it is that it takes to get him out of there right now. And that is what I'd like to see happen. I think it is right for the people of Panama. It is right for the democracies in this hemisphere. You cannot have an election that is blatantly stolen, where people that win are beaten up by thugs. So far, you have struck out -- and so did President Reagan -- in trying to get him out of power. Do you have any other options? Still at the plate, and we will stay at the plate until we can help the people of Panama have the democracy for which they spoke so articulately in an election. And we are not going to give up on it. A couple of days ago, you said that the goal of your sending those extra troops down there was to protect American lives.


Now you seem to be adding a new, much more outspoken dimension to your intention here, which is to see Noriega leave and leave I am not changing the definition of the role of the American troops at all. Have you had any contact with him indirectly, sir, in the last 2 days? No, you asked the question properly. How does it feel personally, after over a year of seeing this drag on -- -- now this thing comes to a head? How does it feel when you read the accounts and see the pictures? See, I think there is a whole new ingredient in Panama, regarding the relationship with Panama. And I think the election made so clear that the people want democracy and made so clear that that democracy is being thwarted by one man that that in itself could be the catalyst for removing Noriega. Now, why do I say that? Because, heretofore, you have not heard the neighboring countries around Panama speaking up. You have not seen the EC , our friends in Europe, speaking up and denouncing what happened. And I think the Japanese weighed in on this. So, I think this is a very different climate now and one much more conducive to possible change, because the people spoke so overwhelmingly, and heretofore, that has not been quite as clear. Never underestimate the power of the people, even though their will seems to have been frustrated short-run. Do you think the OAS will do something on Wednesday? And I'd love to see a very powerful and strong statement coming out of there, and I'd like to see it as unanimous. But I am not sure what will come out of it. ENTITY -- you are worried about the people in Panama and what they have gone through, and it is in their hands. Are you concerned, though, about any violence that might be started by anything that the people would do to change the situation where innocent lives may be lost or children would be hurt and families disrupted as they try to make a change for democracy? I always worry about the loss of innocent human life. And I would be worried about that. Would you caution them against rising up in violence? We will protect American lives in every possible way. That is a solemn responsibility of ENTITY, and that is one of the reasons I augmented our forces in Panama -- is the reason I augmented them.


Are you concerned that the situation there -- with your calls and mounting pressure internationally -- would lead to a situation right now in Panama that might lead to violence that would, in fact, endanger American lives more than they would be otherwise? I mean, I would be concerned about any escalation of violence that would endanger American lives. And I think we are in a good position to protect our American lives and interests. Do not let it die. The people could see that as inflammatory, like it is a call to -- -- to revolt. Would you add any words of caution No, I would add no words of caution. The will of the people should be implemented. And if I wanted to increase the rhetoric, strengthen it, I would do so. But I think I have phrased it just about the way I feel. What? And the will includes -- -- demonstrations in the street? What form would you say Look, I am not about to get into proposing a three-point action plan for the people of Panama. All I want them to know is that if they get rid of Noriega they will have an instant normalization of relationship with the United States and there will be a useful role for the Panamanian Defense Force. And I think there has been some doubt about that, perhaps in the Panamanian Defense Force itself, as to how we now view the Force, because of the thuggery of its leader. And this gives me an opportunity to clarify that specific point, as well as to repeat my support for Endara and Calderon and Guillermo Ford, who was so brutally beaten. Are you contemplating sending even more American troops down there now? Well, if I were, it would be unlikely I would announce it here, just before landing in Starkville, only because I think it would be prudent to do it differently. I have no short-run plans, but that does not preclude anything I will do in the future. You know Noriega. Is it strictly power that he wants or is there a point where he could be negotiated out? I think it is power that he has wanted, but I do not know what his view is now that he is seen a total repudiation of his rule. And you see, I keep coming back to the fact that what happened the other day in the election is something quite different than has been on the table before. So, I just do not know the answer to it.


