(00:00:00) Good afternoon. I'm Jane balogh vice president of Control Data Corporation and a member of the board of directors of Minnesota meeting. It's a pleasure to welcome you Senator Lugar to Minnesota, home of the world champion, Minnesota (00:00:14) Twins. (00:00:20) And a warm welcome to all of you to today's Minnesota meeting. We also would like to extend a welcome to the radio audience throughout the Upper Midwest will be hearing this program Wednesday on Minnesota public radio's. Midday program. This broadcast is sponsored by the Oppenheimer wolf Donnelly Law Firm, Minnesota meeting is a public affairs Forum which brings National and international speakers to Minnesota over 1800 corporate government and Community leaders belong to Minnesota meeting. The next Minnesota meeting event is a corporate Roundtable on Friday, October 30th, discussing work and family issues in a changing corporate environment. Minnesota meeting is pleased today to present Senator Richard Lugar following Senator lugar's remarks Stephen young of the University of Minnesota law school will introduce a question and answer session. Senator Richard Lugar is former chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations and the Republican ranking member of the Senate committee on agriculture as Indiana's senior senator. He is considered one of the nation's most influential Senators regarding foreign policy issues. Senator Lugar is co-chairman of the Senate Arms Control Observer group monitoring u.s. Soviet Arms Control negotiations. He recently chaired a special delegation sent by President Reagan to observe the 1986 Philippine presidential elections. It is now my pleasure and our pleasure to present to you Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Lugar Thank you very much to Jane and really is a thrill to be in Minneapolis and the Minnesota time of Victory and celebration. I was privileged to enjoy the game last night the part of the celebration thereafter, and I know that we commence our meeting today a tour of the rise of American foreign policy issues with optimism. Hopefully a perspective of optimism. I would just like to commence the conversation by saying that United States of America is in a world that has changed obviously since World War Two but the particulars of that change have not seeped into all of our thinking about foreign policy responsibilities and just a short outline. Let me mention that at the end of World War II American productive facilities amounted to a 45 to 50 percent roughly half of all that was available in the world in terms of productive facilities actual production coming out. This is largely because of the destruction of so much production in Europe and in Asia and the fact that many third world countries have not started up that much at that point. It was a rare point for any country and certainly no country had ever had that dominance with regard to production in the world and none has approached that subsequently unlikely any will it was our responsibility as well as our privilege then to try to think through what that meant and one of the things that it meant for us and our basic strategy in a bipartisan way was to extend the number of markets that our country had hopefully that was for side also as to extending the number of democracies to Mark country, you might deal and share a common dialogue and idealism. As a result We join for major regional defense packs. We entered into a at least 40 situations in which we agreed to come to the assistance of another country reciprocally with are coming to our assistance. We were involved in a host of humanitarian and economic causes around the world in ways that we're totally uncharacteristic of our country prior to World War II and our basic strategy was that if we were to prosper as a nation there had to be a lot of other prosperous Nations world wealth in general would have to grow and expand that strategy has worked. Well for us our wealth has increased roughly four times since the World War II on a per capita basis. Now in the same period of time the dominance that we had this roughly half of production in the world has decreased until perhaps a quarter maybe a fifth somewhere between 20 and 25% other nations have grown with our assistance in the Marshall Plan with assistance. We gave to Japan and to others And there are many Americans who are troubled by that fact that we are now so dominant as we once were the strategy worked the world became wealthier, we became wealthier and in my judgment that still has to be our strategy. They protection is strategy and my judgment is going to lead to constriction of our wealth quite apart from those that do we seek to harm and that type of a procedure but it also needs to be recognized that we have almost all the same obligations and perhaps a few more that we undertook worldwide after World War two at a time that our resources were considerably more dominant. And we have not been successful in the so-called burden-sharing argument by that. I mean a an allocation of responsibilities around the world for the safety Shield that NATO and NATO plus Japan and NATO plus other alliances. We have provides for the world. Now we're getting better at that and very clearly a my purpose in