The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; NATO Summit

ROBERT MacNEIL: Presidents and prime ministers from the North Atlantic alliance today ended a two-day summit conference in Washington. Their discussions were dominated by concern over the relentless Soviet military buildup in Europe and growing Communist activity in Africa. Tonight, with two NATO leaders, the nature of the Soviet threat, and how the West will respond.

Good evening. Big springtime meetings of reinspiration and rededication are an annual rite of the North Atlantic alliance. But the summit meeting concluded today was extraordinary for its preoccupation with events far from the Europe the alliance was formed twenty-nine years ago to save from Communism. The final communique issued this afternoon reflected the growing dismay -- especially in Washington -- over the Soviet and Cuban presence in Africa, although some NATO leaders, notably British Prime Minister James Callaghan, were critical of the new obsession with Africa. As for Europe, the conference approved a long-term plan to beef up NATO`s military strength to meet the Soviet buildup, while emphasizing the search for peace, and arms reduction.

Tonight, two key participants in the summit--Belgian Prime Minister Leo Tindemans, and the chairman of NATO`s Military Committee, Norwegian General Herman Zeiner Gundersen -- give us a European perspective on the threats facing the West. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, President Carter underlined the summit`s official agenda in his opening address yesterday. In those remarks, the American President told the European leaders what they already knew about the growing military threat to their own security in Europe.

PRESIDENT CARTER: We must be aware of the new challenges that we face, individually and collectively, which require new efforts of us all. The Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries pose a military threat to our alliance which far exceeds their legitimate security needs. For more than a decade the military power of the Soviet Union has steadily expanded, and it has grown consistently more sophisticated. In significant areas the military lead we once enjoyed has been reduced. Today we can meet that military challenge. But we cannot be sure of countering the future military threat unless our alliance modernizes its forces and adds additional military power. In this effort the United States will play its part across the spectrum of conventional theater nuclear and strategic nuclear forces. I`m gratified that America`s allies are joining with us in building up their military might.

LEHRER: No country has been more active in the issues of Western Europe`s collective security than Belgium, and representing Belgium at the NATO summit meeting has been the nation`s Prime Minister, Leo Tindemans. Mr. Tindemans has been Prime Minister since 1974, and is one of the key leaders of the move toward a united Europe. His views were of particular current importance at the summit meeting because of the recent Belgian rescue operation in Zaire. Mr. Prime Minister, what is your view of how badly the Soviet buildup jeopardizes the security of Western Europe and thus of your country, Belgium?

LEO TINDEMANS: You mean in Belgium, in Europe, or...?

LEHRER: Yes.

TINDEMANS: Well, as long as we are members of the NATO, of the North Atlantic alliance organization, we feel secure in security. There is a danger that with the long-range missiles -- at least, we felt it at a certain moment like that -- that there would be a split between defense in Europe and defense in the United States from the moment that the United States could be hurt by these new weapons. But the meeting in London last year, in May, and the meeting we had now here in Washington have given us the assurance that the alliance is strong, that we are all very happy and we stay to the membership of NATO, and that we want to find solutions to these modern problems altogether; and that the space in which the alliance is working is one space, and that it will not be divided. So we have no specific fear as long as the Atlantic alliance is alive, is a reality in politics and in the field of defense.

LEHRER: If and when the fear should ever be present, is it a fear of an invasion or is it a fear of a political blackmail, or what?

TINDEMANS: Well, the weakness in the field of defense in Europe, because we can`t have these modern weapons, nuclear weapons, that are made in the United States. I know France is trying to make the nuclear bomb, and in Great Britain also they have that weapon, but for the defense of Europe as such we don`t have them, and then we feel rather weak. And it`s thanks to the United States and the Atlantic alliance that we are convinced that we will be protected and that we have in common that system of defense. The other danger is the ideological weapon, of course, a kind of fifth column, that propaganda and the spirit of Communist ideas could undermine the situation in our countries in Europe. And therefore, the economic crisis is a danger, for instance; we have to react, we have to have a common policy to fight inflation, to fight unemployment. And that`s a duty, I think, for the whole Western world.

LEHRER: Let me ask you a couple of political questions, first on President Carter, the man we just watched here on videotape. Our newspapers and magazines here in the United States have been full of stories about the fact that European leaders such as yourself have very serious doubts about the quality of Mr. Carter`s leadership. Is that true?

TINDEMANS: No, that is not true. When he was elected he was greeted with enormous sympathy in Europe. Excuse me, it`s a very difficult question to answer for a politician, because I myself am elected. But he was considered as a man with an image which was not built up by experts in public relations, that he was a very honest and very open and frank character, that he had the courage to defend moral principles in these times. It was a new man, a new figure; and as I said already, he was greeted with enormous sympathy.

