Martin Agronsky: Evening Edition; 18

Welcome. You You From Washington. This is evening edition. Now here is Martin Agranski. Good evening.

Good evening. What's more a summit? What's being built actually is a super summit taking place this week in Helsinki, Finland. President Forge there along with the heads of state of 34 other European and North American governments including the Soviet Union. And what could be a test of datant delegates are to sign a document which accepts the post-war borders of Europe, subject to peaceful but not forceful change. Critics of the agreement say it also accepts Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe. And West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned today that decades of confrontation are not replaced overnight by an era of cooperation.

So tonight on evening edition a discussion of the meaning of the Helsinki super summit with Roland Dallas of the Reuters news agency. Adelbert the Seglanzak of France Suar and syndicated columnist John Lofton. You should be last but first John. Let's have an American point of view on the super summit. Well I'm very cynical about the whole thing and my cynicism stems from the fact that the Soviets by funneling millions of dollars into Portugal to try to communize our NATO ally are violating this agreement even before they've signed it. So I'm very cynical about it. I think it's a farce. I think it's a travesty and I think we should not have been involved in it unless we are getting something from it and I fail to see what we're getting out of it. Well the Secretary of State made your point about the funneling of communist dollars into Portugal but he is not cynical about it. He thinks something is going to be accomplished there. But you don't see it that way. No I don't and I happen to have been the one in the press conference who asked Dr. Kissinger about the Portugal question and he did not answer directly whether or not that was a violation of the treaty.

Mr. Dallas an English point of view. I am in general in favor of the idea because I think that it gives the West an opportunity to try to liberalize Eastern Europe only an opportunity because this is not a binding document. But it is a document and I think that for example it says that families, attempts should be made to reunite families. People should be allowed to travel more freely. Journalists should be allowed to have access to their sources and operate them and travel within the countries which sign this agreement. There should be more meetings of artists and scientists and just looking at the text. These things are commitments and no one is obliged to follow them up but I think that the Western countries will in this year next year and the years to come be able to wave this paper in the faces of the communists if they don't follow it up.

And for the first time there is a document which they can use to do this. Up till now there has to be nothing to refer to as the basis for liberalization. So on these grounds I think it is very useful. Well if the Russians keep the gates closed you can stand there all day in a way of the document. Right, right. French point of view. I think it is very useful because they are there for everyone to see them anyway. But it is all the same useful that there should be such a document, that there should be such an effort of European countries on both sides of the fence to get together and exchange views. There is a certain interest in the fact that there has been an effort to try and come to terms on a certain number of things, particularly on the exchanges on both sides, what one called the third basket.

And even if the whole thing is rather superficial it can develop into something useful. I think one can only be judged when we will only be able to judge the whole value of this great exercise in Helsinki in the following months and perhaps even in the following years the way they are holding developments. Well you know it is the old Churchill observation. It is jar or war and joy is better than war. I suppose better than they talk than they fight. What about the other proposition that concerned so many Americans that in effect this does establish Soviet hegemony over all of the territories that they occupy or there are satellites of occupy? Well you can argue that all the frontiers are inviolable but they can be changed peacefully. But it also says that no state should interfere in any other state which could be an idle declaration. These have been made before. But if you take it seriously on its face value it means that the Soviet Union is saying we won't interfere in Hungary and Czechoslovakia anymore.

You can believe that if you want to. But it also stops in you. It remains to be seen I would say. But there it is on paper. It also stops us from intervening in any way in any of the Russian country, in a Russian dominated country. So what do we do with the EU for Europe for example? Can that be kept up or should that be closed down? Do you find a certain irony in the fact that the Greek spokesman took the opportunity to accuse Turkey of violating the conference principles before it was even signed by having occupied part of Cyprus? Well sure and I think that what you're citing is demonstrates the farcical nature of this thing. I note that one of the things the delegates have decided to do is meet in mid-1977 to find out if the thing is being observed. Well it's not being observed now and I return to what the Soviet Union is doing in Portugal which is a clear violation of the declaration on interstate relations, one of which prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. But that's one of the problems. See the Soviets don't think that anything they do is intervention. In 1973 one of their foreign ministry spokesman was asked in Helsinki if this non-intervention portion of the agreement meant no more Czechoslovakia's and his response was first of all what we didn't Czechoslovakia was not intervention they asked for us etc.