mentioned this today is not to condemn the NATO alliance or to indicate that Japan doesn't play its part. I think everybody needs to be thinking through the parts that we play and other nations will have to do more proportionate with wealth. They have attained in this world system if they too are to expand their Horizons. But we have been successful in making the world grow wealthier and in raising the aspirations and possibilities for other people. We clearly have been successful in extending the number of democracies in the world and that is important to our safety is to Wallace to there's terms of open communication of signals democracies have not created Wars pain each other. They have been good trading partners that they have been good partners in thought. We have contained the Soviet Union in large part because our power has been extended and that that extension has come through alliances. It's also come through a buildup of our own Armed Forces our ability to keep the conflict or the potential conflicts some distance from our Shores depends the very Stalley upon this idea of extended Authority through our own military power and equally so through alliances with others who have military power. I mention all this because from time to time it is our habit to try to take a look at the failures and the difficulties of American foreign policy without appreciating the very strong construct that we had and the overall trend of successes. I believe that we have had. The dilemmas that we have seemed to me to be obvious also and even if they are soluble they will not be soluble without degree of sacrifice and very clearly a lot of planning between good friends in the world of Nations specifically we're looking at at the point that our country is overcommitted in the sense that if we were to follow up all of the alliance's we have and have too many chips were to be called in at one time. We will be sorely in difficulty. We've realized that for a long time and yet the hazards of withdrawing those commitments of making the list shorter terms of those that we'd be willing to defend is to Hazard some problems to that of always seem to us to be more difficult than hewing the line of the commitments we've had (00:08:37) The (00:08:37) Persian Gulf situation offers a topical Point of Departure for how all of this comes to play in the world as it is now Persian Gulf situation arose for a number of reasons among them. Perhaps fear by the Kuwait. He's other moderate Arab states after our sale of arms to Iran that they might be in very much more Jeopardy than they had anticipated the qualities. We are told approached several Nations Soviet Union and ourselves of perhaps last because they did not want the superpowers in the Gulf. The Soviets responded promptly to the Kuwaiti desire that they least three tankers. It has been a point of our foreign policy for some time that we would not leave to the Soviets the whole situation in the Persian Gulf to dispose of as they might grow with it until to work their will without our counter when the koi he's asked us to reflagged 11 tankers in my judgment. The president had no other option other than to say that he would the problem was enormous then as to the tactics of how to fulfill that and a great deal of consultation occurred with the Congress throughout that period of time and quite a bit of cooperation for two months until the USS Stark was hit by an Iraqi exocet missile. At that point a good number of people began to take a different view altogether a person golf activities because there had been lost 37 American lives and substantial damage to an American warship. The facts in the Persian Gulf as I see them are these as the policies of evolved our NATO allies did not jump to help us the Persian Gulf Arab states who were directly under the gun did not seem to be immediately Cooperative in short many people in this country ask. Why are we in the Persian Gulf to begin with? Why is the Middle East that important and if others who have energy resources and needs of that sort do not to follow through? Why should we be running foreign all valid questions? But if we had not exercised leadership all of what was to follow an out of happened. What is it? What is followed is that NATO warships are in the Persian Gulf with us and unparalleled numbers. We have an out-of-area NATO exercise unlike anything we have observed before the moderate Arab states have albeit often very quietly without desire for publicity given us basing rights of sorts refueling situations logistic support Saudis that use their mind sweepers. When ours that could not get there. Now, we've had a degree of cooperation and Rapport and in the general pulling up of our stature in the Middle East with the Arab states, so that could not have been foretold I think year ago. We have an in fact check the Soviet Union. Once again, the Persian Gulf and that is important in my judgment and check the extensions of the Ayatollah for the time being in terms of destabilizing moderate Arab states. These are very important achievements. If one would ask fair enough, but how do we get out? When do we pull the plug? I would say that to begin to get into that discussion is to court disaster and demolition of all the successes