It might be now he'd like to find a way to get out. I would hope that would be the case, but I do not know that for a fact. He has lost all support, all respect -- the man is considered just out of it, an outlaw, by the world community now as a result of what happened. I do not have an answer for it. Are you saying that the United States at this juncture has, more or less, done what it could and that now what we are going to do is lend moral support to whatever the Panamanians decide? That we really cannot from the outside do anything further? No, what I have said is that we have taken certain action to protect American lives. I have now spelled out, although I hope it had been understood before, what it would take to have good relations with the United States; and I will continue my own efforts internationally. You see, I do think it is important that it not be the United States, the Colossus of the North, coming down there to try to dictate to the people of Panama. And that is one of the reasons I spent a lot of time last week working with the international community and instructing the State Department to do the same thing. So, we will continue our international efforts. Are you disappointed in the response to that of the PDF and some of the Panamanians to why you sent the troops down there? Are you disappointed in their response? I mean, you have come out here to clarify your views. No, I am not disappointed in the response. What I am trying to do is make clear to the Panamanian Defense Forces that there is no vendetta against the Panamanian Defense Forces as an institution. There is clearly the desire to see Mr. Noriega get out of office. I do not know how they have reacted to the American forces. ENTITY, how long can the people of Panama be expected to put up with Noriega? About 4 days ago when they demonstrated loud and clear they do not want any more. They have had it; and their will should be respected and honored. So, we have got to find a way to have that magnificent expression of democracy be honored. Are there certain things that you and the administration are sending them immediately, once Noriega leaves? We'd recognize immediately the Endara government.


As soon as he is sworn in, we would return our Ambassador; we would remove our economic sanctions; we would, in essence, have normalized relations with a country for whom we have great affection and whose people have great affection for us. If you talk to those two delegations that came back, both of them -- the liberal members of the delegation, the conservative members, the Republicans, the Democrats -- all of them certified, stipulated that the people of Panama have great affection for our country and for our people. So, you'd see an instant release of this oppression; and you'd see an effort by the United States to help Panama go down the road to democracy and to help them economically, as best we could, and to welcome them as they rejoin the family of democracies in this hemisphere. We would not need a lot of delaying or thinking about it either. But it has to have the -- with that -- it is the departure of Noriega and the recognition of the people's will; those two have to go together. Was there some development this morning or some intelligence that you got that caused this today? No, but I know because I was talking to General Scowcroft yesterday and talked to Secretary Baker this morning. And I have had an uneasy feeling that perhaps what I have told you here today was not known clearly there. And it gives me a chance to -- well, the question as to how we view the Panamanian Defense Force itself, what would happen if Noriega left, vis-a-vis the United States of America, and I hope it is known   Well, I think in a situation of this nature, where the head of the PDF has become such a pariah, that there perhaps -- been misunderstanding there as to how we view the institution itself and other of its officers. But if they come in there and Noriega goes and they respect the will of the people, I -- you know, we see a very useful role for the Panamanian Defense Force, in their own internal security and for their own -- any threat they might feel they had to the external security. If the PDF asked for U.S. military help, how can we respond? What would we do? Asked for it to do what? If they asked for military support -- if the PDF asks for military support from the United States.


Thank you for your time; I appreciate it. It takes time to do something like this. Why do you think the race is so tight, given the economy, the issues, the incumbency? Well, I think for one thing, things have been good for a long time, and I think a lot of people may take it for granted and may not have they may not be as clear as they should be, which I hope we can use the last week to do, on what specific policies contributed to it and what could undermine it. I also think that, you know, there is not as much general awareness as there might be about the differences between the two parties on health care, education, the environment, and crime, where I believe that the things we have done over the last 8 years had a measurable impact on all those things going in the right direction. And a lot of most Presidential races are fairly close, you know, because a lot of Presidential voting is cultural. I mean, a lot of it is cultural. So I think there are a lot of reasons it is close. Also, keep in mind, in the history of our Republic, only two Vice Presidents have ever been directly elected President. One of them when Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson, we were effectively a one-party country then. And the other, when George Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, the country was not in as good a shape as it is now, but it was in pretty good shape, and Bush basically destroyed Dukakis. It was a hugely negative campaign with a lot of charges that were never effectively rebutted. There have been differences on the issues, but neither one of them has called each other's patriotism into question or whether they are normal Americans. Basically, the rap that was put on Dukakis was like reverse plastic surgery. So I think that that explains it largely. At the end of the interview, I am going to ask you to make a bet with me. What physical change in you says that you have served 8 years and it is a job that really takes a toll? Well, I think I am in better shape, better health than I was 8 years ago, in a lot of ways. I think that is about it. I have got a few wrinkles I did not have 8 years ago. I have had a good time. I have enjoyed it.