Of course, then came the technical and very difficult problems, we now know: unemployment, the energy problem and the monetary problem. And it`s not easy to find a solution satisfying both European countries and the United States; you are such a huge country, you are a continent, and the problems we have in that field are not directly concerning you. And that`s the reason we had some criticism in Europe about energy policy, and especially about monetary policy, for instance. At the beginning of this month I was here in the United States, made some conferences about that. If you have a great deficit on your balance of payments and you are creating more monetary liquidates outside the United States it`s a danger for our economies, and we have to react and to defend ourselves. But that`s the reason why we should have more negotiations between the United States and Europe, more dialogue, in order to find solutions satisfying and Europe and the United States. It must be possible. And that`s the reason why there is some criticism.

And the last element -- and you must know it -- was the brisk change in attitude about the neutron bomb. We didn`t always understand in Europe why, after having asked for our opinions in Europe, the President took alone in a rather brisk way a decision. But saying that he`s considered as a man without authority in the world and in world politics of today and that he is not a real leader in the Western world isn`t true. He is. And today and yesterday, for instance, at the NATO meeting, he was really the center of the negotiations; and when he intervened everybody listened at his words and at his judgment.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: NATO`s highest military authority is the Military Committee, formed by the Chiefs of Staff of the member countries. Its job is to tell the alliance what they think is needed to defend the NATO area. The new chairman of the Military Committee, appointed in April of 1977, is Norwegian General Herman Zeiner Gundersen. General Zeiner Gundersen, with all the talk of the Soviet military buildup in Europe, to a soldier like yourself how serious is the military threat to Western Europe posed by the Soviet Union?

Gen. HERMAN ZEINER GUNDERSEN:I think I`d say exactly the same as President Carter said, that at the moment we are in the position to hold off, but if the trend continues, then there might be doubts. And of course it`s a fact of life that the Soviet Union uses about eleven to thirteen percent of its GNP for defensive purposes, or military purposes, within real term increase every year of more than four percent; and it`s quite obvious that in the long term that will count very much. I could, of course, mention to you examples where one has particular fear, and that is particularly in their number of tanks, their number of submarines, and also in their number of airplanes and new-type rockets.

MacNEIL: But is that fear for the present, General, or fear of a growing disparity between our two strengths in the future?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN:I think I`d say it`s a fear for the growing disparity in the future rather than for the present, yes.

MacNEIL: If the long-term plan approved today by the NATO leaders to strengthen NATO`s conventional military capability to meet the Soviet buildup is fully implemented, by what year will the NATO forces be on a par, in your view, with the Warsaw Pact forces?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: That`s a very difficult question to reply to, you know, because it depends upon how much economic support is being given by the different countries in every year. And as you know, in democratic countries you cannot commit your countries in the long run; you can just commit them for a few years hence. So it`s extremely difficult to reply quite correctly to your question.

MacNEIL: Do you as a military man have some concern about the political will of the whole of Western Europe, of the NATO alliance, to bear the cost of this long-term buildup? Are you worried about that?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN:I know there has been talk about lack of political will. Personally, I have every confidence that there is political will when the picture is realized, which I think it is now.

MacNEIL: Is the long-term plan approved today merely a reaction to this Soviet buildup over the last few years, or is it a major rethink of NATO strategy?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: Personally, I`d describe it as a reaction to what has happened during the last few years on the other side.

MacNEIL: Would you have preferred that the strategy be rethought -again, speaking as a soldier?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: No; I think the strategy, which is the strategy of flexible response and forward offense, is a correct one. In fact, I don`t believe there is any other strategy possible. So I think that is a very solid foundation on which to build.

MacNEIL: Thank you, sir. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Prime Minister, do you feel that Western Europe has the political will to bear the cost of this new long-range defense plan?

TINDEMANS: Well, it`s always a difficult question, the budgetary one, and in this crisis period we need much money in order to fight unemployment. But the meeting of yesterday and today proved that the will is still there to fulfill the commitments.

LEHRER: Let me ask you both, some American officials have said that all European countries have not been bearing their fair share in terms of NATO`s defense burden. Is that right, General?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: Of course it depends upon how you define the word "fair share," but I think it`s fairly all right to say that not all European countries have used such an amount of their common economies for defensive purposes as I would like them to do. I shall not name any country.

LEHRER: Well, that was my next question. All right, if you`re not going to answer that, is anything going to change as a result of this NATO summit meeting and the commitment to the long-range plan?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: I think yes.

LEHRER: In what way?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN:I think it will be a change because I think people are much more aware; people and politicians are much more aware now of the real picture, and that, I think, will automatically lead to an increase in the military budgets, roughly to follow the ministerial guidance of last year, which goes for three percent real term increase.

LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Prime Minister?

TINDEMANS: Yes. I have the same opinion.

LEHRER: Do you agree that there are some countries that haven`t been carrying their full load up till now?

TINDEMANS: Indeed; it`s...