So no I just think the whole thing is a shame. Well there are some people in this town who would like a well-known agency in Langley, Virginia to be operating in Portugal right now but it's because of the brujaha around here at the moment it's not operating in there. There aren't any covert operations but I think there are quite a few people who... Well this is one of the interesting things. In the Kissinger press conference he said we should not look at what's happening in Portugal as solely as a result of what the Soviets have done but also what the West has not done. Now when the press conference was over some of us went up afterwards and he started out the door and one of the fellows I was with said what did you mean what should the West have done and he just smiled and said I'll let you think about that. So I don't know what we should have done. Today I don't really go termed fascicle to describe this meeting I think you're going too far there.

There is as I said just now rather superficial aspect of the whole thing but it is all the same important that East and West should be able to get together to discuss a certain number of problems to come to a certain number of conclusions. I agree that most of these conclusions are very superficial. For example the points you were making just now of exchanges on both sides. The word which is used is to attempt to make exchanges so there's really no engagement to do anything. There's no engagement to attempt so this can really go wrong. But the fact that this has happened after years of effort in the at least four or five years to move towards the top and get the top a little more tightly organized. I think this is important in itself even if the whole document is rather loose if the terms of it are not the precise and if really doesn't engage anybody in anything except to be if possible on the best behavior. You're unfair. I'm just looking at the text. It's more specific than that.

We're seeing the kind of thing they're going to be going through. Participating states intent to facilitate wider travel passage. I must have read a French text and of course when you get into the translation they have the changes. I'm sure Russian text is still given an idea. Participating states intent to facilitate wider travel by intent to facilitate wider travel by the citizens for personal or professional reasons and to this end they intend in particular to simplify gradually to simplify and to administer flexible procedure for exit reasons. We could examine that with more care semantically but intent is exactly what Ziggy says. You have to accept that reservation don't you? Yes, true. But then you see let's say for example where it says here that measures should be taken to reunite families. Let's say some people in Warsaw go to the American consulate there and say we would like to be reunited with our family in Chicago and they try to get a visa.

Well the consul up until now presumably can say well we think this would be a good thing and they may try to approach the local authorities. But now with this document the consul can also say look by the way your country signed this document. It's committed itself to permit the free travel. It's committed itself to try to ease the restrictions. So it's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's great and grand and groovy. All I'm saying is that it's an additional tool, an additional document to ease and liberalize. Let me raise another irony John or what appears to begin to be an irony. The Secretary General of the UN, Krut Baldheim there, made the observation or reminded the countries who were present that they themselves are responsible as of now from more than 80% of the world's military expenditures. Now here again you see a reality coming up against declarations of good intentions.

The fact is that the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, all the countries that are involved in this so-called effort to restore peace in Europe are the countries that are providing the arms with it presumably they can go at each other's threats if this thing falls apart. I think that's rather sad and a pertinent observation on Baldheim's part. Yes, but on the other hand it's rather easy to attack countries while selling arms, but if one country doesn't sell arms and another one will, they're always countries which will want arms. It's part of a machismo in certain countries. It's a necessity in others and they'll always find arms somewhere. So it's become arms has become really a product which is sold exactly in the same way as you sell motor cars or you sell airplanes or you sell steel mills. But wouldn't you imagine that all these countries might come together and say we've been doing this for generations. The result of every arms competition has been war in the past perhaps we can do something about it and change it this time.

Where is there any declaration of intent to do that? I agree but then when you're concerned about it. When you deal with smaller countries with third world powers for example who've got nothing. And they find themselves in front of powerful Western powers who've got lots of weapons and they consider that having weapons for them is a necessity because they have instability. They have instability in their country. It's a necessity because they've got neighbors which are not very sure. And it's a necessity for them because they feel it gives them a certain prestige and a certain strength personally to the business. That's a machismo bit. I agree. But it's not the internal concern. They use it against their own people if that's their concern. I agree. And can you blame a country which has to pay a lot of oil bills for trying to sell anything it can to all these oil producing countries. I mean in the hope that they can use the arms and wipe each other out. Well I like to return to the word farcical because I chose it very carefully and I think it's defensible. There are of course many things about the conference that I think are farcical but just like to name a couple.

