EXCERPTS FROM REAGAN'S INTERVIEW WITH 4 SOVIET JOURNALISTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 12, 2010
• Sequence Number: 49
• Publication Date: November 5, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

y.- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9 STAT
i
NEW YORK TIMES
5 November 1985
Excerpts From Reagan's Interview Wit E4 Soviet
Journalists
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Follow-
ing are excerpts from President Rea-
gan's interview last Thursday with
four Soviet journalists, as recorded
and transcribed by the White House
Press Office and made public today.
The material in italics, between
brackets, was omitted from Russian
and English transcripts of the inter-
view published in the Soviet Union.
OPENING STATEMENT
[May I welcome you all. And I ap-
preciate very much the opportunity to
be able to speak, in a sense, to the
people of your country. I've always
believed that a lot of the ills of the
world would disappear if people
talked more to each other instead of
about each other. So I look forward to
this meeting and welcome your ques-
tions.]
New Soviet Proposal
Q. Mr. President, we have become
acquainted with the answers which
you furnished to our written ques-
tions. They basically reflect the old
U.S. proposals. They have been
evaluated - which have been evalu-
ated by the Soviet side as being unbal-
anced and one-sided in favor of the
U.S. side. And you have not answered
concerning the new Soviet proposal.
And this reply to the new Soviet pro-
posal is what is of greatest interest
before the meeting in Geneva.
A. When this interview is over,
later this afternoon at 3 P.M., I will be
making a statement to our own press
- well, to all the press - to the effect
that we have been studying the Soviet
proposal and tomorrow in Geneva,
our team at the disarmament confer-
ence will be presenting our reply
the which will be a proposal that reflects
thinking the gel proposal
that we had, but also of this latest. In-
deed, it will show that we are accept-
ing some of the figures that were in
this counterproposal by the General
Secretary.
[There are some points in which we
have offered compromises between
some figures of theirs and some of
ours. But that will all be - all those
figures will be available tomorrow,
and I will simply be stating today that
we have - that that is going to take
place tomorrow in Geneva. But it is a
detailed counterproposal that - to a
counterproposal, as is proper in ne-
gotiations, that will reflect, as I say,
the acceptance on our part of some of
this latest proposal as well as com-
promises with earlier figures that
we'd proposed.]
U.S. Public Opinion
Q. I would like to have another
question for you, Mr. President. Ac-
cording to a survey taken by The
Washington Post and ABC on Tues-
day, it was found that 74 percent of
the American people as compared to
20 percent said that they would like
the U.S. and. the Soviet Union to re-
duce their nuclear arsenals and not
have the U.S. develop space weapons.
This seems to be the choice which the
American People have made. It
seems clear that without stopping the
development of weapons in space
there can be no reduction of nuclear
weapons. This is the position of the
Soviet side. So how then will you
react, Mr. President, to this opinion
expressed by the American public?
A. For one thing, it is based on a
misconception. The use of the term
"Star Wan" came about when one
political figure in America used that
to describe what it is we are research-
ing and studying, and then our press
picked It'up and it his been world-
wide- We're not talking about "Star
Wars" at all. We are talking about
seeing if there isn't a defensive
weapon that does not kill people, but
that simply makes it impossible for
nuclear missiles, once fired out of
their silos, to reach their objective
to intercept those weapons.
Now it is also true that, to show that
this is a misconception on the part of
the people when you use the wrong
terms, not too long ago there was a
survey taken, a poll of our people, and
they asked them about "Star Wars."
And similar to the reaction in this
poll, only about 30 percent of the peo-
ple in our country favored it, and the
rest didn't. But in the same poll they
then described, as I have tried to de-
scribe, what it is we are researching
- a strategic defensive shield that
doesn't kill people, but would allow us
one day - all of us - to reduce - get
rid of nuclear weapons. And over 90
percent of the American people fa-
vored our going forward with such a
program.
(Now this is one of the things that
we will discuss. We are for, and have
for several years now, been advocat.
ing a reduction in the number of nu-
clear weapons. It is uncivilized on the
part of all of us to be sitting here with
the only deterrent to war - offensive
nuclead num-
bers that both weapons
threaten the
other with the death and the annihila-
tion of millions and millions of each
other's people.
[And so that is the deterrent that is
supposed to keep us from firing these
missiles at each other. Wouldn't it
make a lot more sense if we could find
- that as there has been in history for
every weapon a defensive weapon.
