The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Soviet Pipeline Vote

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: President Reagan has angered Western allies by trying to stop construction of a Soviet gas pipeline. Now he faces opposition in Congress.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. President Reagan faces a serious challenge to his foreign policy tomorrow. The House of Representatives is due to vote on an effort to overturn a presidential policy which has driven key European allies into open defiance. Last June the President barred the use of U.S.-designed equipment for a pipeline to carry Soviet natural gas to Western Europe. The ban threatened sanctions on foreign firms and U.S. subsidiaries alike. Several European firms have defied the ban and European governments have sharply criticized the Reagan policy. Today in New York, Britain's foreign secretary, Francis Pym, said that the American measures were contentious and debatable, and had caused painful strains within the Western alliance. State Department spokesman John Hughs said the U.S. and its European allies were virtually deadlocked over the issue. But the Europeans have found support in Congress, where a group of Republicans and Democrats are working to change the Reagan policy. And that's what we discuss tonight. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, nobody paid much attention to the anti-sanction bill when it was first introduced in the House in July. Even when the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed it out by a 22-12 vote last month, there were few ripples or headlines. But all of that changed last Thursday. A "Dear colleague" letter went out to all House members urging a yes vote on the bill, laying out the arguments for the legislation and against the Reagan-imposed sanctions on the Soviet pipeline. While the letter was signed by only 12 House members -- five Democrats and seven Republicans -- what caught everybody's attention and turned it all serious was that one of the Republicans was Congressman Robert Michel of Illinois, the House minority leader, a man noted for his vocal and avid support of Reagan administration policies. Congressman, what's caused you to make such a dramatic break with the President on this?

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL: Well, I've never supported the sanctions in the first place; they've never worked, and I thought, to give the President the benefit of the doubt, initially when they were imposed that a sufficient time has now elapsed to prove that point that they have not worked and that we ought to give the President an opt here to change course. Now, I'm not sure that this will do the job, because I know the President feels very strongly about it. But I think those of us who have felt this way all along have an obligation here to at least bring it home as strongly as we can in this form in the House tomorrow.

LEHRER: You said, I think at the end of the week, that the sanctions had been a costly failure. In what way have they been a costly failure?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, for several reasons, obviously. And we feel it particularly strong, of course, out in Illinois, because in the central Illinois area I guess you could say 80% of the adverse effects of those sanctions fall heavily upon one section of the country. And so --

LEHRER: And this is primarily because of the Caterpillar --

Rep. MICHEL: Yes. And we were responsible initially for getting the licenses approved for sale of the pipelayers to the Soviet Union.So where I differ with the administration, it isn't for national security that they approved -- or that they disapproved them; it's for punitive reasons. And those punitive sanctions in times past have really never worked, particularly if they're imposed unilaterally. And you see, we obviously do not have the support of our European allies, and if we can't do this in concert with our friends, it seems to me the policy is a failure and it ought to be corrected.

LEHRER: As you know, many people are seeing what you and others are attempting to do in this vote tomorrow as a slap at the President. Do you see it that way?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I don't see it as a slap at the President at all. And I guess when you're the Republican leader you have to be somewhat discomforted when you're at odds with your President. But I let them know early on, as we've been fighting this thing all from the very day of getting them to approve the licenses in the first place, that to do otherwise was a faulty policy. And so I think it's just trying to do our best to give the President an opportunity here to change course.

LEHRER: Well, is there any indication that the President wants to change that course?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, no, that's true, and so we have to do the very best we can. But we only elect one president at a time, and I'm only a representative of the people for my particular district. I do the best I can there as Republican leader; I'd like to do the best I can for the President, but when there are so many, across the spectrum, whether they're Republicans, Democrats, independents, or even in the business industry community particularly, that feel strongly on the other side, I think we've got to make that point as best we can with the President.

LEHRER: As you probably know, Secretary of State Shultz said the other day that this legislation would "severely cripple the President's ability to pursue one of his major foreign policy goals." You don't see it that way?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I don't. And I wish that I would have had the opportunity to have the original input when the decision was made. I didn't. But once you've got to change courses from a decision that has been made, it's tougher than when you were in there formulating that policy initially. And I tell you, you know, I could quote Mr. Shultz, too, back in 1978 I believe it was, when he was in the private sector and talking about the importance of what imports and exports make up one fifth of the United States gross national product, you know -- how important it is. And that it could be government, private contractors or whatever, but government ought not to interfere with the contractual arrangements of private industry, because if they're done in good faith, then that policy ought to be pursued. And now that he's the Secretary of State obviously he has to do the President's bidding, and that's his job.

