Shifting Perceptions of Friends

(2 of 4)

A. No. It is more a change in the U.S. perception of Western Europe. I will give you one example that struck me personally. Someone of importance in the U.S. [Arms Control Agency Director Eugene Rostow] made a speech recently, telling his audience that Americans should not delude themselves in thinking they are living in a postwar period; they should accept the fact that they are riving in a prewar period. This was never said by Henry Kissinger, nor by Cyrus Vance, nor by Presidents Ford and Carter. Remarks of this kind create an enormous disturbance in my country. I do not believe they represent President Reagan's attitude. I have great personal faith in Reagan. But I would welcome it if he corrected such loose talk. It misleads West Germans about American attitudes.

Q. What did you think of President Reagan's statement that the Soviet Union was ahead of the U.S. in nuclear strength?

A. I have no criticism. Instead, I welcome the explicit statement of the will to negotiate for arms limitations and equilibrium at lower levels.

Q. How do you explain heightened East-West tension?

A. There is additional tension now—after the invasion of Afghanistan, after the 13th of December last year [when martial law was imposed in Poland], after the enormous Soviet arms program. On the other hand, there is a certain tendency in both superpowers' leadership to overestimate the other from time to time. And that can lead to a false assessment of the other's intentions. Moscow is militarily active in sensitive areas around the world, whether it be Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Africa. All this is very disturbing, particularly when seen in connection with the extremely rapid buildup of the Soviet navy. But the Soviets now understand the position taken by the Reagan Administration: this far but no farther. With this attitude the President has already established a position of potential strength from which he can talk successfully with the men in the Kremlin, who do understand that kind of language.

Q. Do you see any need to toughen your position vis-à-vis the military regime in Poland by imposing economic sanctions?

A. The old talk about sanctions is without substance. Trade between Poland and Western Europe is already minimal. Sanctions make the Polish people suffer, especially in the area of food, medicine and basic necessities, but they do not undercut military rule in Warsaw. I think the idea of imposing sanctions was understandable from an emotional point of view, but it could not weaken the grip of the military government there.

Q. The American critics you mentioned earlier say that détente is in danger of turning into appeasement. Is there anything to this?

A. The American Government has never used such language. Outsiders, speechmakers, article writers say so. They don't know Germany, they don't know Europe. If they ever talked, as I have done, with the top military leaders in the Soviet Union, they would understand that the Soviets have great respect for the defense capabilities of the Federal Republic of Germany. And I would add: correctly so. We are not going to diminish our defense capabilities. On the contrary.