Number one is I understand that the Soviet Union has been the country that most has wanted this thing for 20 years. Yet the Soviet Union is the threat to the peace in Europe. Why does the Soviet Union want security? Who's threatening the Soviet Union? The second thing is that it's not legally binding. And a White House fact sheet says that it's supposed to have considerable political and moral force. I don't think the Soviets are moral people or have any morality. We've had a heck of a time trying to hold them to legal documents. How can anything be morally binding on communists? Well anything is better than something is better than nothing. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I don't hold it. I don't hold that the Soviet Union is a great threat to peace in America. The threat, the threat, as I understand it, to Europe comes not from Europeans against the Soviets but from the Soviets against Western Europe. Isn't that the way you interpret it? I mean I'd be interested to hear that. There's a European yes but there's a Russian, the Russians are thinking in terms of Americans as people are threatening them. You must put yourself into a scheme and you won't.

No I cannot because they do not see things accurate. We've got to talk about what is not what the Soviet says is reality. Because once we get to that then they've got a reality and we have a reality and what's true. And what's true people in the world? It's our truth and they've got the truth. And there are two truths of people who want the same globe and they've got to put it together. They say they did not intervene in the entire affair with you. I agree with you. I agree with you with what is true. But the Russians don't and therefore if you're in front of people extremely powerful as they are. And you Americans are very powerful as you are. You've got to come at some point or other to some understanding and this is what you've been doing on bilateral conditions. And now we're moving into a vast sphere of European agreements in which America and Canada accepted as European countries. And thank God it's a very good thing. But this is a fact that you've got to take into consideration. John, let me reinforce Ziggy's point with a personal experience that I had that I really have never forgotten in N-62. When we signed a nuclear test plan treaty in Moscow and I went over to cover that.

After they had the usual celebration in the Kremlin, a lot of vodka and coffee are in the rest of it. And there was a Russian general there, you know, metals from the shoulder to his waist, a very tough Russian general who spoke excellent English. And he kept saying to me, what you should never forget, what we Russians can never forget, is that we lost more than 20 million of our people in the Second World War. So you can understand where they come from. That is something that any time you talk to a Russian about anything, they always bring up. Well, Stalin, of course, I'm always confused about the Russian war dead figure because when they talk about it, because Stalin killed, of course, almost as many of his own people as the Germans did. Well, not in the course of the war. I mean, they're talking about war casualties. Sure. If you want me to come to the defense of Stalin, I refuse. No, no, I know that. That's not the point.

But I think that earlier, I mean, I'm proposing about a state of mind. Did you either talk or have war? I think that's a species. Those are not the alternatives. We're talking here about what is it that you talk about when you sit down to talk? I don't think anyone's against talking. I just think we're being had that there's nothing in it for us. If the Russians wanted this so much, what did we do to get the war? Well, no war is something in it for us, John. Well, we didn't have war during the Cold War. This one thing. Well, we didn't have war during the Cold War. There's one thing about the Russians, you mustn't forget, is that there are people who would like the French, but always have a document on which everything is written down and which is signed. We are further French. What we call the Paprasry people. We like to have papers. We like to have signed documents for everything. I mean, he's going to give me a pack of cigarettes. I want to paper to make sure that his views are honest. The Russians are like that also. And obviously, it's not the only aim, but it's part of that thing. The feeling that this is written on paper and it's stronger than if it's just an exchange of views. You know, that's another myth about this agreement. Is it somehow it embodies a whole bunch of new things that are not embodied anywhere else? And that is simply not true.

Many of these so-called basket three things about human rights. You're embodied in UN Declaration of Human Rights. That's not true. It's not more specific. Don't you think that we have come to this conference more skeptical than any international conference that I can think of that we've ever come to before? Would you agree with that? Is there other great expectations? I see none. Well, I think that this... I think he hasn't actually answered it. This is my audience. Why are we there? I saw stories over the weekend, Aldo Beckman and Chicago Tribune had a story, another guy had a story. That Ford's having second thoughts. Maybe he didn't really want to come. Well, who's running the show? Kissinger or Ford? If Ford didn't want to come, why is he there? I think John hasn't really raised the real criticism, which could be pointed at this whole thing. And that is that it may tend to have the effect of, rather, lulling people in the West into thinking that, well, there's another agreement east-west. We have not so much need for defense. We should be spending more money on hospitals and roads and schools and things like that.