LEHRER: Congressman, there's question I've got to ask you. Would you feel as strongly about this if that Caterpillar plant was not in your district?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I think there's no question but the fact that when you feel the hurt of it, as we do personally from our -- with our constituents, why, then you feel more strongly about it. I've tried to tell those folks that, yes, this is a burning, intense issue with us, but I'm not altogether sure the rest of the country, frankly, feels all that strongly, 'cause you could make an argument in support of the President's position -- I'm sure Mr. Derwinski will probably do that, you see, and a very impassioned kind of plea that could be made. By the same token, I've seen sanctions -- well, the U.N. tried to impose them on Rhodesia, for example. And that wasn't what brought about change in Rhodesia at all. And when ever we've tried unilaterally to do something of this kind, it's a failing policy.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Ironically, one of the leaders on the other side in this struggle is not only another Illinois congressman, but another Republican. He is Edward Derwinski, number two Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. When your party leader in the House says the sanctions have been a costly failure, Congressman Derwinski, why do you disagree with him?

Rep. EDWARD DERWINSKI: Well, I've never been of the opinion that my party leader had papal infallibility. So on an issue like this I use my own judgment, and I'm very pleased to support what I consider the strong leadership the administration is providing the free world in the case of the pipeline sanctions.

MacNEIL: How can they work, to pick up the Congressman's point, if they're being applied, in effect, unilaterally because none of the allies are going along with them?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, remember first that our allies are great to criticize us for allegedly not leading, and then when we lead they criticize us for being too strong. We've gone through that in the last 30-some years of NATO. The present situation, though, is that the Soviet Union is being financed by the West -- in the case of this pipeline construction, a project they couldn't finance themselves; a project that will, in my judgment, make much of Western Europe dependent, too dependent, on Soviet gas in years ahead. And I think that the President has belatedly asserted the proper position of the free world, even though I recognize for domestic purposes that many of our key allies in Europe just can't publicly agree.

MacNEIL: What about your own domestic purposes, Congressman? You also represent the state of Illinois, and Mr. Michel says that state is going to bear 80% of the cost of this.

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, there are alternatives. One of them is to work out a major shipment of U.S. coal rather than Soviet gas to Western Europe. The other is that what the U.S. is really doing is delaying the construction. We are under no illusions that the project will collapse. It'll be considerably delayed, and as a result of that the Soviets will lose billions of dollars in hard currency earnings that they'll otherwise be extracting from the Western European nations.

MacNEIL: I see.Do you feel nothing -- I shouldn't put it that way; are you unconcerned about the strains that this has created within the alliance beyond the administration of this particular policy?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Oh, I'm very concerned. But the alliance survived the era of General de Gaulle when he pulled France out from under the rest of the European allies; there've been other stresses and strains within the alliance, and the fact that it's a voluntary association to begin with -- it's never been coercive on anybody's part -- shows that we can overcome this problem as well. I don't think this is the major crisis in the history of the alliance at all. I think it is this period's crisis. And if you recall, to use one example, at the time of the Falklands dispute, some of the members of the alliance weren't completely supportive of the position of the United Kingdom but the United States was.And there were some disappointments but there were some specific examples of support. And we see the same thing here and we'll see the same thing in the future.

MacNEIL: What about the effect on the prestige and leadership influence of an American President who stands firmly by a policy which his allies can flout?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, the history of the alliance has been, as I indicated earlier, that the U.S. is expected to lead, but when we do there are grumbles. When we don't there are grumbles of a different sort. In this case we have a strong President with intense convictions -- I think proper convictions, and I think a proper perspective of the problem in dealing with the Soviet Union. And I think quietly if not publicly there are many officials in the other capitals and many private citizens across Western Europe who appreciate the strength of President Reagan's position.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Congressman Michel, on this question of prestige. Do you think the prestige of the President would be hurt more if you're successful in getting your bill passed, or by continuing the sanctions as he's doing now?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, that's always a problem. And I have been rather reluctant in the past when we've had the Congress, you know, trying to second guess any president and to undermine him in any foreign policy decision sort of way. And -- but I just think in view of what has happened up to this point -- I think the President could very well say, for example, "Look, I felt strongly about trying to do what I could for the Solidarity, for the union, to implant a little bit of that kernel of freedom out there, to give them the encouragement to do what we'd like to see them eventually break away from that orbit. But no one wanted to join us. I'm glad that I stood for principle and for what America has always felt strongly about, but unfortunately our allies don't feel so strongly about it, and so given the fact that they won't support us, then I think maybe I've got to take another turn."