Weapon isn't the term to use for what
we are researching. We are research-
ing for something that could make it,
as I say, virtually impossible for
these missiles to reach their targets.
And if we find such a thing, my pro-
posal is that we make it available to
all the world. We don't just keep it for
our own advantage.]
Space Shield
Q. Mr. President; with the situation
as it stands today in the international
arena, attempts to create such a
space shield will inevitably lead to
suspicion on the other side that the
country creating such a space shield
will be in a position to make a first
strike. This is a type of statement
whose truth is agreed to by many peo-
ple. Now, it's apparent that the Amer-
ican neonle have indicated their
choice, that if it comes down to a
choice between the creation of such a
space system and the decrease in nu-
clear arms, they prefer a decrease in
nuclear arms. So, it seems to be a
realistic evaluation on the part of the
American People. And I would like to
ask how the American Government
would react to the feeling of the
American people in this regard.
A. In the first place, yes, if someone
was developing such a defensive sys-
tem and going to couple it with their
own nuclear weapons - offensive
weapons - Yes, that could put them
in a position where they might be
more likely to dare a first strike. But
your country, your Government has
been working on this same kind of a
Plan started beginning working on Years it, behich, I think,
would indicate that maybe we should
be a little suspicious that they want it
for themselves.
But I have said, and am prepared to
say at the summit, that if such a
weapon is possible, and our research
reveals that, then, our move would be
to say to all the world, "Here, it is
available." We won't put this weapon
- or this system - in place, this de-
fensive system, until we do away with
our nuclear missiles, our offensive
missiles. But we will make it avail-
able to other countries, including the
Soviet Union, to do the same thing.
[Now, just what - whichever one
of us comes up first with that defen-
sive system, the Soviet Union or us or
anyone else - what a picture if we
say no one will claim a monopoly on
it. And we make that offer now. it will
be available for the Soviet Union, as
well as ourselves.]
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
And if the Soviet Union and the
United States both say we will elimi-
nate our offensive weapons, we will
put in this defensive thing in case
some place in the world a madman
some day tries to create these weap-
ons again - nuclear weapons - be-
cause, remember, we all know how to
make them now. [So, you can't do
away with that information. But we
would all be safe knowing that if such
a madman project is ever attempted
there isn't any of us that couldn't de-
fend ourselves against it.]
So, I can assure you now we are not
going to try and monopolize this, if
such a weapon is developed, for a
first-strike capability.
U.S. Troops Abroad
Q. Mr. President, I would like to
ask you about some of the matters
which concern mutual suspicion and
distrust. And you indicated at your
speech at the United Nations that the
U.S. does not extend - does not have
troops in other countries - but there
are - has not occupied other coun-
tries. But there are 550,000 troops -
military personnel outside of the
United States. In 32 countries, there
are 1,500 military bases. So, one can
see in this way which country it is that
has become surrounded. And you
have agreed that the Soviet Union has
the right to look out for the interest of
its security. And it is inevitable that
the Soviet Union must worry about
these bases which have - which are
around it.
The Soviet Union, in turn, has not
done the same. So, how do you in this
respect anticipate to create this bal-
ance of security which you have
spoken about?
A. Well, I can't respond to your
exact numbers there that you've
given. I don't have them right at my
fingertips as to what they are. But
were talking about two different
things - we're talking about occupy-
ing a country with foreign troops,
such as we see the Soviet Union doing
in Afghanistan, and there are other
places, too - Angola, South Yemen,
Ethiopia.
Yes, we have troops in bases. The
bulk of those would be in the NATO
forces - the alliance in Europe along
the NATO line - [there in response to
even superior numbers of Warsaw
pact troops that are aligned against
them.] And the United States, as one
of the members of the alliance, con.
tributes troops to that NATO force.
The same is true in Korea in which,
at the invitation of the South Korean
Government, we have troops to help
them there because of the demilita.
rized zone and the threatening nature
of North Korea, (which attacked
them without warning. And that was
not an American war, even though we
provided the most of the men. That
war was fought under the flag of the
United Nations. The United Nations
found North Korea guilty of aggres-
sion in violation of the Charter of the
U.N. And, finally, South Korea was
defended and the North Koreans were
defeated. But they still have main-
tained a sizable, threatening offen-
sive force.]
Other places - we have bases in
the far Pacific; we've had them for
many years in the Philippines. We
lease those- those are base we rent.
