The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Pres. Bush said the United States will remain a European power with significant military forces there. Mikhail Gorbachev and Warsaw Pact allies denounce the 1968 Czechoslovak invasion, Czech demonstrators rejected a new government dominated by Communists. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, the Bush-Gorbachev seaboard summit is the program. We'll get the reaction and analysis of Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig, former Defense Sec. Robert McNamara, and West German opposition leader Egon Bahr. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush briefed NATO allies on the Malta summit and said Mikhail Gorbachev's behavior mandates new thinking, but he would not declare the cold war over, saying people would ask what are you doing with troops in Europe. At a news conference in Brussels, the President reaffirmed his commitment to the NATO alliance.

PRES. BUSH: I pledge today that the United States will maintain significant military forces in Europe as long as our allies desire our presence as part of a common defense effort. The US will remain a European power and that means that the United States will stay engaged in the future of Europe and in our common defense.

MR. MacNeil: As Mr. Bush left Brussels to fly back to Washington the Soviet leader briefed his allies in the Warsaw Pact. At the meeting the Soviet Union became the last member of the alliance to denounce the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Pres. Gorbachev proposed a declaration denouncing the invasion as groundless and illegal. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: There were more huge anti-government demonstrations in Czechoslovakia today. They were held to denounce a new cabinet named yesterday. It is the first cabinet that includes non- Communists, but the Communists still have most of the positions. About 50,000 people took part in the demonstration in Bratislava, the country's second largest city, 1/4 million people turned out in Prague. We have a report from Paul Davies of Independent Television News.

MR. DAVIES: Today the people of Prague delivered their verdict on the new government, workers joining students in street protests against the continued domination of the Communist Party. Thesestudents were angry that the old energy minister had kept his job, a man who they say is already responsible for allowing excessive levels of pollution and destroying the environment. A quarter of a million people packed into Wenscelaus Square. They'd come to protest at the composition of the new government which gives 15 of its 20 cabinet posts to Communists and to learn what the reform movement's leaders now plan to do. "Our hopes have been spoiled. Now there must be more strikes, more action," said Miraslav Mahacek, the famous Czech actor and director. "Our time has come, our time has come, " the crowd chanted back. It was a massive show of dissent, the crowd filling not only Wenceslaus Square, but many adjoining streets as they demanded the immediate resignation of the new cabinet.

MR. LEHRER: Protests also continued in East Germany today, despite the resignation of the entire Communist Government yesterday. Premier Hans Mudrow, a reformer, remained the official in charge as security agents moved to prevent former Communist officials from removing documents from their offices. Several have been accused of corruption. In the City of Leipzig, more than 200,000 people demonstrated for German reunification. They also demanded an end to the Communist Party and official corruption. There were at least 10 West German flags flying above the crowd. Anti-government demonstrations began in Leipzig more than two months ago. U.S. Sec. of State James Baker will be going to West Berlin next week. The Washington announcement said Baker would make a speech to the Berlin Press Club on Tuesday. He will be the first Bush administration official to visit West Berlin since the Berlin Wall was opened last month.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. Navy today successfully test launched a Trident II missile after forcing a Greenpeace anti-nuclear protest ship out of the way. Previous tests have failed and one was stopped by the Greenpeace demonstrators last July. This time the Navy sent a salvage vessel which pushed the 190 foot Greenpeace vessel out of the 5,000 yard launch area off the Florida coast. The Navy ship also used high powered hoses to get the Greenpeace ship out of the area. The Greenpeace vessel suffered a three foot gash from the collision. The Navy said it took the action only after repeated warnings to leave the area.

MR. LEHRER: The attempt to overthrow Philippines Pres. Corazon Aquino is still not over. Anti-Aquino troops continued to hold positions in Manila's financial district. We have a report from Manila by Jeremy Thompson of Independent Television News.

MR. THOMPSON: As the shoot-out between pro-government soldiers and rebel troops continues, the President's biggest worry will be retaining the loyalty of a divided army. Only military force has kept her in power. Despite claims that the coup has been crushed, renegade troops still control Manila's commercial district, yet its civilians who've suffered most. This boy caught in crossfire died later. Many people are losing faith in the president's ability to control the situation. Even her vice president accuses her of weakness.

SALVADOR LAUREL, VP, Philippines: I think she should not hesitate to step down if that is what is required. I'm willing to step down with her if that is the only way to end this shooting and this killing and what could end or lead to even civil war.