LEHRER: What would you think if the President did that, Congressman Derwinski?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, I think we have to keep in mind that the same Congress gave President Carter strong support when at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan he imposed different types of sanctions.And I don't think this is a political issue. I, for example, supported President Carter very strongly when he imposed the grain embargo and then the Olympic boycott at the time.I feel in this particular case President Reagan does have the basic support of the public; in fact, I should add that the AFL-CIO feels that the President should take even stronger steps, and, for example, impose substantial credit restraints on dealing with the Soviet Union. So we have a body of opinion that would go even firmer than the President has in our overall application of economic leverage against te USSR.

LEHRER: If the House should follow the leadership of the infallible minority leader tomorrow and vote to override this sanctions policy, what damage if any do you think it would do to the President's ability to conduct foreign policy?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, I don't think that with all his genius, charm, and powers of persuasion the minority leader will prevail tomorrow. I think the fundamental wisdom and strength of the President's position will prevail.

LEHRER: Takes a two-thirds vote, Congressman Michel.

Rep. MICHEL: Well, that's true. Under the procedure under which we're considering it, on the suspension calendar it takes a two-thirds vote, and that makes it all the more tougher to get that kind of vote.

LEHRER: Have you got the votes?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, we haven't made a Whip count on it, and it'll be -- there'll be divisions on it on both sides of the aisle. And I wouldn't want to predict at this point.

LEHRER: Are you concerned at all, as the minority leader, that many Democrats are going to vote on this to take a free shot at the President?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I understand that, and, you know, we had bipartisan support for a tax bill a few weeks ago, and every once in a while people submerge their partisan difference for whatever reason just on the matter of the principle involved. And I think that's probably how it'll shake down tomorrow on the vote.

LEHRER: You want to add anything to that?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Yes. I think that this is a bipartisan issue in both its support of Mr. Michel's position and the opposition to it, which is supporting the President. And I confidently expect a number of Democrats to follow the old principle of politics stopping at the water's edge and in this key vote support their President, who's the only one we have.

LEHRER: I see. You mentioned the merit -- back to that for a moment, Congressman Michel. You heard what Congressman Derwinski said. He said that the sanctions are delaying construction of the pipeline, and that delay is costing the Soviet Union two, three billion dollars, I believe you said, and probably even more; and that's hard cash that helps us in the long run.

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I don't know that it's helping them all that much, because what -- for example, Caterpillar and Fiat-Allis are not selling 'em in Illinois; Komatsu in Japan is. And we can show exactly the transformation there: where we once had 85% of the business and Komatsu only 15%, within the last four years that has exactly turned around. And we're cutting off our nose to spite our face in this regard; and as I said, unless you can get your allies, whether they by European or in this case Japan also, to cooperate in that same policy, it --

LEHRER: So those 200 pipelaying machines that were going to be made at Caterpillar in Peoria, they've bought them somewhere else?

Rep. MICHEL: Oh, yes. They've bought 'em from Kamatsui. And I was -- specifically asked the Secretary of State some time back and the national security adviser, can we get a guarantee from the Japanese that they will not -- that they will support our policy, that they won't ship if asked. And I got no such guarantee.

LEHRER: What's the point of it then, Congressman Derwinski?

Rep. DERWINSKI: Well, the point of it is that a company like Caterpillar, diversified as it is, shouldn't be dependent on a contract with the Soviet Union for its economic survival. If so, we're in a terrible strait. Furthermore, I think that Mr. Michel is correct in that there should have been a much more effective early diplomatic initiative in seeing that the Japanese cooperated with the boycott.I think the Japanese owe us that, and it's one of their failures in their relations with us.

