"I Want to Be the President's Man"

By Michael Kramer, John Stacks, Christopher Ogden, James Baker

Shortly before his confirmation, the new Secretary of State spoke to chief of correspondents John Stacks, special correspondent Michael Kramer and diplomatic correspondent Christopher Ogden. Excerpts:

Q. Do you agree with National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft that Mikhail Gorbachev's "peace offensive" is designed to make trouble for the Western Alliance?

A. We ought to recognize that the Soviet Union remains a very heavily armed power with interests that are adverse to the U.S. I don't think it has departed from what has been Soviet policy for a long, long time, and that is to test the Alliance, to probe, to look for weaknesses.

Q. But should we encourage Gorbachev's efforts?

A. I'm not one of those who believe we should hope for failure, that somehow failure will result in a weaker Soviet Union and that will be better for the U.S. It's a case of our wanting to see that experiment succeed in opening up that society and seeing the Soviets recognize that Communism has not succeeded. At the same time, I don't think success or failure depends on what we do. We must continue to approach this relationship with prudence, realism, and to be reserved and not go overboard here just because we see a change.

Q. Should the Soviet Union be included in a Middle East peace conference?

A. The policy of the outgoing Administration was to support the concept of an international conference provided -- big proviso -- it was properly structured and provided its purpose was to lead to direct negotiations between the parties. I see no reason why we would depart from the policy with those provisos. We don't oppose categorically a Soviet role. But we do think it's important that any such role be a constructive one, and we would like to see them demonstrate this through action, not just words. One way would be to restore full diplomatic relations with Israel, to continue to permit greater emigration and to stop supporting states that support terrorism, such as Libya.

Q. What leverage does the U.S. have in the Middle East?

A. The U.S. is and can be the most influential player. But it is important that we not permit the perception to develop that we can deliver peace, that we can deliver Israeli concessions. If there is going to be lasting peace, it will be the result of direct negotiations between the parties, not something mandated or delivered by anybody from the outside, including the U.S. We must do whatever we can to enhance the prospect of the parties negotiating the problem out among themselves. It is not the role of the U.S. to pressure Israel. At the same time, it is in Israel's interest to resolve the issue. Both sides have got to find a way to give something.

Q. In Nicaragua how will you continue to support the contras?

A. You will have to continue to support them through humanitarian assistance. It also seems to me that we should not just march in and disband the contras. We need to at least leave open the prospect they could be re-established as a fighting force if Ortega continues to thumb his nose at his neighbors.

Q. Can you leave the contras in Honduras?

A. There are some problems with that.

Q. Where might you base them?

A. I don't have any recommendations right now.

Q. How about putting them on your Texas ranch?

A. Actually, there's some pretty good remote country down there where we could hide a bunch of them. Contra country.

Q. Might you talk to the Soviets about cutting their commitments to the Sandinistas?

A. It's pretty much been policy not to negotiate with the Soviets on matters affecting this hemisphere. ((But)) my own view is that we ought to recognize facts. The Soviets are putting in a billion dollars a year supporting a regime that doesn't believe in the things we believe in. So we shouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of talking to them.

Q. How do you feel about the possibility of the ((right-wing)) ARENA party coming to power next month in El Salvador?

A. The test should be: Was the election open, free and fair? If it was, then we should recognize the government that results. We can't pick the winners of elections in all countries around the world, but we can be in favor of democracy and do what we can to promote openness, democracy, pluralism and human rights.

Q. What is your philosophical attitude about pre-emptive strikes against terrorists?

A. I have absolutely no problems with that philosophically. Sometimes such strikes are not only justified but almost required.

Q. Are you satisfied with the way the European allies are sharing the burden of Western defense?

A. They are beginning to do more and more. The Japanese are as well. What I can't say is they're doing all now that they should ((be doing)) for the next four years.

Q. Are you concerned about Europe's plans for unification of its markets in 1992?

A. It has the potential to go in a beneficial or detrimental way. It could be very beneficial if, in the process of breaking down internal barriers, it doesn't erect external barriers to the U.S., Japan and other non-European countries. It's up to us to manage the relationship properly so it goes the right way.

Q. In your senior thesis at Princeton, you wrote that Britain's Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was hobbled by relying too heavily on permanent advisers. Is that a problem for you at the State Department?

A. This is one department, I'm told, that tends to capture you if you're not careful. I hope to be very careful. I want to be the President's man at the State Department, instead of the State Department's man at the White House.