MR. THOMPSON: Tonight two bombs went off in Manila, adding to the terror and confusion inflicting yet more damage on Mrs. Aquino's vulnerable administration.

MR. LEHRER: Rebel forces did agree today to a cease-fire so foreign nationals could be evacuated from the downtown business district. The U.S. State Department said there were about 210 Americans among those trapped in hotels. A rebel spokesman said the foreigners would be allowed to leave this evening. He said they were taking the action to dispel suspicions the foreigners were being held hostage. There was a later unconfirmed report tonight that government troops were preparing an assault against the rebels in the hotel area.

MR. MacNeil: Back in this country, M. Danny Wall resigned today as the chief government savings & loan regulator claiming was being made a scapegoat. There had been calls for Mr. Wall's resignation for his role in delaying closure of the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. The failure of that California thrift is likely to cost taxpayers more than $2 billion. At a news conference today Wall repeated his claim that he had done nothing wrong.

M. DANNY WALL, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision: I'm proud of the staff, I'm proud of my former colleagues, and I'm proud of every decision that I make and I'm responsible for them, and I'll be accountable for them, and clearly I know that you will hold us true to that test. But recognize and understand that we had to make thousands of decisions day in and day out for 2 1/2 years and it is clearly an unusual situation and we bring to a close at least from the standpoint of M. Danny Wall the focus of me as a person in this process and try to return the process to the focus as is appropriately the case, the laws of this country.

MR. MacNeil: Wall set no date for his departure. He said he would stay on to ensure a smooth transition to his successor. Treasury Sec. Nicholas Brady said the search for a new director was underway.

MR. LEHRER: And finally in the news today, another breakthrough transplant story. A 26 year old woman remained in critical condition tonight in Pittsburgh after being given a new heart, a new liver, and a new kidney. Cindy Martin of Archibald, Pennsylvania, received them during an operation that began Saturday night and ended yesterday afternoon. It was the first time such a three organ operation had been attempted. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to analysis of the results of the Bush-Gorbachev summit. FOCUS - SUMMIT SUM-UP

MR. MacNeil: We devote the Newshour tonight to an evolution of the Bush, Gorbachev Summit in Malta with a group of senior current and former officials from the United States and West Germany. We begin with the messages that the American and Soviet Leaders took to their Allies today. First President Bush who reported to NATO leaders in Brussels. Correspondent Nik Gowing of Britain's Independent Television News covered that event.

MR. GOWING: Politically Christmas has not quite yet arrived for the 16 nation alliance born 40 years ago as the guarantor of peace in Europe. But today President Bush brought with him from Malta winds of change in the Super Power relationship which not only generate immense expectations for a peaceful East-West co- existence, but also for a significant redrawing of the strategic European map, a map which is becoming by the day out dated by the new political realities. A new map begins to question the very basis for NATO's existence. Mr. Bush joined his alliance partners amid suggestions of anxiety that the American President has been dealing with Mr. Gorbachev over the heads of America's allies, especially Britain where there has traditionally been the special relationship and full consultation. Sources said when the leaders met in closed session Mr,. Bush had no surprises to report from Malta. But Mrs. Thatcher, possibly the most passionate supporter of NATO as a military political alliance did for the first time raise the possibility that with in 10 to 15 years of genuine democracy becoming an enduring part of life everywhere in Eastern Europe NATO may have to became a different kind of alliance that it is now. But for the moment, as Mrs. Thacther made clear tonight for Britain NATO will remain a benchmark of stability which backed by US troop on European soil will help force Eastern Europe down the path to full democracy.

MARGARET THATCHER, Prime Minister, Great Britain: The main thing is the continuation of stability and security of NATO. Second, everything to help President Gorbachev to succeed. Thirdly, special help to those countries which have already rejected communist government for other countries and therefore going to the essence of democracy.

MR. GOWING: Outwardly the alliance today presented a united image and leaders welcomed the upheavals in Eastern Europe. But there remains caution for how to deal with the fundamental policy problems now being thrown up faster than they could be tackled the diplomates, politicians and strategists.

MS. THATCHER: Turmoil can be very disturbing and we don't know what may happen. Times of great change are times when you have even greater need for secure and stable alliance and that came through many occasions.

MR. MacNeil: In Moscow, Mikhail Gorbachev reported to a Warsaw Pact greatly changed by the reform movements transforming several members. We have a report on Mr. Grobachev's day from David Smith,of Independent Television News.