Rep. MICHEL: I think that we might -- we ought to really put this in proper perspective, particularly in view of the comment Mr. Derwinski made, because if Caterpillar got all the sales -- you know, we're talking only about one or two percent of their business at most, so it's not that -- the tail wagging the dog in this respect, but simply a matter of principle. I think, for the long haul, if we're once proved to be an unreliable supplier, then of course -- then we can't be expected in future years to get that kind of business that could be significant.

Rep. DERWINSKI: I just say that to be an unreliable supplier to the Soviet Union is in U.S. national interest.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: As we've heard, the pipeline sanctions have been criticized and resisted by America's closest allies in Europe, with the British government one of the most outspoken. With us is Roderic Braithwaite, commercial minister at the British Embassy. Mr. Braithwaite is a career diplomat who specializes in international economic policy; his previous assignments have included the Soviet Union.Mr. Braithwaite, why is the British government, which enjoys very close relations with the Reagan administration, opposing this policy?

RODERIC BRAITHWAITE: I think there's a problem about ends and means. As far as the ends are concerned, I don't think there's any difference between the British government and the U.S. administration.

MacNEIL: That end is based, to put it crudely, to get the Soviet Union to leave Poland alone.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: We share the view of what the Soviet Union is up to in general; and in particular, we feel strongly about what has happened in Poland. So I don't think there's any difference on that subject. There is a difference of view about the appropriateness of trade sanctions in time of -- when there's no shooting going on. And there's also, I think, a point which -- there are two other points. There's one which is very important from our point of view, and it long antedates this particular row, and that is the claim of successive U.S. governments to exercise their authority over what we regard as our economic affairs. And legislation was passed in 1980 in order to deal with that by the British Parliament.

MacNEIL: So this -- if I may just interrupt you there -- for British firms to obey this Reagan administration policy would mean in effect contravening your own law, is that correct?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: We have a law which enables the government to issue directives instructing British firms not to follow directions given by a foreign government.

MacNEIL: Which is what you've done in this case.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: Which is being invoked in this case, yes.

MacNEIL: I see. So British firms are going to defy this ban, and are defying the ban, is that correct?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I prefer to say British firms are not going to defy the British government.

MacNEIL: And the British government is instructing them to go ahead and honor the contracts?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: In the case of John Brown, the answer is yes.

MacNIEL: I see. Now, your minister, your foreign secretary, today said that the sanctions are in themselves both contentious and debatable. In what way are they contentious and debatable? He said the purpose of them, and the thesis.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I think contentious -- they produce contention within the alliance, which has already been discussed by the congressmen. Debatable -- I think is the question of to what extent they will affect the outcome in Poland, and the whole very much broader question of the energy balance and East-West economic relations.

MacNEIL: What is your government's view of what purpose they will serve in Poland?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I think our government doesn't believe that they will serve much purpose in Poland. I don't think that these sanctions, if they were effective -- and we could talk about that too -- would in fact get the Soviet government to change its policy in Poland.

MacNEIL: Now, on the effectiveness of the sanctions. What is Britain's view of that?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I think one point that's worth making right at the beginning is the hard currency point. The Russians will start earning hard currency from the sale of gas -- from the sale, sorry, of more gas, because they sell quite a lot already -- probably when they were contracted to start earning that extra gas, because they've got spare pipeline capacity; they don't have to build a pipeline to do that.So they will be getting their however many billions of dollars it is from day one, more or less, allowing for Soviet inefficiency of various kinds. So that delaying the building of the pipeline won't affect, may well not affect -- there's a lot of uncertainty in all this -- may well not affect their hard currency earning capacity significantly.

MacNEIL: And is this delaying the building of the pipeline? Are these sanctions likely to delay the building of the pipeline?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I think that will get lost in the noise level, because there may be some delay; on the other hand, the Soviet system is pretty inefficient, so they probably wouldn't build the infrastructure on time anyway. And at the end of the day everybody will be able to claim that they won, I suspect.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Do you think that is what's going to happen, Congressman Derwinski?

Rep. DERWINSKI: No, I think there's enough evidence to show that the Soviet system, its cumbersome internal procedures, its less efficient machinery, would suffer if for no other reason than they would have to divert assets that should be going elsewhere. And I think they're going to suffer from the policy that this administration is applying.