Interview With Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone Magazine


One of the most important jobs that you, as a President, have is to talk to the country in the wake of national tragedies, frame the issues for the American people. the Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shootings. Where were you when you first heard about the Oklahoma City bombing, and what was your first reaction, personally? And then how did you think you should frame that to the American people, to help them understand what is really a national trauma? And where were you when you heard it? I was in the White House. I believe I was in the White House, because I remember making a statement at the beginning, right in the Rose Garden, saying what you would expect me to say, expressing the Nation's sympathy for the loss but also urging the American people not to jump to conclusions about who had done it. Remember in the beginning, there were a lot of people saying it was obviously some sort of act of foreign terrorism. There was one man that was brought back on an airplane. He was flying out of the country through to London, and he was brought back, suspected of maybe being involved, and he was not . And of course, subsequently, it was a domestic terrorist act. But then when I went to Oklahoma, at the memorial service, what I tried to do was to elevate what the people who had been working in that building were doing. They were all public servants, and it was at a time when it was quite fashionable to bash the Government. And I told myself, even, that I would never refer to people who worked for the Government even in agencies I thought were not performing well as bureaucrats again, because this whole we have gotten, for more than a dozen years, a sort of demeaning rhetoric about the nature of Government and the nature of public service. And I tried to point out that these people were our friends and our neighbors and our relatives, and they were an important part of America's family and that their service ought to be honored in that way. And also, obviously, I took a strong stand against terrorism. And I was able later I went to Michigan State and gave a commencement speech and tried to amplify on that. But I really believe that was the turning of the tide in the venom of anti-Government feeling.


Did you see was it a conscience thought to you that this could be the turning of the tide, and if you focused it correctly, if you said, You know, you cannot love your country if you hate your Government, that this would crystallize that feeling? I think I felt that after I had some time to think about it. In the beginning I was just horrified about all those people dying, all those little kids killed and hurt. What I am trying to get at is, once beyond that obvious first reaction I mean, it occurred to me that, you know, the American people are fundamentally decent, and they have got a lot of sense. And I thought that this might break a fever that had been gripping us for too long. And you thought, if I can take advantage of this opportunity I mean, to have this tragedy in every tragedy comes an opportunity, so is this an opportunity where I can make people rethink that idea. I think in a way, at least at some maybe not even at a conscious level, the American people were rethinking it. And I think maybe that is why what I said at the memorial service struck a responsive chord in the country. What I am trying to get at is, was that a deliberate thought on your part? That I have an opportunity as President to Well, I thought that yes, I was conscious of what I was saying. Did you connect it in some way to a kind of metaphorical bomb-throwing of Newt Gingrich, of the real anti-Government stance that he was taking at the time? I was careful not to do that. I wanted it to change the American peoples' attitude toward public servants and their Government. But to do it, you had to focus on what happened. One of the things that I did not like about Newt and he certainly was not responsible in any way for the Oklahoma City bombing because one of the things I did not like about him is, he was always blaming the 1960's or liberals for everything that went wrong. When that woman, Susan Smith, drove her kids into the lake in South Carolina, he blamed the 1960's, and it turned out that the poor woman had been sexually abused by her father, her stepfather, who was on the local board of the Christian Coalition or something. And when that woman dropped her kid out of the window in Chicago, he blamed the welfare culture. So I did not want to get into where I was doing reverse blame.


I just wanted to try to make it clear to the American people that we should not have a presumption against Government in general or public servants in particular. Where did you first hear the news about that? And again, what was your reaction to that? I believe I was in the White House when I heard that, but I am not sure. But I know that I called the local officials and the school officials from the Oval Office. You know, that was only the most recent and the most grotesque of a whole series of highly visible school shootings that we have had a number of them in the South, one of them in Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was in my home State, and I knew some of the people who were involved, who run the school and in the county and in the city. What I thought there was that I thought a lot of things. I thought, number one, how did those kids get all those guns, and how could they have had that kind of arsenal without their parents knowing? And I thought, after I read a little about it, how did they get so lost without anybody finding them before they went over the edge? We had a spate of before all these killings associated with that kind of darkness on the net, network What do you mean, darkness on the net? Well, those kids were apparently into some sort of a were not they into some sort of satanic-like thing?  There were, earlier, a number of kids who killed themselves who were into talking to each other about destruction, but they were not killing other people. And I just kept I worry that I worried then; I worry now about the people in our society, particularly children, that just drift off, and no one knows, or people feel helpless to do anything about it. You know, I could not help thinking, wondering whether those kids could have been saved if somebody got to them, and then whether all those other children would still be alive. It seemed shocking to me and a lot of other people that after that there was no we did not get any new gun control legislation after an event like that. It is going to be interesting to see what the voters in Colorado do. They have a provision on the ballot now in Colorado to close the gun show loophole. I think what happened is that well, first of all, you cannot say nothing came out of it, because there was an organization of young people in Colorado that then organized kids all over the country for commonsense gun legislation.