MR. SMITH: There has quite simply never been a Warsaw Pact meeting like this. Some of the men Mr. Gorbachev greeted at the Kremlin today are not even communists. Others may have just a few days left in power. The situation of East Germany's Egon Krenz said it all somehow. He and his communist party leadership resigned yesterday. Mr. Krenz had come here as President though. Then there were the Poles, General Jaruzleski came but so too his non communist Government. Still with Romania's Nicoli Caesecu the one Stalinist left in the Eastern Block. Everyone was here a testament to Gorbachev's revolution. Or to the chaos his reform have unleased depending on which way you looked at it. And the Soviet leader had a blunt message for all of them. After Malta, the cold war was over. They were free to go their own way. The Kremlin astonishingly was ready to condemn its own invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. And those close to his thinking say this is the beginning of a radically different alliance.

MR. KREMENYUK: The first thing is that it should be more political and less military. That's evident and we hope that we shall manage to do that in more or less brief period of time. And the second is that it has to be a kind of a structure for the Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is becoming the source of a potential destablization in Europe. So it needs some political structure.

MR. MacNeil: Questions about what effect the changes in Eastern Europe may have on both sets of allies dominated Mr. Bush's newsconfernce today in Brussels. Here are some extended excerpts.

TERENCE HUNT, AP: Vernon Walter is your trusted Advisor and the Ambassador to Bonn says that he invisions Germany East and West will be reunited with in five years. Do you think that's possible and what will be the implications for NATO and the Warsaw Pact?

PRES. BUSH: I am not into the predicting of time on the question of Germany. Let me read the four points the represent the U.S. position on reunification. Self-determination must be pursued with out prejudice to its outcome and we at this time should not endorse any particular vision.Secondly, reunification should occur in the context of Germany's continued commitment to NATO and increasingly integrated European Community and with due regard for the legal role and responsibilities of the Allied Power. Third, in the interest of general European stability moves toward unification must be peaceful, gradual and a part of a step by step basis. And lastly on the question of borders, we should reiterate our support for the principals of the Helsinki Final Act. So I am not going to try to accelerate that process. I don't think our allies are. I think Chancellor Kohl's feels comfortable with the four points that I have just read. And so I think it's better to let things move on their own and without the United States certainly setting some kind of deadline.

BRIT HUME, ABC News: You said that in announcing your meeting with Chairman Gorbachev was that one of the main reasons was that you wanted to make sure in this time of change that you didn't miss anything. In your two days of meetings did you learn anything that you fear or feel that you might have missed have you not had them?

PRES. BUSH: Yes. what I would have missed is I wouldn't see quite as clearly his priorities. I see them more clearly because he and I sat down and talked. We had about 8 hours of talk. And I feel that I can sense much more clearly the things he feels more strongly about and we had a chance to point out to him some of the difficulties with our relationship. It wasn't all sweetness and light. I had a very very good opportunity to tell him how we view the problems in our own hemisphere, the sending of arms in there to help the FMLN and the role that Cuba is playing. I recited in detail the Oscar Arias phone call to me. Please raise with Mr. Gorbachev the unhelpful role the destructive role of Cuba. So I think it's more emphasis although we did put forward some general feelings on the economy and I think that he was pleased because I think from his standpoint and this is important from mine. He now sees that we must to have a cooperative, forward leaning relationship with the Soviet Union.

KENNTH WALSH, U.S. News & World Report: Mr. President, you had mentioned that you got some insights of President Gorbachev at this point. I wonder if the insights included any sense of his internal position? Did he behave as a man operating from a strong position or a man who seems to be in jeopardy or how do you sense that?

PRES. BUSH: I thought he seemed very much in control. You could tell the way he interacted with his own top people there. He felt confident in discussing without notes a wide array of subjects with me. He did have a little notebook that he referred to, it was written in his own handwriting the best I could see and once having seen it I couldn't read it and so he seemed in control. He seemed, subdued is the wrong word, but I would say determined and unemotional about it. The most emotion was that I saw at that press conference yesterday. But it was a wonderful presentation, And the climate, leave out the weather, for the discussions was very good.

TOM DE FRANK, Newsweek: Mr. President, you seemed to travel some distance between what you were saying about Mr. Gorbachev a year or so ago and some of things that you said yesterday. Could you please talk in a little bit more detail about the evolution in your thinking that you mentioned yesterday? How that happened and what persuaded you along the way?