And that this is perhaps the case in the United States, but even more so in some smaller West European countries. And I think that if you can criticize this, that's the ground that you can do. You know, it's fascinating to go back 30 years ago. I was doing it the other night and read the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt about Yalta. And look at the kind of things the United States was adamantly demanding, and free elections in Eastern Europe. I mean, we were so strong on that point that Stalin even signed and agreed because he knew we wouldn't yield. But now, we go over there 30 years later, tragedy repeated as far as that's where I got to. But look at the balance. And what is this all the same? But if we're talking about a meaningless piece of paper, why can't we at least demand something that we realize is going to happen? What's the strategy of the West? What can the West do? There is the Red Army. It's in East Germany. It's in all through the world. What can you do? You can't say this. You only have to be free. It's rubbish. We can say that.

What is point of this? In the context of the economy. Hold on. Hold on. What all you can do is try to get more exchanges, get more professors to come across. Try to get, wait a minute. You get books, more books published. These are all in here now. Now, whether these, I saw how they display American material. Well, we're not talking about what happened last year. What we're talking about here is a commitment which may not be kept. But there it is in writing. More people may read more Western newspapers. May read more Western books. They may travel more. They may be more congresses. All I'm saying is that the only way in the present reality in Eastern Europe, apart from making pious declarations, which you seem to be. No, no, I'm not. Well, what? Declarations of conservative declarations. It's a declaration statement. It's a declaration. What if this is carried out in any way at all? It will open the doors.

I'm going to ask you a question. Why is it more people in the common world? Why is it you think? Get more information about this. Why is it that you think we should be participating in a conference about deciding an agreement, which the Soviets are at this moment violating in Portugal? Why do you think we can add this? I've answered that. I've answered that. I told you the CIA would like the CIA to be in there. Because of this. Because of Chilean. But the Portugal story is not something which has been started by the communists. Do you seem to be making it inside of that? No. This is the point you seem to be making. You haven't said it, but you were implying. No, no, no. They did not start it. It never started around the communists. They're in the flames, that's right. To what extent are they really building the flames? Is it time to look at it with a little more objectivity? What is the interest there? What they are doing are dividing the communist parties of Europe. There's very little support in the communist parties in Europe for the Portuguese. The Italians are posing them. I'm talking Western European parties.

It's not a tremendous use to the Russians. Of course, if they can create a certain amount of complications for the Western world, this is very useful. But how far is it useful to them? They certainly are giving them money and helping them, as they have helped them for a long time when they were in the Doldrums, when there was a fascist. Yes, I think we're making different points. You're trying to argue that the utility of their intervention is not all that. No, I'm trying to say that the intervention is very limited. Well, I went to a luncheon. I went to a luncheon. I know what Mr. Kissinger said. I went to a luncheon. Well, Mr. Kissinger doesn't seem to have all the information. I went to a luncheon last week, in which Deputy Director of the CIA, Vernon Walters, basically confirmed Senator Lloyd Benson's charges of the Soviets putting $10 million a month in the Portugal. He said it was not out of that ballpark. And when I asked Dr. Kissinger at his press conference, he did not deny that they were intervening. He just said, we don't know precisely how much money but it's clear they're intervening. They're violating European security agreement. I think when you put money in there to support Communist parties to overthrow the Portuguese government, that that is intervention that violates the European agreement.

Do you mean to send a dream? Don't you never send any money to do that? No, you're going to federal. No way. Everybody does it. John, what do you have to balance? You're off for the OS because we put money into Chile to overturn the government of AYendi. Does that agreement prohibit the intervention in the internal affairs of other countries? I think you're being much too positive. Yeah, if that's a... Why do you think... No, of course. Because you're not being sincere without being part of the United States as well-known as to have intervened in many countries. This is... Well, you're not addressing yourself. You're not addressing yourself. Well, Soviet intervention, you're just saying everybody does it, the old watergate excuse, so you're using everybody does it. I'm trying to talk about... I'm seriously about whether or not you should sit down and check that agreement. Let's take your point. And let's take it as a given. This is happening in Portugal to come. This is our intervening. So let's say I... I don't know. Would you say that for that reason, the United States should have said we don't want to attend the Helsinki meeting. We don't want to participate in a security conference.