that I've mentioned the facts are we have a great Navy and it extends our authorities what navies are used for keep the high seas of Free People Naval shipping available, whether it be if energy resources for us or anybody else keep the Soviets the checked contained on the Eurasian landmass not over here. We have moved diplomatically through the UN for a ceasefire. I trust that we will continue to try to get an arms embargo that we will attempt to press for peace in the Persian Gulf and ultimately for peace between Iran and Iraq. Neither of those two objectives were certainly Insight the time that we entered the Persian Gulf area, but that's a topical example of seems to me of how the world works and how things evolve we have a stronger NATO alliance at this present moment. Not only because of the Persian Gulf but because of our work with NATO allies on arms control and another area and we have begun to discuss with Japan in the Persian Gulf situation how Japan might provide money to pay for a portion of our operations that is a topic that will have to be discussed in a much more concerted Fashion on the whole gamut of issues. It has been our desire and Japan's desire since World War Two not to have a military Juggernaut in Japan, but it is also our desire and that of Japanese Statesman from Japan to play its role in common defense and in the assistance of third world development other objectives that are important to all of us. So I think we're making Headway as we work in that I think we're making Headway in the arms control business. I do not know precisely what the course will be of any of the three areas. Our negotiators are are working on in Geneva and I was in Geneva 2 weeks ago and I could foresee at that time that there would not be an agreement to be signed by Schultz and Chevron Asia during the past few days. The verification protocol is simply not complete good progress is being made by both sets of negotiators. The phasing of Destruction was not complete all of that is farther along too. In the event that an agreement was required for Gorbachev to pay the visit that that was not in the cards. It is also true with regard to the start talks these strategic talks that these are imaged as they have been for some time in discussions about space defense. Let me just share with you all the we are having a whale of an argument in the Congress of the United States about the SDI whether to go forward or backward or be curtailed or what have you. It's a really had very different agenda with Soviet negotiators. They are prepared talk about list of tests. That would be permitted by both sides. They are certainly prepared to talk about space defense because they have programs that are substantial and important to them. I would Hazard a guess all of this is clearly Beyond any conversations that have occurred in Geneva that we are going to come to a point in which we do not discuss a cosmic defense an umbrella or bubble over our entire country. But we do discuss with the Soviet something that's very much on their minds and that is how do you shoot down The Accidental (00:15:16) shot? (00:15:18) It is a very real worry for people in Washington as well as in Moscow that at some point somebody inadvertently is going to fire a weapon that should not have been fired and the hotline will work and one way or the other we will call mr. Gorbachev, or he will call us and say we got an awesome thing to tell you. There is a missile shot under way and it should not have happened. It is an accident and we hope you have the means to abort it. Shoot it down. So it won't hit your country. I think that's very important thing. And that technology is within our grasp in my judgment not in the next year or two, but within the intermediate period of time that's a serious project what the Soviets are objecting to our test from Platforms in space. I would characterize their negotiators position as one of two feet on the ground. I asked them. How big is the laboratory that mr. Gorbachev. Mr. Reagan talked about it, right Quebec and they said well, why don't you try out for size hypothetical laboratory and I said, I will be several miles long several miles wide several miles high this it might be all of those things you sort of Define it but they did say it needs to be on the ground. They have two feet on the ground and want to conduct tests in that way. I mention all of Not to get into great detail. But some people say that the debate in this country over the SDI has almost no relationship to the realities of what will have to be negotiated with the Soviets. We are going to have space defense in both countries because both of them both of us have to have it for our own Securities in any national leader does not provide for it would be deficient in my judgment and but it does make from tougher negotiation and to the extent the Soviets believe that they can Bluff us out of even having an SDI that somebody leaves one less thing to be picked up off the table. I think we have got to get out of the habit of negotiating all these treaties and the United States Senate before we have a treaty to ratify and that has been our habit. Unfortunately having said all that the INF treaty I think will be a good one. It'll be one that I look