LEHRER: What happened here in Washington in the last two days that is going to cause them now to bear their burdens?

TINDEMANS: I think the spirit, the climate of this meeting and the statistics they showed us and the mode and the impression, the facts that were given to us about the policy in the field of defense or armament in the Eastern countries and the Soviet Union and what we are doing, and the comparisons that were made -- I think it was rather impressive.

LEHRER: Do Europeans welcome or resent having to depend on the United States so much for their own defense? General?

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: Of course I`m only one European...

LEHRER: Right.

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: I don`t think I`d resent it. I realize that I belong to a country of four million inhabitants, and you belong to a country of 200, or slightly more. And the facts of life are as the facts of life are, and I think one thing which to me is much more important is that we all stick together in order to defend our democratic purposes; whoever takes the lead, that`s more or less irrelevant, from my point of view.

LEHRER: Is that irrelevant from your point of view as a politician and a government leader, Mr. Prime Minister?

TINDEMANS: Of course, on one condition, and the General said it: it must be a democratic system. Of course, in Europe we have several parties, several tendencies, but in a democratic system.

LEHRER: We hear also here in the United States that some European leaders are very upset at President Carter specifically and the United States generally for not consulting enough with Europe when a defense decision is made. Is there validity to that criticism?

TINDEMANS: There`s something true in that; not only President Carter, but it was in general when the President of the United States took a new decision or took some measures. But I think that the greatest conclusion of the meeting of the NATO member states now was that we will have more political contacts and exchange of ideas, and in a permanent way. And in my eyes that`s extremely important for the future of the alliance.

LEHRER: All right; thank you, gentlemen. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; let`s turn now to the African question. In their final communiqu4 the NATO leaders warned the Soviet Union and Cuba that their role in Africa could undermine confidence in detente and jeopardize the further improvement of East-West relations. At a press conference later Britith Prime Minister Callaghan warned against acting out of frustration in Africa, and made some scathing references to what he called "a lot of Christopher Columbuses" setting out from the United States to discover Africa for the first time. Callaghan said African issues should not supersede work on a strategic arms limitation pact. The American concern about Africa was raised by President Carter in his opening statement to the summit yesterday.

CARTER: Our alliance centers on Europe, but our vigilance cannot be limited just to that continent. In recent years expanding Soviet power has increasingly penetrated beyond the North Atlantic area. As I speak today, the activities of the Soviet Union and Cuba in Africa are preventing individual nations from determining their own future. As members of the world`s greatest alliance, we cannot be indifferent to these events, because of what they mean for Africa and because of their effect on the long-term interests of the alliance itself. I welcome the efforts of individual NATO allies to work for peace in Africa and to support nations and people in need, most recently in Zaire.

MacNEIL: Prime Minister Tindemans, are we in the United States overreacting to the -- as Mr. Callaghan seemed to be suggesting this afternoon in the words I just quoted -- to the Soviet and Cuban involvement in Africa?

TINDEMANS: Well, I would speak about Africa and Zaire with nuances, if I may say it in that way. It`s a fact, I think, that there is some Soviet or Eastern European influence and there are Cuban soldiers, with out doubt. But Africa is a very complicated continent. Colonialism is not completely over, and some of the African states that became recently independent have difficulties to find their own way, politically speaking, and their own economic system. Some are looking at the Communist world, others are looking for a typical African solution; but all need experts. They don`t have sufficient African experts. And what will be the solution? That`s the great question. They have tribal difficulties, as is the case, for instance, in Shaba, that tragic province where so many people were killed in the last days. The same tribe, the Lundas, are living in Angola, in Zambia and in Shaba. And when they left the province of Shaba years ago, after the secession in Katanga, now called Shaba, they went to live in Angola; but they want to come back:. It`s a political question, and in Angola they are against the actual, the new regime, the political regime there.

So they want to come back, they cannot come back, and it is a tribal and a very difficult tribal question. And at the same time there is foreign influence. `The young men, the rebels that came and killed so many people, white people now, shouted some slogans, Communist slogans; it was clear that they had been indoctrinated and they had been trained in order to be able to handle automatic weapons. So there is certainly foreign influence, without doubt. But at the same time, there are typical African problems -- tribal difficulties and the regime, the economic situation -- they are hungry in certain provinces; and we should have a eye for that aspect of the African problem also.

MacNEIL: May I put the question this way to you: are Americans tending--as Mr. Callaghan put it, being Christopher Columbuses newly discovering Africa -- are we tending to ignore those nuances that you`ve just referred to?

TINDEMANS: Well, there are some ideological aspects, as I said already, but there are other aspects also, and Great Britain had a great tradition -- and still has a great tradition -- in Africa. Maybe that was the reason why the British Prime Minister was reacting as he did, saying in a certain way it`s not only an East-West problem or an ideological problem, there are other aspects, too. If leaders in the United States speak only of the ideological aspect, it`s not the complete truth. In that way I can agree with him.

