Gorbachev, Shultz, Nunn, Perry Urge a Nuclear-Free World

(2 of 2)

Shultz: I'd like to make the problem even more complicated, and then simplify it. This got started with a question about India and Pakistan. Well, they have a long-standing dispute [over] Kashmir. All of this underlines the importance about doing something about this part of the world that is in turmoil right now — Pakistan, Afghanistan, India — it's a problem in the process of exploding. In our various writings on this, we always said that getting after these sensitive regional issues was something very much to be on the front burner. If it turns out that we are able to move forward in this nuclear field, arguably the most difficult of all, it would tend to show the world that progress is possible on something like this and maybe there would be some progress in other areas. We can't get ourselves in the position of saying we can't do anything until we do everything.

Gorbachev: [But] let's say we've arrived to the "X" date when we have rid the world, when we've rid planet Earth of nuclear weapons. [There would still be] very sophisticated, modern, destructive conventional arms. And these weapons that can be used in different situations will mostly be in the United States. We would have a rather distorted situation....This is a security issue for our countries, a political and security issue. When we talk about security, we cannot just say, trust us, rely on us, we want peace. You know that that is not something that works.

Nunn: Let me say in response to President Gorbachev, I was one of those shortly after Reykjavik brought up the conditional imbalances and expressed my views that we needed to get rid of nuclear weapons but we also had to address the conventional problems. I still feel that way, and I think that, without trying to allocate fault to any particular countries, he fact that Russia is not part of any kind of security arrangements in the Euro-Atlantic arc is a failure of foreign policy of the United States and of Russia and of Europe.

We also have to do the same thing together as global leaders in discussing the tensions in South Asia, Pakistan and India. We have to work together with other countries in the Middle East, and we have to work together in Northeast Asia. All of those countries in those areas have certain insecurities and in their minds it all ties to the nuclear question. So we cannot neglect those problems. But we should go forward, as George says, with the nuclear discussions in parallel with these other discussions knowing that they're all going to be important in terms of what I call reaching the top of the mountain — which is a world without nuclear weapons.

Perry: If we start off on this nuclear disarmament process, we should not imagine it's going to be over in a year or two. It took us decades to build up the nuclear arsenal of the Cold War and it took us decades to remove it, even under the best conditions. I believe, though, that a serious move toward a nuclear disarmament would provide the best possible environment for dealing with the other problems. So it's not an either or problem; they have to move together in parallel.

TIME: What can be done to try to change the behavior of countries like Iran and North Korea, who appear to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons?

Shultz: I believe that if it's clear that we are on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons...then the amount of pressure on them increases greatly. You can change the atmosphere and you'll be able to get at these problems. But at the same time we have to show if the system of a world free of nuclear weapons is to work, that somebody who tries to break out will be punished. It's not going to be allowed.

Gorbachev: Whatever Iran might be doing, it hasn't been able to divide Russia and the U.S. in terms of the overall approach. That is to say, that both our countries — all of us — believe that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. Frankly, I don't believe that force could be the answer, in this case in particular.

It seemed to some people that the invasion of Iraq would produce great dividends for the U.S. in the Middle East in democratizing the Middle East, in Iraq, that it would improve America's standing, etc. Actually what happened was the exact opposite. Let us not brandish any threats or weapons. So I have been saying for some time...The U.S. and the Iranians should move toward dialogue.

Shultz: I can't speak for the current Administration, but what you suggest is what they're trying to do. But we look at it and we see that Iran through Syria is arming Hizbullah, arming Hamas [and] constantly making statements about their desire to wipe Israel out. That's part of what needs to be calmed down.

Gorbachev: No doubt about it. This process should include all of the things that you just mentioned. And frankly I don't understand why America hasn't been dealing with Iran in this way.

Shultz: Iran is hard to deal with, Mr. President.

Nunn: An additional idea that I think we have to start thinking about is, if we're not going to be accused of double standards by the countries that don't have enrichment, we've got to basically have all facilities that produce highly enriched uranium or plutonium under international safeguard — both existing and used. Under that kind of framework we will be in a different position in dealing with countries like Iran. But we have to do it together.

Perry: No matter how well we do those things, it's possible that Iran will still proceed towards nuclear weapons. In that case we have to look at negative incentives. I do not think we have to consider military sanctions at this time. I do believe that financial sacntions could be very effective, but only if we get global cooperation. Russia, the U.S. and the European union would have to agree on sanctions. And China would have to agree not to interfere with them. If that could be done then it would be very powerful.

Gorbachev: It's important for us not to miss the station. In the world, between our two countries and within our two countries I think there is now reason for hope that very significant steps forward could be taken. And that's very important. So let's seize that opportunity.

Read about Mikhail Gorbachev's work with Green Cross International.

See TIME's pictures of the week.