forward to being helpful in the leadership of trying to ratify. It will involve only 4% albeit of nuclear warheads in Western Europe and some Already demeaning it. There's not much of a deal when it comes down to but it is quite a deal when you get into the verification procedure and on-site inspection. And for the first time the thought that Americans might be roaming around Soviet sites Soviet factories and equally awesome that Soviets might be here in our country. If we list as productive facilities Martin Marietta or Lockheed or companies that have hit some way they dealt with the INF off they no longer doing so they'll be off the list. But if they are then we would have Soviet inspectors on site and that's what that means. That's a new relationship between the countries but it's an important one and it's one we're on the verge of and I think one that has to be seized. Why did I me just to say that in this particular Administration the overall idea of expanding World Trade of peeping the NATO alliance and Seto and all of our other alliances alive. These things have been forward in a bipartisan way what has been somewhat more debatable has been a particular extension of this Administration into what has been termed the Reagan Doctrine the idea that Soviet hegemony or Soviets through surrogates that had Germany could be roll back that where there are Freedom Fighters and they come in various types various parts of the world. They should be supported the thought that we might in fact extend the areas of freedom for people some of these operations are relatively uncontroversial most Americans hardly favor the Afghan Rebels that are hopeful that the Soviets will leave or be expelled great deal of controversy. Say the least surrounds the freedom fighters in Nicaragua varying degrees with regard to Cambodia and Angola in I mean but it is a it's a new idea and it's an important one is one that I have supported by I appreciate the controversies that entail at some point. It is not sufficient. Even if you are able to roll back the Communist to Germany the need to have a positive program of the building of democratic institutions, really the enveloping of these new nations and to a larger orbit is essential I think in the Philippines we had some success in that respect on the Democratic side fairly. We didn't have to roll back on that case Communist Regime and instead of authoritarianism of the right. It's the credit I think in a bipartisan way of Congress and the president we are now attacking dictatorship of the left and the right I would hope in an even-handed way and trying to look toward this extension that we saw at the beginning of this era after World War II and that is moved into I think higher ground in the current situation. Let me pause at this point and respond if I can two questions and I believe that young wolf passing ammonia. (00:20:39) Thank you very much Senator. I think we have a (00:20:42) hopefully this is working. We have an excellent setting here for a (00:20:46) discussion with the audience with the senator. I will (00:20:48) just in the usual process now wander among the room those of you who would like to ask the senator a question or engage him. Please just catch my eye with your hands and I (00:20:57) will give you the mic and we end State (00:21:00) I'll catch your eye with my hand Senator. Obviously a point that everybody is going to be discussing is what the economic events of the last week are going to what kind of effect they're going to have on our ability to continue the path. We're going on and how that's going to affect us in the long run. (00:21:18) My own judgment as the economic events of the past week should not change our foreign policy course and I say that and I hope not without sensitivity to the extraordinary crisis that has occurred in our markets and and even today is continuing and world markets around the world is continuous people reevaluate Equity shares, but the facts I suppose are that the world economy is strong essentially, even the crash of this past week is created circumstances of substantially lower long-term and short-term interest rates. We operate from a standpoint of very strong economic growth in this country. It is not been quite so strong on the cotton and in Japan recently, but still rather strong All Things Considered I can see a separate track in which shares a re-evaluated and in which economic growth and cooperation continues on a very positive. The trend I think that will take leadership. I suspect that the common sense fear and people are tracing in the Wall Street Journal all the parallels with 1929 is that the world did not deal with things very well at that point to things and I don't want to be overly contentious. But we at that point desperately sought strong deficit reduction in this country who wanted to raise taxes to reduce the deficit and we wanted to pass smoot-hawley to restrict trade to very disastrous decisions. Although they were understandable at the time and many people would be for both of those now, I would think that if we keep our nerve essentially and appreciate the economic circumstances in this country and the world and putting our alliances are very strong and continue to deal with that try to deal with