Now we have the Million Mom March, and they are very active. But the truth is that when legislation time comes that a lot of the people in Congress are still frightened of the NRA, because even though there is broad public support for these measures, they are still not primary voting issues for a lot of the people who are for them. Whereas, the NRA can muster an enormous percentage of the vote maybe 15 percent, maybe even 20 sometimes for whom that is a primary voting issue. So if you have got an issue where you are ahead 60-30 but in your 60 it is a primary voting issue for 10 percent of the people, and in their 30 it is a primary voting issue for 20 percent of the people, the truth is, you are a net loser by 10 percent. That is the way that is what happens in Congress and State legislatures. They know they could lose their seats. You see the tirade that Charlton Heston has carried on against Al Gore and me, before saying that I was glad some of these people were killed because it gave me an excuse to take people's guns away. We never proposed anything that would take anybody's guns away. I saw a special you may have seen it on television the other night on ABC. Peter Jennings actually went out and went to some of these gun shows. And he was talking to all these people who were absolutely convinced that we wanted to take their guns away. The NRA is great at raising money and building their organizational power by terrifying people with inflammatory rhetoric. I guess that is why, since LBJ passed the first law after Bobby Kennedy was killed, I was the first President to take him on. You got Brady and assault through, but why did not you take the opportunity with this post-Columbine atmosphere? I mean, you called the White House Conference on Violence immediately But it focused on, like, violence in the media Yes, but we also did lots and lots and lots of events and then you thought you could reason with the NRA. No, I did not think I could reason with the NRA. I thought Congress would be so shocked and the public was so galvanized that we had a window of opportunity. And what happened to that, is my question. They knew that they could not afford to have their Members voting wrong on closing the gun show loophole or banning the importation of large capacity ammunition clips, which allows people to get around the assault weapons ban. Were you powerless to do something about that?


No, we had tons of events. And we got a vote if you will remember, we finally got a vote in the Senate, where you can bring things up, where we got a majority vote for it. Al Gore broke the tie another reason he ought to be President, he broke the tie. But we could not get a bill out of a conference committee, that had it in there. You would have won that vote. We could win the vote today if you could get a vote. But the leadership of the Republican Party, as long as they are in the majority in both Houses, they can control things, especially in the House. You can write the rules so that you can just keep stuff from coming up. And we had lots and lots and lots of events at the White House, not just one. We had a ton of events. We brought people in. We talked about it. We finally got the vote in the Senate. We got 50 votes. Then Al broke the tie. We got 51. And there is no question that we could pass it. But I will remind you that one of reasons that Democrats are in the minority today in the House is because of the Brady law and the assault weapons ban. And interestingly enough, we did not there is not a single hunter has missed an hour; not a single sport shooter has missed an event an hour hunting I should have finished the sentence or a single sport shooter has missed an event. But they acted like the end of the world, but a half million felons, fugitives, and stalkers have not gotten handguns because of the Brady law. The ironic thing is, there is no reason here when we tried to pass the Brady law they said, Well, this will not do any good because all these criminals get their guns either one-on-one or at gun shows or urban flea markets. Let me change the subject. I feel passionately about this, and I am glad I took them on. I am just sorry I could not win more. There are a lot of good people out there in America who work hard; their only recreation is hunting and fishing; they do not follow politics all that closely; they get these NRA mailings. They are good people, but they think they can believe these folks. And they know that if they can stir them up, they can raise more money and increase their membership. And they do it by basically terrifying Congress.


How would you characterize race relations today, as compared to when you took office? Well, I think, first of all, the country is changing. It is growing ever more diverse and, therefore, more and more people are having more contacts across racial, ethnic, and religious lines. And I think that, ultimately, the more people relate to each other, the more they come to not just tolerate I do not like the word tolerance in this context because it implies that one group is superior, putting up with an inferior group and tolerating them. I think the more they come to genuinely appreciate each other's heritage, find it interesting, and find a fundamental common humanity I think a lot of it is just systematic human contact. And beyond the human contact, I think that the race initiative we started led to hundreds of efforts all over the country to have honest conversations. You know, sometimes people work around each other for years and they do not know the first thing about one another. I mean, there are people who probably work in the White House who see each other every day that do not know the first thing about one another. So I think that the one thing we did was to spark all these conversations and also to highlight systematic efforts that were working in local communities and try to get them replicated around the country in communities, in workplaces, in schools. I think that there was a genuine effort to deal with that. I think the third thing is that we may have had some impact on it, I and my administration, because we were so much more diverse than any other administration in history. So I think the climate in the country was positive for that. And you sense that change in climate from those factors in Because this is one of your main priorities? All the rhetoric is about racial inclusion. Now you know, we could argue about the policies. I think that the Republican policies are still divisive, but the rhetoric is about inclusion. And even they a number of their members have taken a different tack on immigration. Do you have any special message to young people, any sort of valedictorian thoughts to the kids in school right now, as you leave office?