LEHRER: You don't think they will, right, Congressman Michel?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I just don't think it's going to be delayed all that much, and if it is, so what? But, you know, you can also argue that here we are in the breadbasket of this country where we would like to get rid of all the excess surplus grain that we can produce in this country, and that market could be opened up all the more if they are given an opportunity to earn the dollars of the hard currencies that have purchased the grain and pay cash for it now. I just look at these commercial transactions as very interrelated, and frankly to our benefit if we take full advantage of them, rather than having some ideological hang-up here that there's absolutely foreboded to trade or to engage in commercial intercourse with the Soviet Union. I just happen to think when people are talking and trading with one another, they're less inclined to fight one another, and maybe all this could eventually lead to a lessening of some of the tensions and all the defense buildups that we've got to make on both sides. Now, that's a very idealistic argument, and I'm not so naive as to think the Soviets aren't what they really are. Let's face it: they are, and they've maybe even employed slave labor in the pipeline, and all the rest. But nevertheless, I think we just have to at least talk to these folks.

LEHRER: You don't buy that philosophy, right?

Rep. DERWINSKI: No. I think the track record shows that the Soviet Union very brutally serves its own national interest; that it is not in any way mellowing; that it's involved --

LEHRER: They're not influenced by trade and that sort of thing?

Rep. DERWINSKI: No. Because they're the ones who are motivated by ideology. We really aren't, in that sense, but if you take a look at the moment, their involvement in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Afghanistan, Poland itself; and you find the Soviets as intransigent as ever all over the world.

LEHRER: Mr. Braithwaite, let me ask you about a point that Congressman Derwinski raised a while ago, which was, you Europeans are always telling the United States "Show some leadership.C'mon. Get out front. Show some leadership." Now, here's a case where the President of the United States showed some leadership and you folks said "No, that wasn't the kind of leadership we had in mind." How do you respond to that?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: Well, there's a problem about leadership, particularly in an alliance of free countries. This is not, after all, the Warsaw Pact. And leadership -- and certainly we welcome clear leadership, and there have been times when the American leadership has not been as clear as it might be.So I don't think there's any argument on that score. But I think leadership implies fellowship, and in a free alliance there has to be debate, give and take, before decisions are taken and before they are taken irrevocably. And I think -- I don't know whether that's the answer to your question.

LEHRER: Does that answer your question, Congressman Derwinski?

Rep. DERWINSKI: I would rather, much rather have the NATO alliance in this present argument than be in the Soviet bloc where, if the Soviets had to order major moves today, could they trust the Polish military. And our free alliance, our voluntary alliance, has so much residual strength, so much depth to it, that I'd much prefer to live with the honest disagreements we have than to live in that world of total coercion that the Soviets maintain.

LEHRER: But Gaston Thorn, who's the president of the European Common Market, or the executive body of the European Common Market, was out in Chicago today, and he said that unless this thing is resolved soon over the pipeline and other trade matters, that the harm that it could do to the alliance may be irreparable. Do you agree with that, Mr. Braithwaite?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I don't think I do, no. I think this is a relationship in which a divorce, as far as I'm concerned, is inconceivable. It's a very old-fashioned kind of marriage.

LEHRER: What about you, Congressman Michel? How concerned are you about the failure of the European allies to go along with this?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I am. I was distressed, you know, after the Versailles conference, and this was one of those benchmarks I'd used in developing my own position here. If they get to the Versailles conference, come to agreement, and either side gives one way or another -- but when I found out that when the parties came back home and the Europeans were talking one thing and we were talking something else, I wondered what really took place there. I was rather confused by it all, and rather distressed. Because let's face it: we look to that industrial complex of Europe; it's imperative to us that we have this alliance. And an alliance with Japan -- when we look at the Soviet Union and its whole geopolitical thing worldwide, very important that we stick together. That we ought to -- well, several years ago we asked that we form a conference of industrial democracies. I think those of us who are of such like minds ought to be talking more with one another before we make these decisions, as the gentleman says.

LEHRER: Finally, in a couple of seconds. Congressman Derwinski, you heard what Congressman Michel said, that this -- back to the vote tomorrow, that if the House passes this, this could give the President a way to opt out of this. Do you think the President wants to opt out of this? Is he going to hang tough on this forever?

Rep. DERWINSKI: I don't think the House should be the vehicle for having the President opt out on principle. I think he's entitled to provide that principled leadership that we're getting from him.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes. Thank you all for joining us. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.