the rebounding of investor confidence in different ways. Then I think we're onto a good track and those of us Have something to say about it. I have to keep pushing hard. Thank you very much, Senator. Mr. Plant, (00:23:24) Senator Lugar. First of all, I want to commend you highly for your excellent role in the Philippines in the time of transition. I think that was very valuable. But my question relates to the larger role of military and economic security. We've been operating under a concept of Peace who strengthened it away you could argue that it's done something for us has been a nuclear war for 40 years, but in the economic area, it's been very expensive. We've spent so much on Military and diverted away from the private sector that were less competitive and world markets and the original concept of the United Nations was to eliminate the scourge of War. Well, no, I think maybe the time has come and I wonder if there's anything in Washington that we should begin to think in terms of common security as a replacement of peace through strength to the great benefit of everybody. (00:24:16) Well, let me just say that there is a good bit of consensus that our role in providing peace through strength has extended our resources that vary greatly one of the analogies is given as of Great Britain at the end of the 19th century of the beginning of the 20th attempting to maintain an Empire and Germany of sorts so much money was spent on that security and on the extensions that many feel that Britain's economic growth competitiveness suffered in that process the Soviets field this to rather keenly, mr. Shepard not see in a conversation with some of us. So what is sufficiency with regard to military might he claimed that the Soviets May. In fact be spending 19 percent of their gross national product on defense now, we're spending six inch ever Nagi said given the size of the two economies. Those are about equal question is how do you reduce that amount? So that more can go on to research and develop that I think is a very tough question for us because We have all of these obligations that I have just mentioned they are real and people count upon him there have to be visible elements of strength to support these so I might my guess is what we were going to do in the current budget crisis is probably to freeze spending about where it is in the defense area as well as in other areas so that there is at least an end to a partisan debate for a moment domestic debate on those issues, but I am inclined to believe we will still have to maintain a defense budget that is roughly in line with what we have in order to meet our obligations. (00:25:54) Thank you senator. (00:25:57) Senator building on the stand (00:26:00) plants question. There's the kind of chronic unilateralism in the way the administration operates. (00:26:10) We go in rather suddenly Persian Gulf or Lebanon (00:26:14) or earlier in Nicaragua. (00:26:20) And then we start complaining the nobody else is there and after awhile grumbling they come along but it still isn't a collective operation is (00:26:29) still a lot of unilateral operations each reporting back through its own political authorities and so on. I'm think it would be. Better if we're going to if we've got all these obligations that you talked about. And we don't want to withdraw from them and yet we don't think we can really quite afford them anymore. Wouldn't it be better to operating through the UN for some things and through Consortium of the concern for others just to operate in a much more Collective way instinctively instead of this instinctive unilateralism. That seems to have taken over in Washington (00:27:14) around that would be ideal and I I would be as you would for attempting to pull together as many people as you can with as much consultation and Advance the thoughtfulness about the strength of the alliances and that means sharing the burdens and (00:27:28) consultation. (00:27:31) I suspect this Administration has aired on occasion in leaping in as president or others felt that that was required. But I'm also aware of painfully of how many attempts are have been to try to gain some rapport with our European allies, especially on concerted action and of which on the one hand they wanted us to take leadership roles and on the other Our hand did not want us to act too fast. If at all it's a it's one of these agonizing processes in which you've been through in your life much more than I have but you try to bring people along and sometimes don't get there. Now you could at that point say well then the project isn't worthy enough, but I think that we have felt in each of these cases as a government that what we were going to do really had to be done in one way or another now one can argue after the fact about the clumsiness of the operation and the lack of diplomacy and I think we'll get better at it as time goes on and the failings are obvious but some of the successes are obvious to I think it's a good point. I suppose deafness and diplomacy whether it be with the president the Secretary of State or others is always of the essence some people are better at this and bringing people along and getting the cooperation in advance. Perhaps then the current group has been Thank