Heading for Geneva: "We Have a Strength We Haven't Had Before"

Q  Do you rule out a total ban on nuclear testing, as the Soviets have suggested?
A  Their proposal was unfair in that, as I say, they are ahead of us and we're playing catch-up. A moratorium on testing would be a great advantage for them. They would then have a built-in superiority, and we would be prevented from trying to overcome that imbalance.

Q  The Soviets say they are prepared to accept on-site inspections and other procedures to verify compliance with a nuclear-arms agreement. Does this give hope for such an agreement?
A  We hope so, because their reluctance to allow any real verification has been one of the failing points in all the previous arms negotiations.

Q  The Defense Department is preparing a report expected to show Soviet violations of the SALT II arms agreement. If Gorbachev does not give you assurances in Geneva that he will comply with that agreement, will you continue to honor the terms anyway after it expires at the end of this year?
A  We said we would continue the restraint that both had pledged to follow under SALT II, but it would be dependent on Soviet restraint also. Obviously we're not going to stand by if we're the only one practicing the restraint.

Q  Will you ask in Geneva for assurances on that point?
A  I think that will probably be discussed, yes.

Q  Gorbachev apparently is a fairly combative and ideologically committed person. How do you plan to deal with him in summit negotiations?
A  His attitude is understandable. No man would be in his position unless he adhered to the Soviet policy and Communist philosophy. But I don't think it's necessary to try and disabuse him of his beliefs. We have to live in the world together. The idea is to point out to them that we're not out to destroy their system or change it, nor are we going to allow them to change ours. We recognize that it is an advantage to both of us to have continued peace and to go forward with the systems under which we presently exist—but to eliminate the distrust between us.

The United States is not an aggressor nation. One can look back to the years following World War II, when we were the only major nation in the world that had not had its industry pounded to rubble by bombings. Our military strength was at its very height, even though we had grievous losses in the war. And we had the ultimate weapon—a monopoly on that weapon. In all those years, we not only did not take advantage of that strength when we could have dictated to the world, but we tried to introduce measures that would place nuclear power in international hands so there wouldn't be any country with a monopoly on it.

Contrast that with the Soviet Union's vast military buildup—which is basically offensive, not a defensive buildup. Contrast it with their aggression in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, South Yemen and here in our own hemisphere. If there's anyone that has a right to believe they're threatened, it is the West to believe it is threatened by the Soviet Union.

Q  Gorbachev argues that the military-industrial complex and anti-Soviet extremists dominate American foreign policy. Will you try to convince him that he is mistaken?
A  I think that would be very easy to do. You only have to look at the amount of money we are spending on weapons systems—what percent of our gross national product in comparison to what the Soviets are spending. You'll see that's a very minor element in our whole economy and could not possibly influence national policy. Once that is pointed out to him, I think he'd understand.

Q  You've described the Soviet Union as an evil empire that reserves the right to lie, cheat and steal. After all your preparations for Geneva, do you still hold that view?
A  Well, it really wasn't my view. That began in the first press conference I ever held as President, when I was asked whether we could believe the Soviets. I cited statements by their own leaders over the years saying there is no immorality in anything that furthers the progress of the world's socialist revolution. So we seem to be the only ones that in our philosophy are bound by morality.