MacNEIL: Prime Minister, the Cubans have vehemently denied any involvement, direct or indirect, in the Shaba invasion. Does the Belgian government have any evidence that the Cubans were involved directly or indirectly?

TINDEMANS: Well, there were some declarations by victims of the rebels that they heard a language which was not an African language or they didn`t understand it, and they thought it was Spanish that was spoken; so they thought that there was some Cuban influence. But it`s a fact that there are about 84,000 Cuban soldiers in Africa; nobody can deny that.

MacNEIL: Did the United States present any evidence at this summit meeting, any more positive evidence of Cuban involvement that that?

TINDEMANS: It`s difficult. The weapons experts and the military experts said that the weapons they found were -- well, made in Eastern European countries, or in the Soviet Union. That`s one of the things that everybody can know for the moment; you cannot deny it. Excuse me, was that an answer to your question?

MacNEIL: Yes. I was just wondering, does Belgium believe that the Cubans were directly involved in the invasion?

TINDEMANS: Not directly. The rebels came this time from Zambia, not from Angola. But that they were trained, these youngsters--young people between fourteen and eighteen years old -- were trained, military trained, by foreign experts, that`s clear, that`s the truth.

MacNEIL: In Belgium, which obviously in the question of Zaire has not only such a tradition but such an economic interest still -- you have over a billion dollars in investments there -- in Belgium how do you feel about the Soviet and Cuban presence in Africa? Does it greatly concern you, or is it just one of many factors?

TINDEMANS: No, it`s one of many factors, as I tried to explain. But we regret very much that Africa for the moment is like the first prize in world politics; it`s clear that there there is a kind of meeting between the Western world and the Communist world.

MacNEIL: I see. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Let`s talk about what the NATO alliance, either individually or collectively, should do about it. Do you have a solution to this problem, Mr. Prime Minister?

TINDEMANS: Yes. It`s not a question for NATO. You know that the space for NATO doesn`t cover Africa. But at this occasion we had a discussion about the political situation in the world, and then NATO can do it, is allowed to do it. Africa is one of the major political problems in world politics for the moment, and that was the reason why we had a discussion about Africa.

LEHRER: Well, there have been a lot of things suggested about what should be done. One of the things, of course, is to link it to the SALT discussions. Are you in favor of that?

TINDEMANS: It cannot be done for Africa; it`s not the space, the strategic space, for NATO. But what we in Belgium are proposing, for instance, is that African countries themselves, without foreign influence, should organize a kind of protection of the frontiers between Zambia, Angola and Zaire. And if they need -- at least, at the beginning -some logistic aid, help, then we should do it. But as many as possible, not one country or two countries, because we don`t want to be accused of neo-colonialism or of a certain economic imperialism. And then there is really the need to have as many Western countries as possible in order to give that aid.

LEHRER: General, is that being discussed within the NATO military ranks, of putting together some kind of international peacekeeping force? That`s another thing that`s been suggested.

ZEINER GUNDERSEN: No, that`s not being discussed. Of course, the question of Africa -- Africa is outside the present boundaries of NATO, and it`s also a fact of life that happenings in Africa do influence or could influence the Western world. But apart from that, any multinational, or whatever we want to call it, force, that has not been discussed, and I would rather consider that unwise, I think.

LEHRER: Would you consider that unwise?

TINDEMANS: Yes. Not NATO as such. I agree totally.

LEHRER: But you wouldn`t mind if two or three countries, like Belgium...

TINDEMANS: Even more.

LEHRER:...and a few others got together and did it on their own.

TINDEMANS: Why not the U.N., the United Nations, for instance? But it will take time to have a certain security there. The white experts will not stay if there is not a minimum of security, or they will not return. And Shaba is the richest province of Zaire -- copper province -- and if the experts leave, it will be the total collapse of the economy of Zaire.

LEHRER: What about the introduction of military supplies and other military -- in other words, do what the Cubans are doing, only do it for the other side? Do you support that?

TINDEMANS: Well, it`s impossible for Belgium to do such a thing. The Belgian government, or parliament, would never accept the permanent presence of Belgian troops there. We can do it to save lives, a humanitarian action as we did, or for a certain period in the period of insecurity, as we called it; but to stay there in a permanent way is politically totally impossible.

LEHRER: Impossible for anybody?

TINDEMANS: No, but even France doesn`t like it to do it alone, so I repeat, we should do it with many countries.

LEHRER: Is that likely to happen, Mr. Prime Minister?

TINDEMANS: Well, there will be a meeting next week, I think, in Paris, and five countries will participate at that meeting. It may be that`s a solution, but I wish personally that as many as possible, in order to avoid any accusation of interference from the West in African affairs.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Prime Minister and General, thank you very much for joining us. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

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