In fact, we even have a base that is
leased on Cuba that was there long
before there was a Castro in Cuba - a
naval base. But this, I think; is a far
cry from occupying other countries,
[including the nations in the Warsaw
pact. They never were allowed the
self-determination that was agreed to
in the Yalta Treaty - the end of
World War II.
[So, I think my statement still goes
- that there is a difference in occupa-
tion and a difference in having bases
where they are there in a noncombat
situation, and many where they are
requested by the parent country.]
Guantanamo Base
Q. If there's a referendum and the
Cuban people decide that the base at
Guantanamo should be evacuated,
would it be evacuated?
A. No, because the lease for that
was made many years ago, and it still
has many years to run, and we're per-
fectly legal in our right to be there. It
is fenced off. There is no contact with
the people or the main island of Cuba
at all.
Russians in Afghanistan
Q. Mr. President, you have men-
tioned Afghanistan. I would like to
say that in Afghanistan Soviet troops
are there at the invitation of the Af-
ghan Government to defend the Af-
ghan revolution against the incur-
sions of forces from abroad that are
funded and supported by the United
States.
In the United Nations, you have in-
dicated that the United States has not
attempted to use force, but has fos-
tered the process of democracy by
peaceful means. How does this reply
fit in with the use of force by the
United States in many countries
abroad, beginning with Vietnam,
where seven million tons of weapons
were dropped - seven million tons
more than were in the Second World
War, and, also, Grenada? I ask this
not to dwell on the past, but simply to
clarify this issue.
A. And it can be clarified, yes.
[First, of all, with regard to Af-
ghanistan, the Government which in-
vited the Soviet troops in didn't have
any choice because the Government
was put there by the Soviet Union and
put there with the force of arms to
guarantee. And, in fact, the man who
was the head of that Government is
the second choice. The first one was-
n't satisfactory to the Soviet Union,
and they came in with armed forces
and threw him out and installed their
second choice, who continues to be
the governor.]
Now, there are no outside forces
fighting in there. But, as a matter of
fact, I think there are some things
that, if they were more widely known,
would shock everyone worldwide. For
example, one of the weapons being
used against the people of Afghani-
stan consists of toys - dolls, little toy
trucks, things that are appealing to
children. They're scattered in the air.
But when the children pick them up,
their hands are blown off. They are
what we call booby-traps. They're
like land mines. This is hardiv consis-
tent with the kind of armed warfare
that has occurred between nations.
Q. Vietnam?
A. Yes, when Vietnam - or let's
say, French Indochina - was given
up as a colony, an international forum
in Geneva, meeting in Geneva, estab-
lished a North Vietnam and a South
Vietnam. [North Vietnam was al-
ready governed by a Communist
group and had a government in
place during the Japanese occupa-
tion-of French Indochina. South Viet-
nam had to start and create a govern-
ment.
We were invited into - with in-
structors, to help -them establish
something they had never had before,
which was a military. And our in-
structors went in in civilian clothes.
Their families went with them. And
they started with a country that didn't
have any military schools or things of
this kind to create an armed force for
the Government of South Vietnam.
They were harassed by terrorists
from the very beginning. Finally, it
was necessary to send the families
home. Schools were being bombed.
There was even a practice of rolling
bombs down the aisles of movie thea-
ters and killing countless people that
were simply enjoying a movie. And fi-
nally, changes were made that our
people were allowed to arm them-
selves for their own protection.
And then, it is true, that President
Kennedy sent in a unit of troops [to
provide protection.] This grew into
the war of Vietnam. [At no time did
the allied force - and it was allied;
there were more in there than just
American troops -] at no time did we
try for victory. Maybe that's what
was wrong. We simply tried to main-
tain a demilitarized zone between
North and South Vietnam. And we
know the result that has occurred
now.
And it is all one state of Vietnam. It
was conquered in violation of a treaty
that was signed in Paris between
North and South Vietnam. [We left
South Vietnam, and North Vietnam
swept down, conquered the country,
as I say, in violation of a treaty.]
But this is true of almost any of the
other places that you mentioed. We
- I've talked so long I've fnorgotten
some of the other examples that you
used.
Q. Grenada?
A. What?
Q. Grenada?
A. Grenada. Ah. We had some sev-
eral hundred young American medi-
cal students there. Our intelligence-'
revealed that they were threatened as
potential hostages, and the Govern-
ment of Grenada requested help,
military help, not only from the
United States, but from the other
Commonwealth nations - island na-
tions in the Caribbean - from Ja-
maica, from Dominica, a number of
these others. They in turn relayed the
request to us because they did not
have armed forces in sufficient
strength.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
And, yes, we landed. And we found
warehouses filled with we-'.pons, and
they were of Soviet manufacure. We
found hundreds of Cubans there.