PRES. BUSH: As I watched the way Mr. Gorbachev has handled the changes in Eastern Europe. It deserves new thinking, it absolutely mandates new thinking. And when I see his willingness to give support to a CFE agreement that calls him to disproportionately reduce his forces and that is there on the table. I think that mandates new thinking. When I hear him talking about peaceful change and the right of countries to choose, countries in the Warsaw Pact to chose. That deserves new thinking. And so I approach this and think in step with out allies with a certain respect for what he's doing, and thus, we want to try to meet him on some of the areas where he needs help. I was thinking of the few suggestions that I had in the economic area, but I also believe that the West must remain strong and together and try to be helpful where ever we can in a united way but not be imprudent.

WALTER ROBINSON, Boston Globe: You stepped aside on the peace dividend and said you have a terrible Gramm Rudman problem next year. As look at the changes in Europe and the possibilities of further defense cuts. Do you expect any time in your first term to have a peace dividend to apply to some of the economic and social problems at home and when would you expect that?

PRES. BUSH: That's an awful tough question to answer that any time. I would think it would be extraordinarily difficult because of the not only the enormity, the difficulty of reaching to Gramm Rudman target this year but what follows on and so what we are trying to do is emphasize the areas where we can be of most help to the people through various program and in some areas and I don't know if Helen mentioned in her question education. But in some areas it isn't necessarily a, the problem isn't going to be solved by putting more money into it. But on your question, as we go on down on meeting these Gramm Rudman targets there isn't just a lot of "excess money" floating out there.

REPORTER: Not for the foreseeable future and for the rest of your first term?

PRES. BUSH: Well, look at the Gramm-Rudman targets that face us. I don't want to hold out to those that want to rush out and spend a lot more money the hope that is going to happen. We've got some tremendous economic problems that have to be solved because the best answers to helping people if you have to quantify it the best is to have a job and the best way to a climate for a job is to have a sound economy and to our foreign friends her I would say one of the things to be the best guarantee of that would be to get our federal deficits down. It would also help us with investment and that is the best poverty program. A job in the private sector and so I I had a letter from a distinguished Senator before I left because he had read about possible defense cuts and saying take that money and spend it for a cause that he felt was worthy. And I had to write him back and say look that isn't the way that it is going to work. Marueen yes.

MAUREEN SANTINI, N.Y. News: Mr. President after five hours of talks on Saturday despite extremely treacherous seas you even had trouble getting to the talks. So you went back to the ship. Why did you do that.

PRES. BUSH: Because I wanted to go back in time to receive him for dinner.

MS. SANTINI: But didn't you understand that you were risking the Summit number one and number two what do you think Gorbachev thinks of your judgement?

PRES. BUSH: Maureen, you've been to Maine. Don't tell me that that little chop was risking anything. Frankly I haven't had that much fun in a long time either. But the fact that we got up there and the seas kicked up even more. The winds were up to 50 knots, 60 miles an hour which is a big wind and along with it came a swell. And along with it came a chop. But we didn't miss a beat. In fact, we had a very relaxed evening out there and then showed u and we got eight hours of talks done. And that was a non-issue. And I didn't feel there was any risk in getting into a safe launch like that and going back out to the ship. It was a sheer pleasure, really.

REPORTER: It wasn't hotdogging.

PRES. BUSH: No. Well, you know, these charismatic macho visionary guys will do anything.

MR. LEHRER: Now to some analysis of the Summit and its accomplishments. It comes from Kennedy Johnson Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Reagan's Secretary of State and former NATO Commander Alexander Hiag, Sen. Majority Leader of George Mitchel of Maine who joins us from Portland Main. Nixon-Ford Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Egon Bahr a member of the West German Parliament and the opposition Social Democratic Parties leading East West Policy man. Mr. Bahr and Sec. Kissinger are with us tonight from Bonn. Mr. McNanamara was this a successful Summit for President Bush?

ROBERT McNAMARA, Former Secretary of State: Indeed it was. One of our columnists in the U.S. today reported it today as a miserable performance by President Bush. As a Democrat I thought it was a very successful one. It was a further step toward ending the cold war. It didn't end the cold war but it was a major step in that direction.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Haig.