you. We have a follow-up question on the United Nation. (00:28:53) Hello, I was wondering words and facts and actions that is are really two different things. And I feel that since the United Nations has demanded that Iran Iraq make peace. Easier said than done couldn't it be would it be feasible and possible to make all the military equipment involved in the united in the Persian Gulf under the United Nations Flag. (00:29:21) That would be possible has been suggested by some distinguished Americans the I'm advised the technical ways of doing that are very difficult. The UN command is really not prepared to take over the things that are occurring in the Persian Gulf presently, but nevertheless it's going to be debated substantially. We're going to hear I think from Elliot Richardson and others in the coming week in the Foreign Relations Committee who will describe at least their idea as Statesmen of had some experience as to how the UN might be more involved is not completely involved. And and so it's an idea whose time we not quite have come but it'll be illuminated and Americans will have a chance to debate it. Thank you, Senator. Jack eating (00:30:05) does not the recent French German military joint operations where they're planning to set up a unified Army of some kind indicate that Europe is willing to take its role in support (00:30:22) of Peace in that part of the world. (00:30:28) Well, that is an indication certainly a flexibility that is important to behold but I would say that even as the French and the Germans take on these joint operations and even thoughts to go beyond that for instance. The sharing of the French nuclear weapon Germans are interested in that situation to there is a notice our whatever to diminish the role of NATO and I suppose continued ambivalence on the part of the the Germans and other European States as to how much of their own defense they're willing to pay for. They have very large armies the Germans that proportionally to ours and yet all of the police have General Rogers and others to try to spend the three percent of their of their have a 3% increase each year in terms of growth of Conventional Weapons of sometimes been met and often have not been met, you know, sort of The Dark Secret of of the predicament. There it comes when we finally negotiate this ion, Treaty for the end of the short-range intermediate missiles and European leaders are privately very critical because American or a tornado Pershing twos are no longer available at the Soviet Union at that point and they then complain that we have not negotiated downward the conventional forces that we should have taken care of that before we got into the nuclear side. I think you go back and forth with European friends on what their responsibilities are how much they're willing to do to defend quite a bit, but obviously not enough and we're in that kind of argument again on the beefing up at the conventional side, but the German French exercises come as a part of the internal Agony in both of those countries. Thank you Senator question here from Jim Mullen (00:32:16) Senator. We haven't been particularly successful throughout history and raising the standard of living and Central America (00:32:23) and I'm wondering if you see things we could be doing or things that might work (00:32:29) because it seems a necessary element of democracy to have a standard of living that's above current levels. (00:32:34) Well, you're absolutely right. And anybody who is excited as many of us are about the growth of democracy in Central America realizes that those democracies are really hard (00:32:44) put to overcome (00:32:46) not only Elites business people Armed Force types that are still around and the bulk of poverty throughout the countries. We try to address this as a country with the Jackson (00:32:59) kissing her commission ideas a few years ago. It was a good plan still has a good plan. (00:33:05) Their predicament is to fold that while a war is going on in that neck of the woods and there are Insurgent movements blowing up capital resources possibilities of getting the monies that are in the identified and the kissing her plan are not a good bet furthermore. The Congress has become a very parsimonious with regard to even the minimal request of the president for foreign assistance. We have a foreign assistance budget this year that is cut down to the point that we will meet the Camp David obligations in the Middle East and the base rights obligations to Greece turkey Spain the Philippines and what happened, there's not much left over after that despite all of our aspirations and idealism. Are there are there Hope Springs Eternal that if the peace plan of Oscar Arias or the right Regan plan or any of combinations work and we get peace that there might be then an impetus. And as a matter of fact some of the legislation in his life, he that cometh the end of this session will say specifically if peace comes and if people democratize as we hope they will do there will be rewards to this but in the meanwhile, it's very heavy going and very discouraging now whether it be Oscar Arias or vinicius rate, so we were said visit from president is going of Honduras and this past week. They all have very specific demands that