There was a brief engagement. We
freed the island. And in a very short
time, our troops came home after res-
cuing our students, rescuing the is-
land. [There are no American troops
there now.] Grenada has set up a
democracy [and is ruling itself by vir-
tue of an election that was held
shortly thereafter among the people,
and of which we played no part.
(And there is the contrast: the
Soviet troops have been in Afghani-
stan for six years now, fighting all
that time. We did what we were asked
to do - the request of the Govern-
ment of Grenada -and came home.]
'72 ABM Treaty
Q. Mr. President, with relation to
the ABM Treaty, which was signed in
1972, Article 5 of that treaty indicates,
and I quote, "that each side will not
develop a test or deploy antiballistic
missile components or systems which
are sea-based, air-based, space-
based or mobile land-based. Now,
some Administration representatives
say that the treaty is such that it per-
mits all of these things - the develop.
ment, the testing, and deployment of
ABM systems. Such an interpretation
of that treaty certainly cannot help
achieve agreement.
What is the true position of the
American Administration with re-
gard to the interpretation of this
treaty? Will the U.S. abide by the
treaty or not? And certainly the re-
sults of your meeting with General
Secretary Gorbachev will depend a
great deal on that fact.
A. There are two varying interpre-
tations of the treaty. There is an addi-
tional cluse in the treaty that would
seem to be more liberal than that
Paragraph 5 - or Clause 5. The other
hand, we have made it plain that we
are going to stay within a strict defini-
tion of the treaty. And what we are
doing with regard to research - and
that would include testing - is within
the treaty.
Now, with regard to deployment, as
I said earlier, no, we are doing what is
within the treaty and which the Soviet
Union has already been doing for
quite some time, same kind of re-
search and development. But, when it
comes to the deployment, I don't
know what the Soviet Union was
going to do when and if their research
developed such a weapon, or still if it
does.
But I do know what we're going to
do and I have stated it already. [We
would not deploy - my - it is not my
purpose for deployment - until we sit
down with the other nations of the
world, and those that have nuclear ar-
senals, and see if we cannot come to
an agreement on which there will be
deployment only if there is elimina-
tion of the nuclear weapons.]
Now, you might say if we're going
to eliminate the nuclear weapons,
then why do we need the defense?
Well, I repeat what I said earlier. We
all know how to make them - the
weapons, so it is possible that some
President Gave Interview
To Specialists on the U.S.
MOSCOW, Nov. 4 (AP) - The
four journalists chosen for Presi-
dent Reagan's interview with
Soviet reporters are all experts on
the United States.
The four men, in their 50's or
early 60's, speak English and
have spent several years report-
ing from the United States.
Three of them - Genrikh Boro-
vik of the Novosti feature syndi-
cate, Stanislav Kondrashov of the
Government newspaper Izvestia
and Vsevolod Ovchinnikov of
Pravda - often appear on Soviet
television's weekly current af-
fairs program, "International
Panorama," a 45-minute review
of world events.
The fourth man, Gennadi Shish-
kin, is the First Deputy Director
General of the Soviet Government
press agency, Tass. He writes for-
eign affairs commentaries for
Tass and has served as head of the
Tass bureau in New York.
Mr. Borovik, in addition to his
journalistic activities, has turned
to the theater in recent years. He
is the editor of Teatr, the Soviet
Union's theatrical monthly, and is
the author of "Agent 00," a sa-
tirical play about a Latin Amer-
ican country similar to Chile that
has been playing to full houses at
Moscow's Mayakovsky Theater.
Mr. Borovik, who has served in
New York for Novosti, frequently
writes on Latin American affairs.
Mr. Kondrashov has reported
for Izvestia from both New York
and Washington and regularly
writes for the paper in Moscow on
foreign affairs.
Both he and Mr. Ovchinnikov,
who has reported from London
and from Tokyo for Pravda,
wrote articles about President
Reagan's speech last month to the
United Nations General Assem-
bly.