ALEXANDER HAIG, Former Secretary of State: Well I think I said that it was a non Summit doomed to succeed and It did except for the weather. I think the most significant aspect of it is the clear evidence of the benefits of consultation with out allies. First, before the summit when Mr. Bush was clearly warned away from dramatic arms control statements that would have unnerved our European friends and secondly today in Bonn, when for the first time the United States laid out a coherent set of principals for the reunification of the Germanies. Now there are substantive ambiguities in those but I think they were constructive. And for the first time we've said self determination in the context of NATO and the European Community in accordance with the Helsinki Agreements in viability of borders. Now that's a message to both Bonn and to Moscow, and finally evolutionary, peaceful change, and I think this was a very constructive out come probably of the consultations in Brussels.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Mitchell, what's your overview of the summit from Pres. Bush's point of view?

SEN. GEORGE MITCHELL, Majority Leader: It was positive. The significant improvement in the economic country between the two countries that I think will result from the proposals made by the President, they're actually rather modest steps, but the Soviets are anxious for them, and what, according to the President, has ensured that the arms control agreements are on track toward reaching agreement next year, particularly in the chemical weapons area where the President reversed the prior position of administration, there is a good prospect for agreement along with conventional force and strategic weapons. Overall, I think a very positive meeting. I think it's a mistake to view it in isolation. It can be viewed only as part of a two step process with the important so-called full summit to occur next June, being the culmination of many of the steps setin motion over this past weekend.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Kissinger, a good summit for the interests of the United States?

HENRY KISSINGER, Former Secretary of State: I think it was, I think the summit achieved what it set out to do and therefore was a good summit. It did not ever intend to achieve any concrete agreements. It began I have the impression a process of exploration of the totally new environment that now exists in Europe with the collapse of the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe, which will create a new political environment there, with some targets set for the completion of arms control agreements, and some rather vague criteria for the drama of German unification. I think we have to keep in mind that we are going to live in a different world from the one with which we've been familiar, that we and our allies have to get clear about our objectives with some precision and that the process by which the Soviet Union adjusts to the changed circumstances in Eastern Europe cannot be encompassed in the traditional arms control talks, but requires some much more detailed discussions, but none of this could be accomplished at the summit, and I think a basis was laid to continue this.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bahr, was this a successful meeting for Western Europe and West Germany?

EGON BAHR, Member of Parliament, West Germany: I have first of all to explain I think that Henry Kissinger and myself appear here in a black tie. It's not a normal tie in Germany, but we both come from the federal president to the show. Then let me try to answer your question.

MR. LEHRER: I didn't want to say anything about the two of you being overdressed, but thank you very much for explaining that, Mr. Bahr.

MR. BAHR: I think what has been the real announcement, the hope for START agreement, the hope of a Vienna agreement, the hope of a chemical weapons agreement is nothing new at all. There is no surprise at all. So I do not know exactly what has happened with the exception that both are happy and this might be a sign or a signal that both have agreed to keep under control the developments in Europe. I'm very happy about this, and they might have agreed to re-assume, let me say, a kind of cooperation not only but in the field of security a kind of partnership of security which still is in existence, but in fact has to be developed and so I think they are clear that the two alliances have to be maintained as pillars of stability and with the hope to control the events in East Germany.

MR. LEHRER: And what did you think of what they said or did not say about reunification of your country with East Germany?

MR. BAHR: I think both of them have said we cannot deny the right of the German people for unification or self-determination, but they have made it very clear this is not around the corner. I share these views. And you cannot think that we might envisage a reunification of Germany by maintaining the two alliance systems. As long as the two systems exist and we need them for stability, we will have no unification. This is absolutely clear.

SEC. KISSINGER: May I say something --

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir.

SEC. KISSINGER: -- on the subject?

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir.

SEC. KISSINGER: I think it is a big mistake to equate the NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact. They were never the same. The Warsaw Pact was a semi-first alliance even when they were Communist countries. Now that, in effect, the Communist Parties are collapsing in Eastern Europe and that they are democratic countries in every European state, the situation of the Warsaw Pact has fundamentally changed and I think it is a very dangerous proposition to equate the two and to create the impression that the United States must somehow gear its relations to Western Europe to what the Soviet Union can maintain in Eastern Europe when the political basis for some of the Soviet relations with Eastern Europe is disintegrating, while the political basis for our relations with Western Europe is not. If the Soviet Union wants security assurances, we can do so within the arms control, within the arms control contacts. I think the evolution of Eastern Europe is a tremendous event but we cannot equate those two alliances. Secondly, having just spent a few days in Germany, it would of course be convenient for everybody if events moved at a measured pace. To some extent, I think this may not be fully controllable, and we all have to be aware of the fact that the pace of events is accelerating. Today the Central Committee and the Politburo in the German Democratic Republic resigned. If this keeps going on, there may very soon be nothing left there except an administrative authority which will create its own momentum and we ought to begin thinking about how this will be handled.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Mitchell, you said some weeks ago, sometime ago, you criticized Pres. Bush and his administration for being possibly almost nostalgic about the cold war. You used the word timidity and moving in this whole area. Picking up on just the example that Sec. Kissinger just outlined that if in the next few days or a week suddenly there's no government in East Germany, should the United States be prepared to move in, take steps, and use some leadership, even if it means a reunification of Germany way ahead of everybody else's timetables?