We don't trust you, Russia. We're going to go ahead. Then what happens? Yes, basically... Well, let's follow you through. Sure, basically my position would be because I don't see us getting anything out of this. In other words, I don't see it worth our sitting there while they're in Portugal. Because I don't know what else we're getting. I asked one of the U.S. officials who briefed at the White House. I can't name him, but he's one of Kissinger's top aides. I said, would we sign this thing if it were being violated at the very moment? Like in Portugal, he said, yes, we would because there are bigger things at stake. And he said, like what? And he said, well, he didn't care to go into them. I just don't understand what it is that's more important than us participating in this thing, while it's being violated. If you could name something else that we're getting, then I'm willing to discuss it. Well, I don't see it. Increasing Westernism. Look at all this mumbo-jumbo about professors and mumbo-jumbo. Well, it is mumbo-jumbo. Did you read the document? Yes. Have either of you read the 100-page document? It is mumbo-jumbo city. You ought to read that thing. It's not mumbo-jumbo city. Oh, it is. It's incomprehensible. It's not incomprehensible at all. I've read it and said, it's a whole page of the New York Times.

It's quite clear and precise. And I think that there is a deficit. Roll and just did quote some portions of it. Right. Would you regard this precise? Sure. You're asking what is the purpose of the Western policy? As far as I can see, to increase Western influence in Eastern Europe, and to undermine or limit the Soviet control, insofar as it can be done while the Red Army is there. In the same way, there's just been a treaty. Most favoured nation trade treaty with Romania. The United States also wants a most favoured nation treaty with Czechoslovakia. That's being held up. Do you say the Red Army was in Eastern Europe? Of course. Wouldn't that be an intervention in the internal affairs? Well, they will say that they will say that they will lie. They will lie that they will lie that they will lie that they will lie that they will lie. That's why I want to respond to that. So that the American troops in Germany and the American troops in Germany are supporting the activities of the Soviet Union. That's what I'm saying. Don't you really have to come to conclusion here? If you would have us withdraw from this or not, which every lie.

You know, mail it to us and maybe we'll see. All right. Then you've got to ask what happens? What does happen at this point in Europe? Well, you know Martin, I never understand these scenarios. When you ask people questions like that, and I did, top the people that brief this and everything, there's always just sort of the grimaced expression in the head shaking. They never say what will happen. It's like Sosya Nitson, supposedly met with Ford. All right. What's the scenario? What happened? Give me your scenario. Don, I'm asking you. I don't think anything would happen. Yeah. But what do you think would happen if we said, no, I don't think we want to attend this for the following ten reasons. All right. Let's just cite Portugal. We say, look, as long as you're in Portugal violating this thing, we don't think we want to participate in it. What do you have? I think the Soviet Union regarded as a declaration of hostile intent. I think that it would damage the prospect of improving relations between Russia and the United States. The main point is really to try and weaken the hold of the Russians over the communists, over the minds of Russian people. The main point is to try and get a little bit of liberalism into Russia.

It can be obtained a little bit of piety. It can be obtained to a very small extent by this point that more newspapers, more exchanges. It can be obtained in a much better way by encouraging commercial exchanges between both sides, by making the Russians be more demanding in things everyday life, which they want to buy, which they can't buy, in which they haven't got. And I think it's by getting them to live in a better way, better conditions, more, more... Okay. I won't say richer, but a more easier way that really one can weaken the Russian hold. And I think this is the main point, and all this is part of this issue. These are legitimate things. Let's assume that they're going to do all of them, which I don't think they're going to do, but let's assume they're going to. Now, what has been the cost to us? Regardless of what any of us think about this conference, this agreement, and what it actually is, it is universally perceived as being a sell-out of Eastern Europe. No, it certainly is. It is universally perceived. No, no, no, no.

That's the New York Times. I've never been able to point the New York Times before, except these last few weeks with Sojournitsyn in this conference. It is universally perceived as our tacit-okay for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. That's a fact. John Lofton has had the last word. I don't know if it's universally perceived, but so darn perceived. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Good night for evening edition. Funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program was produced by NPECT, a division of GWETA,

which is solely responsible for its content. Because of that day, our wurde for each tree is now granted. So we're going back to our presentation. Future episodes and we hike for the polls are the situation, yet we start to discuss it again. By Dec. 2,