some of us are trying even at this late date to insert and final CR to give them some relief (00:34:34) Senator question here. (00:34:36) Can you tell us your analysis of what you (00:34:38) think the damage has been (00:34:39) to our foreign policy by the off (00:34:41) the off the books covert operations illustrated by the your arm sailed. RAM and what Congress can do to about it? If anything, (00:34:54) I think mercifully the problem in terms of other countries was a very limited one people have read the stories and they understand what occurred and they are no one applauded the condemn it but nevertheless they understand about the nature of the circumstance isn't some sort of a chapter that's been turned over. I would guess that in our situation internally in this country. We're going to be debating some more the Constitutional framework for the making of foreign policy the most difficult circumstance of the whole episode is I see it was the idea that that mr. Casey or others could have sort of an off-the-shelf foreign policy. There was not directly even a part of the president's staff at is the National Security Council quite apart from the CIA or quite apart from the Congress the executive coming together. That that exposure I clearly has all arming implications and is one in a bipartisan way. We're busy trying to remedy that can happen again, but do you know these things do happen from time to time and we have to be vigilant our costumes and system has to be alert to try to keep things within channels (00:36:08) Senator wondering if you could give us any insights into William Casey because of his untimely death. He never testified before the Congress and there's a great deal of speculation fed. Of course by Bob Woodward's highly suggestive book. What do you think Bill Casey was up to in his last several years as director of the CIA? (00:36:26) That might require a book almost as long as Bob Woodward's into a to get into but Bill Casey had some very strong ideas about how the world ought to work and what our role ought to be in it. He came to a position of feeling that he had a limited amount of time to do that. And and he did what he needed to do at least to satisfy the requirements and the idealism as he perceived it and I have no argument with someone who has patriotic and has idealism. My the argument comes as a member of the intelligence committee for eight years four of them during the case. He's a trained at CIA. I tried to help him facilitate relationships with the senate committee in particular and I think we had some success we set up many breakfast. We everybody around the table. We shared thoughts and I felt had a fairly trusting atmosphere until suddenly we discovered that Harbors in Nicaragua have been mined. And Bill said what I told you about that and many members of the committee felt that they had not been told and even those that felt they had a scintilla of memory of an obscure item didn't feel that was actually highlighted. There was Miss trusted group and that that I think finally led to the point that I just criticized that Casey feeling that Congress was unsympathetic that the whole oversight idea that was to be the check and balance would not work for him apparently tried to obtain funds the setup really a foreign policy off the shelf that would not require normal checks and balances or debate in this country. That is always wrong because no one of us is a philosopher king and there is real value in review even be very limited checking balance. Thank you Senator a question for mr. Salt Senator. It would appear Henry (00:38:18) Kissinger feels that this INF (00:38:21) agreement of the something just (00:38:23) short of a disaster. Where do you think is feeling is is thinking as flawed (00:38:27) on this? Well, I think that it's flawed in the sense that Henry I think privately is prepared to testify for the INF treaty when we finally have a hearing but but he wants to make some points to begin with and that is that we have not thought nearly enough about the conventional superiority of the Soviet and the Warsaw Pact countries in Western Europe. And I agree. We have not all the allowed people to try to get people thinking on that but we don't have agreements on that Oliver all stalemated in those negotiations and therefore given that superiority for us to withdraw our Pershing to missiles which Henry and others would feel of the real stopper when it comes to an invasion he would believe that's mistake and if you take them all out, you leave then short-range nuclear weapons all of them in German soil essentially in that territory and real pressure on the Germans and the go she ate some more to get rid of them. And Henry is among those that think you're on a sliding slope of me. Need denuclearization of Europe that point and content therefore given the Soviet conventional superiority that's in danger. So I would say I think we are not removing that many nuclear weapons to begin with. This is a modest treaty in that sense. Then we have to come to our senses with regard to things we have to do conventionally for to get rid of nuclear (00:39:52) weapons. Thank you Senator question from mr. Stand ever. Senator moving just for a minute from international relations to topic of