SEN. MITCHELL: Well, I don't think it's up to the United States to dictate the timing or terms of the eventual reunification. Our principle is one of supporting self-determination. My criticism of the President was in the context of urging him since May of this year to take the very steps that he took this past weekend. So I'm pleased at those. The one thing I would have preferred that he go a little faster on was the explicit, temporary waver of Jackson- Vannic as a further inducement to Soviet activity in that regard, but I'm pleased at what occurred and I think that the general principles outlined today with respect to the reunification of Germany make sense from the Western standpoint. I think we must be supportive of our West German allies and at all times adhere to the principle of self-determination and by all peoples, including the German peoples.

MR. LEHRER: But Sec. Kissinger's point is that's all well and good, nobody disagrees with that, and yet things may be happening right now as we speak to change all of that in the morning.

SEN. MITCHELL: Well, of course that's the case throughout Eastern Europe, and one cannot predict the pace of events there. But I'm a little, I would be cautious about the phrase that you used, should the United States move in there, it suggests that we have some position from which to exert direct influence and control the events there. I think all of our actions must be in the context of the NATO and Western Alliance, and of course supportive and respectful of the special interest of our West German allies.

MR. LEHRER: Well, I was trying to use that, maybe misuse it in the context of your criticism of the President in the past for not demonstrating leadership, and the question was whether or not he had an opportunity there in East and West Germany. What do you think, Gen. Haig, about this question of events, the point that Kissinger made?

SEC. HAIG: Well, I think what Henry says, as usual, I'm in full agreement with. But I will say that the basic issue of whether or not the United States would have gone to this summit and endorsed continued Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was avoided, and that pleases me greatly. But --

MR. LEHRER: How did they avoid that?

SEC. HAIG: They avoided it by the four principles that Mr. Bush just outlined in his press conference. First it will be decided by self-determination. That is the will of the peoples involved. Secondly, it will be in the context of NATO and the European economy. That puts a strong leaning towards anchoring the future Germanies into the Western families of nations, and I think that's a condition we should insist on. Thirdly, it talks about inviability of borders. Now that's a warning not only to the Soviet Union to to intervene, but it's also a warning to West Germany with respect to the Polish territories and that's calming. And finally it adopts the language of evolution, I think Mr. Gorbachev used the word "caution" or quoted Mr. Bush as using that word "caution", and it seems to me with this very dynamic period ahead that all of these things are called for. On the other hand, we have yet to face up to the kinds of questions that Henry quite correctly raises. Sometimes they're better not raised in a public forum.

MR. LEHRER: Like what? Give me an example.

SEC. HAIG: The future of Germany and how we are going to deal with unpredictable changes underway now in East Europe.

MR. LEHRER: But isn't it the job of government to be ready to handle unpredictability?

SEC. HAIG: Of course, but it doesn't mean it's their job to go out and make the newspaper fodder.

MR. BAHR: Can I say a word to this?

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir.

MR. BAHR: Dear friends, let me tell you in all frankness the United States has no control about the developments in Eastern part of Germany, this is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is I cannot imagine a situation in which Gorbachev says let the East Germans go without risking or even being sure that the Poles, the Hungarians, the Czechs come up and tell them and tell Gorbachev why for God's sake only these damn Germans get the freedom to move out of control and out of Warsaw Pact? Therefore, I really think the President has taken the only solid, good, reasonable wise position, not to accelerate but to keep it down, to keep a little bit quiet, and to hope that these things remain under control.

MR. LEHRER: But the man sitting next to you, Henry Kissinger, said based on his being in Germany, that there are rumblings going on there that may be out of everybody's control, including Gorbachev and including the East Germans and even the West German government.