First of all, I think that they should realize that they are very fortunate to be living in this country at this time, fortunate because of our economic prosperity, fortunate because of our enormous diversity, and fortunate because of the permeation of technology in our society, all of which enables us to relate to the rest of the world and to one another in different and better ways. Secondly, I think they should understand that our future success is not guaranteed and depends upon their interest in public affairs, as well as their private lives and their participation. One of the things that is really concerned me about this election is all these articles that say that young people think there is not much in it for them. I think maybe that is because there has been a lot of debate about Social Security and Medicare in the debate. But it is actually not just an old folks' issue, because when all of us baby boomers retire and I am the oldest of the baby boomers; the baby boomers are people that are between the ages now of 54 and 36. So when we retire, unless everybody starts having babies at a much more rapid rate, or we have hugely greater immigration, there will only be two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. Now, more of us are going to have to work into our later years. And more of us have a choice now because one of the good things that Congress did unanimously was to lift the earnings limit on Social Security. Because the baby boomers, most of them, I know, are obsessed with our retirement not imposing an undue burden on our children and our grandchildren. We have to build a clean energy future to avoid global warming. Two stunning studies have come out in the last month, and because of the Presidential campaign, they have not been much noticed. One analysis of a polar icecap says that the 1990's were the warmest decade in a thousand years. The other projecting study estimates that if we do not change our greenhouse gas emissions, the climate could warm between 2.4 and 10 degrees over the next century; 2.4 is too much. Ten degrees would literally flood a lot of Louisiana and Florida.


Then you have got this incredible scientific and technological revolution that will lead to, among other things if you just take the human genome alone, a lot of the young people in America today, when they have their children, they will get a little gene card to take home with them from the hospital, and their children will be born with a life expectancy of 90 years, because they will be able to avoid so many of the illnesses and problems that they have a biological propensity to. So this is a fascinating time to be alive, but it is not free of challenges. So I would say to the young people, you ought to be grateful you are alive at this time. You will probably live in the most prosperous, interesting time in human history, but there are a lot of big challenges out there, and you have to be public citizens as well as private people. Do you think that people should go to jail for possessing or using or even selling small amounts of marijuana? I think, first of all This is after we are not publishing until after the election. I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in most places and should be. I think that what we really need one of the things that I ran out of time before I could do is a reexamination of our entire policy on imprisonment. Some people deliberately hurt other people. And if they get out of prison if they get in prison and they get out, they will hurt them again. And they ought to be in jail because they cannot be trusted to be on the streets. Some people do things that are so serious, they have to be put in jail to discourage other people from doing similar things. But a lot of people are in prison today because they, themselves, have drug problems or alcohol problems. And too many of them are getting out particularly out of the State systems without treatment, without education, without skills, without serious effort at job placement. You are talking about any offender? But there are tons of people in prison who are nonviolent offenders, who have drug-related charges that are directly related to their own drug problems. Do not you think those people should we be putting nonviolent drug offenders in jail at all, or should we put them in treatment programs that are more fitting and not ENTITY I think it depends on what they did. You know, I have some experience with this.


Well, let me just say about my brother whom I love and am immensely proud of, because he kicked a big cocaine habit I mean, his habit got up to 4 grams a day. He had a serious, serious habit. He was lucky to live through that. But if he had not had the constitution of an ox, he might not have. I think if he had not gone to prison, actually been put away forcibly somewhere, I think his problem was so serious, it is doubtful that he would have come to grips with it. I mean, he was still denying that he was addicted right up until the time that he was sentenced. So I am not so sure that incarceration is all bad, even for drug offenders, depending on the facts. Let me finish. I think the sentences in many cases are too long for non-violent offenders. I think the sentences are too long, and the facilities are not structured to maximize success when the people get out. Keep in mind, 90 percent of the people that are in the penitentiary are going to get out. So society's real interest is seeing that we maximize the chance that when they get out, that they can go back to being productive citizens, that they will get jobs, they will pay taxes, they will be good fathers and mothers, that they will do good things. You have got mandatory minimums. Would you do away with those? I certainly think they should be reexamined and the disparities are unconscionable between crack and powdered cocaine. I tried to change the disparities, and the Republican Congress was willing to narrow, but not eliminate, them on the theory that people who use crack are more violent than people who use cocaine. Well, what they really meant was that people who use crack are more likely to be poor and, coincidentally, black or brown and, therefore, not have money. Whereas, people who use cocaine were more likely to be rich, pay for it, and therefore be peaceable. But my own view is, if you do something violent, it is appropriate to have an incarceration. But I think we need a serious re-examination in the view toward what would make us a more peaceful, more productive society. I think some of this, our imprisonment policies, are counterproductive.