domestic concern great amount of public controversy and debate recently concerning the amount of attention that ought to be paid appropriately to a person in public office as a person in public office. How do we balance the Public's right to know in a free Society with an individual's right to some degree of privacy? (00:40:24) I don't know how you do that. I accept the fact is somebody in public life that everything that I'm involved in is fair game has been for the last 20 years. This doesn't bother me, but I appreciate that many of the intrusions. I think we're almost voyeuristic. They have no particular public policy situation people interested in what kind of breakfast cereal you want or you know bits and pieces of your life and that way and sort of a People magazine treatment of politics rather than in a serious thought as to what is required intellectually physically morally what have you do the job, but I don't know how you differentiate this and anytime someone in public life tries to do. So while you're in bad trouble as one who has tried to suppress what the public ought to know about, you know, I've sort of resigned to that, you know happily every year I turn over my balance sheets and income statements every bit of minutiae with regard to Financial. fares and so far then, you know for 20 years people have rummage through it and and sort of done what they could I (00:41:29) supposed thank you Senator president push in the course of your discussing the tensions that arise between the various groups who are involved in trying to influence and make foreign policy. You have referred to the Senate and to the Congress and to the administration and to various advisors of one sort and other from your Vantage Point. Could you answer the question who is determining our foreign policy? (00:41:58) Well, essentially the president is cheap Arbiter foreign policy assisted by the Secretary of State and National Security Council. Now, they are still the chief movers and shakers the Congress plays very heavy role. But often in limited ways. There are some issues that are more interesting to Congress than others, but there is a check and balance there that is very real and there are many members of the Congress to take foreign policy very seriously and enter into dialogue with the administration either (00:42:27) officially or unofficially, I think (00:42:30) somewhere and that process the initiatives of the president are honed by hopefully good debate in his cabinet with his advisors and hone some more by the give-and-take with the Congress as the president asked for money or for Authority. Even this Persian Gulf situation. I read this is a long debate on whether the War Powers Act is applicable, but what clearly could occur Congress felt strongly about it. Would be a joint resolution of two houses telling the (00:43:01) president to draw from the Persian Gulf. (00:43:04) Nobody has suggested that the money could be cut off through the appropriation process. The whole thing could be truncated this week. What would rather I suppose we have is as and I think is a proper role and that is that Congress has consulted people argue these things I think are tactics in the Persian Gulf of shape of quite a bit since with the president's first got involved in March and started discussing these things and for the better, but it's in that that sort of give and take I think the foreign policy occurs. Finally. It's influenced by our allies and we touched upon this a bit doctor Cleveland's question as to whether we do it unilaterally or together and I admitted that often we do it unilaterally and often we ought to try harder and be more successful in getting a broader base of support but that we have touched a lot of bases there before any operation occurs quickly anyone that has implications for them. (00:43:59) Thank you Senator our last (00:44:00) question. (00:44:02) It's Senator. (00:44:04) Do you perceive that mr. Reagan today and tomorrow and in these (00:44:09) meetings with the congressman about (00:44:12) does he see the urgency of seriously talking about reducing our deficits. Is he going to come out with the same stuff that he's been coming out with it. It's always the congress's fault it (00:44:25) certainly the there's (00:44:26) blame both ways, but he I don't think he's serious. I don't really think he understands the (00:44:32) urgency of it. What do you think? (00:44:36) Well, the president did meet today with the Congressional leaders. It was relatively pro forma meeting at least they have met and at three o'clock tomorrow advisors will get together again on details my own prediction is that they will come up with a package of at least twenty three billion dollars of tax raises or spending cuts. Maybe more some would like to do more perhaps a broader agenda even including prescription against protectionism is a part of the package but I think the president takes it very seriously. My guess is in this particular area. He's Guided by Jim Baker Howard Baker and with some very good advice by Alan Greenspan. I think all these people contributed mightily to actions that were taken last week. There were time that were very serious and are a part generally of the Reagan Administration. Thank you very much.