SEC. KISSINGER: I think we ought to think about what we do. I tend to agree with Al Haig that we need not make big public declaration. I think with respect, however, to something that Egon Bahr just said about the German Democratic Republic staying in the Warsaw Pact, one has to face a certain complexity here. Namely, as long as they had a Communist government that was perceived to be imposed by the Soviet Union, this presented no intellectual difficulty. When you have a democratic government in the German Democratic Republic constituted of substantially the same parties that govern in the Federal Republic, it would be an anomaly to have one part of the country in NATO governed by the same parties on the other side of the dividing line in the Warsaw Pact, and rational people mustbe able to come to some solution for this and not to equate the German Democratic Republic, which is after all part of a nation that is divided at the moment, with Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, where the relationship of them to the Soviet Union is to be determined in their own bilateral relationships in which the United States has no necessary voice, and I cannot believe that one cannot work out something with Gorbachev in a quiet diplomacy, when the situation reaches that point. It hasn't reached that point yet. There is not yet a democratic government in the German Democratic Republic.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

SEC. KISSINGER: But it is not a question that we can avoid in my view.

MR. BAHR: Now we are in agreement again.

MR. LEHRER: All right, on that note, gentlemen, let's go to another. I want to go back to a point you raised, Mr. McNamara, right at the very beginning. You mentioned a newspaper columnist. That was William Sapphire of the New York Times. He said this morning essentially that Mr. Bush gave away the store, that he agreed to move quickly on nuclear arms without requiring the Soviets to get their troops out of Eastern Europe and not tying it all to the Soviet arms supply problem in Central America. Is he wrong about that?

SEC. McNAMARA: He is indeed wrong. I thought Pres. Bush behaved very wisely. As Al pointed out, it was inappropriate to make deals at Malta, certainly inappropriate to do so without discussion with the allies, he didn't do that, but what he and Pres. Gorbachev agreed to, which I fully support, was to accelerate the negotiations on both the conventional force subjects and the strategic nuclear forces. And I think that's highly desirable. He was very careful to say, however, that he didn't insist that there be those two agreements on the table for signing at the June summit. But rather that each party ask their negotiators to move more quickly and he is sending Sec. Baker to Moscow in January to facilitate that process. I strongly with that. He gave nothing away.

MR. LEHRER: But Sapphire was saying that the emphasis should have been on getting the Soviet troops out of Eastern Europe because that's what causes all the problems.

SEC. McNAMARA: No, no, no, no. The Soviets have put on the table for discussion in Vienna disproportionate reductions in not just troops, although that is an element of it, but in the hardware as well, tanks, artillery tubes, armed helicopters, in which they have tremendous numerical superiority today. They have two to three times the strength of the NATO forces. They have agreed to give up that numerical advantage under certain circumstances which are being negotiated. That isn't giving away the store. That's very much in the interest of NATO to pursue.

MR. LEHRER: Gen. Haig, a former NATO commander, where do you come down on this?

SEC. HAIG: Well, I come down with two observations. It's understandable that some on the right would be concerned that Mr. Bush committed himself to progress in the START talks which may not, in fact, prove achievable, that is, by mid June to have this all wrapped up with this vexing question on Cruise Missiles still unanswered. Secondly, the deadline for the conventional talks is also somewhat unrealistic. Even the Soviets have talked about taking five years to achieve the 300,000 plus force reduction that we visualized. I'm surprised also that people haven't raised the question about El Salvador and Nicaragua, because before the conference there was a resurrection of linkage and following the discussions it seemed that we ignored the linkage end of that and proceeded with the economic improvements. I happen to think that's not particularly worrisome, Mr. Sapphire does. But it remains to be seen whether or not Central America will continue to cast a shadow over the pace and the progress to be made in East-West relations. I happen to believe you can't debate about linkage. It is simply a fact of life.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Senator, that whether anybody likes it or not, Central America is a shadow on all of this?

SEN. MITCHELL: Of course, it's important to our interests and the President appropriately raised the subject with the Soviet leader, but the question of direct linkage, that is to say that nothing else will happen unless this happens, I think would have been a mistake. I must say that I share Mr. Sapphire's concern with the importance of Soviet withdrawal of its very substantial military force from Eastern Europe. I don't believe that the political transformation there can be wholly free or complete until such time as that withdrawal occurs. However, I think that he's mistaken in his analysis that if you move forward on strategic nuclear missiles, somehow you're abandoning conventional force talks. I don't think that's the case and it seems to me we have the capacity both in terms of personnel and will to proceed in both areas as they're both significant.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bahr, you said on this program last week that Western Europe could be defended with 100,000 American troops if it came to that, that that is all it would take. What is your, how do you read the results of the summit vis-a-vis this whole area of conventional forces in Western Europe?