Both refrained from personal
criticism of Mr. Reagan, but at-
tacked the United States record in
international affairs, in line with
Soviet criticism of Mr. Reagan's
focus on disputed regions as a pos-
sible area of Soviet-American
cooperation.
day a madman could arise in the
world - we were both allies in a war
that came about because of such a
madman - and therefore, it would be
like, in Geneva after World War?.1,
when the nations all got together and
said no more poison gas, but we all
kept our gasmasks. Well, this weap-
on, if such can be developed, would be
today's gasmask. But we would want
it for everyone and the terms for get-
ting it, and the terms for our own de-
ployment would be the elimination of
the offensive weapons - a switch to
maintain trust and peace between us
of having defense systems that gave,
us security, not the theat of annihila-
tion - that one or the other of us'
would annihilate the other with nu-
clear weapons.
So, we will not be violating this.
treaty at any time, because, as I say,-
it is not our purpose to go forward
with deployment if and when such'ar
weapon proved practical.
Q. Mr. President, we've about run
out of time unless you had somethngg
in conclusion you wanted to state.
A. Well, I - we haven't covered - I.-
guess I've filibustered on too many of
these questions here with lengthy an-
swers. I know you have more ques-?-
bons there. I'm sorry that we haven't,
time for them.
But I would just like to say that the'
Soviet Union and the United StatestA--
well, not the Soviet Union, let us say.
Russia and the United States have
been allies in two wars. The Soviet
Union and the United States, allies%a
one, the last and greatest war, W Id
War II. Americans and Russians d d
side by side, fighting the same,
enemy.
There are Americans buried on;
Soviet soil. And it just seems to me,-
and what I look forward to in this'
meeting with the General Secretary
- is that people don't start wars, g2omv
ernments do. And I have a little thing,
here that I copied out of an article the
other day, and the author of the anti,
cle uttered a very great truth. "Na-'
tions do not distrust each other be-
cause they are armed. They arm'
themselves because they distrust
each other."
Well, I hope that in the summit
maybe we can find ways that we can
prove by deed - not just words, but
by deeds -. that there is no need:Yor'
distrust between us. And then we can
stop punishing our people by using
our wherewithal to build these ar-
senals of weapons instead of doing
more things for the comfort of the
people.
Q Thank you very much, Mr. Presi-
dent, and -
A. Thank you.
Q. - It's a pity, sir, too, that there
can't be enough time to have your an.
swers for all our questions -
A. Well, all right. O.K.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
3.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9
President Reagan being Interviewed Thursday by
Soviet journalists. From left: Genrikh Borovik of No-
vosti, the feature syndicate; Gennadi $hishkin of Tass,
Q. Unfortunately, Mr. President,
we cannot discuss with you the his-
tory of questions which we just asked
already because we have sometimes
a very different attitude of that..But
no time.
Q As you know, the world is sort of
different.
A. [I was waiting fora question that
would allow me to point out that,
under the detente that we had for a
few years, during which we sidrted
the SALT I and the SALT 11 Treatte ,
the Soviet Union added over 7?
warheads to its arsenal. And we have
fewer than we had in 1969. And 3,800
of those were added to the arsenal
afterkhe simine of SALT H. So-1
Q. ut -
Q. But still you have more war
heads -
A. No, we don't.
Q. - Mr. President -
A. Oh, no we don't.
Q. Yes, you have-well, to 12,000-
Associated Press
the Government press agency; Stanislav Kondrashov
of Izvestia, the Government newspaper, and Vsevolod
Ovchhudkov of Pravda, the Communist Party daily.
Q. You know, it's an interesting
phenomenon because in '79, after
seven years of very severe - I wopid
say the - researching in - SALT II..
the - President Carter and other spe-
cialists told that there was a parity in
strategic and military. And then, you
came to the power and they said -
you said it sounded that the Soviet
Union is much ahead. Then, recently,
in September, you said almost the
same, though the Joint Chief] of
Staffs told this year that there is a
parity. What is the contradiction?
A. No, there really isn't. Somebody
might say that with the sense of that
we have sufficient for a deterrent,
that, in other words, we would have
enough to make it uncomfortable if
someone attacked us. But, no, your
arsenal does out-count ours by a great
number.
Q. People say that - (inaudible.)
(Laughter.) The generals - your
generals say they wouldn't -
Q. O.K.
Q. - Switch, you know, with our
generals, your arsenal.
Q. I would like to tell you also. that
those stories about dolls in Afghani-
stan. I was in Afghani3tan there a lit-
tle bit -
Larry, Speakes, White House
spokesman. He's - maybe we'll have
another opportunity -
Q. Yes, we hope so.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/12 : CIA-RDP90-00552R000505380049-9