MR. BAHR: I think it's promising that they might have agreed to accelerate the process of agreement. I hope it will be possible to reach agreement in June next year, and despite the fact that it might take two, three, four years to implement this agreement, we should immediately start again after it Vienna No. 2, and in Vienna No. 2, we should envisage the result we want to have at the end of the whole process, in other words to reach a situation in which only on both sides are forces enough to offend against each other in a structure which would make it impossible to start an attack, and then to start the next round of negotiations. In all these, in this situation, in this period, we need the two alliances, and we need the two alliances for maintaining the stability in Europe and we can only hope that people in East Germany, my fellow countrymen, will agree to this and wait, and they will wait only if they have vision, hope that their economic recovery will take place.

MR. LEHRER: Who gives that to them, Mr. Bahr?

MR. BAHR: Only the German government can give them this. Of course, with the aid of the private capital, but the private capital in my country is eager to do it. They are waiting for it.

SEC. McNAMARA: Mr. Lehrer --

SEC. KISSINGER: May I make one comment again on a point I've already made? I don't think it's correct to say we need the two alliances. What we need is the NATO alliance. The Warsaw alliance is the Soviet problem and it is not up to us to say that they must have a Warsaw alliance for their own security and especially that they must have the German Democratic Republic in the Warsaw alliance for their security. Let them say this. We don't have to make that argument for them. The fundamental political change in Europe is, in Eastern Europe is that when democratic parties are in power in all these countries, the position of the Soviet armies there will become very uncomfortable, and if the Soviet Union wants to achieve its objective of not having to dominate Eastern Europe by force, then I think it may for its own reasons come to the view that its forces should be reduced to token levels and in Vienna too, which I favor entering fairly quickly, the first thing we need is a NATO concept of how we visualize security in the new era. Secondly, we ought to put forward some idea that does not have to be exactly the same on both sides of the dividing line, but which we can say is a rational protection of Soviet frontiers in a military sense and let the Soviets make their own statements of what alliances they need. I do not exclude based on some conversations with thoughtful Soviet citizens that they will come to the conclusions that they have to reduce their military presence in Eastern Europe to the bone and find security arrangements of some other kind like an Austrian or Finnish type status for some of the nations of Eastern Europe within a special status for the territory that is now German Democratic Republic. We have to show a little imagination here.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. McNamara wanted to say something here.

SEC. McNAMARA: I wanted to try to link together the discussion of the pace of political change on the one hand, and the pace of arms negotiations on the other. I think there would seem to be general agreement amongst us that the pace of political change is faster than we might have anticipated. It may even be moving beyond what one might control. The faster that pace of political change moves, the faster we should try to move arms negotiations. We must try to reduce arms in both the Warsaw Pact and NATO Pact in ways consistent with the pace of political change. And we must do what Egon Bahr suggested. We must quickly develop the end position we would like to see arms in both the Warsaw Pact and the NATO at the end of the political change. And that must be the objective of conventional force negotiation two and START 2.

MR. LEHRER: But when he talks about 2, 3, 4 years and use the word wait to the people in East Germany.

SEC. McNAMARA: And I would suggest that we develop that end objective now. And it should be discussed with our NATO allies between now and the June summit and hopefully preliminary discussions should be held at the June summit between Pres. Bush and Pres. Gorbachev.

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have --

SEN. MITCHELL: Jim, may I make a comment on that?

MR. LEHRER: Quick thing, Senator, yes, sir.

SEN. MITCHELL: Well, I think the important component in Eastern Europe is economic success. I don't believe that the democratic transformations will take root or be ultimately successful unless there is a corresponding economic success on which they can build.

MR. LEHRER: I hear you, Senator, as I do the other four of you and I thank you all five. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of the day, Pres. Bush told the NATO allies that Mikhail Gorbachev's actions mandated new thinking, but the U.S. would keep a significant military presence in Europe, the Warsaw Pact denounced the 1968 invasion which suppressed the Czechoslovak reform movement, in Prague, Czech demonstrators rejected a new government dominated by Communists, Danny Wall resigned as the government's chief savings & loan regulator, claiming he was a scapegoat for the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal, and tonight it was announced that the U.S. Attorney General has ordered an investigation of former Housing Sec. Samuel Pierce to determine whether a special prosecutor should look into Pierce's role in the HUD scandal. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.