Nuclear Deterrence : Dukakis Not Ruling Out First Use

The following edited dialogue between Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, currently the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Times staff writer Robert Scheer was drawn from three hours of recorded interviews.

SCHEER: Is it possible that all the changes in the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev mark the end of the Cold War?

DUKAKIS: I don’t think there’s any question that some significant things are happening in the Soviet Union. The withdrawal from Afghanistan obviously is a major departure from what we’ve seen since World War II. They’re apparently attempting to play a fairly constructive role in Angola, and, if Gorbachev’s serious about eliminating regional conflict, we ought to challenge him on that--in Central America and in the Middle East.

I think there will continue to be a competition between the United States and the Soviet Union because we happen to have very different ideologies. In Tom Brokaw’s interview with Gorbachev, the most striking thing about it was the extent to which Gorbachev bristled when Brokaw started challenging him on human rights. He really got mad, and you could see it. There’s a fundamental difference there between our values and perceptions.

Q: Yes, but there’s also a fundamental difference between us and the Chinese communists. Yet we have normalized relations with them to a great degree. We give them high-tech military equipment. We give them nuclear technology. That’s the kind of break in the Cold War I’m asking about.

A: I think that’s because we don’t perceive the Chinese communists to be, at least at this point, a serious threat to national security.

Q: No, but isn’t the human rights situation just as bad in Communist China as in Russia?

Expanding Human Rights

A: Well, we shouldn’t relax our efforts to encourage and expand human rights for people everywhere. When you say ‘an end to the Cold War,’ I’m not sure I understand what that means.

Q: I’m asking whether we are at an historical turning point in relation to this Cold War that has dominated our lives.

A: I tend to be more a believer in the evolution of history than in turning points. There’s no question that the next President is going to have the best opportunity for meaningful arms control and arms reduction of any President in our lifetime. But that’s going to require a tough, pragmatic step-by-step effort. And, each time you take that step, you’ve got to make sure it’s verifiable.

I also think there now are real prospects for negotiating reductions in conventional forces with the Soviets. And, if they’re serious about restructuring their defense and pulling back and having significantly fewer conventional forces, that’s good news. But my concern is that, while we have a massive and survivable nuclear deterrent, our tank commanders in Europe don’t have fuel. The Air Force is increasingly concerned about spare parts, maintenance and pilot time. We’re losing these war games in the Mojave Desert to the Soviet side because our guns won’t fire.

Given the fact that the defense budget is not going to increase in real terms no matter who is elected, the next President is going to have to make some basic choices as to where the money goes.

Q: The Western Europeans have strong economies. Why don’t they pay for their own defense?

A: I think they should pay more, and my hope would be we could persuade them to pay more. But we also have to understand that a strong defense in Western Europe is very much in our national interests.

Q: One question I wanted to clear up deals with the so-called nuclear umbrella for Western Europe. There was some confusion earlier in the campaign about where you stand on a first strike. Do you accept Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy’s rejection of any first use?

A: No. My position is that there should be no early first use and that our policy ought to be designed to prevent nuclear war.

Q: What is no early first use?

A: Using maximum restraint. Doing everything we can to persuade our adversaries not to start the war in the first place. And, in fact, I think that’s exactly what’s happened on both sides. . . . Even conventional warfare in Europe--given the number of nuclear power plants there--would itself be an absolute disaster for Europe and for the world. If Chernobyl was as dramatic an experience as it was for all of us, think of what would happen if conventional warfare broke out in Europe, and, as almost certainly would happen, the energy sources and power plants of the combatants were the first targets. You’d have a nuclear holocaust with conventional warfare.

Q: Four leading arms control experts--McNamara, Bundy, Gerard Smith and George Kennan--with important credentials in the Democratic Party have taken the position that there’s value in announcing a no-first-use policy. One of the reasons for that was to establish an international principle that no nation ought to use nuclear weapons first. Do you see any value in that position?

A: I respect these men and I’ve read their work, but in my view our present policy is the right policy. . . . In my judgment, the reason that international conflict has not broken out and the reason that we now have an opportunity to proceed to serious and meaningful negotiations is because we’ve made it clear to our adversaries that they should never start a war.

Q: They argue that this is no longer a meaningful threat because both sides know full well that there is no such thing as a limited strike.

A: I don’t agree with that.

Q: You think there can be a limited strike?

A: No, I didn’t say that. I think the possibility of nuclear deterrence has worked, and continues to work because of the consequences of use.

Q: Can you envision any situation in which that first nuclear strike would not lead to the destruction of the world? I’m trying to be precise.

A: I’m not going to be precise, because this is not an area where you’re precise. All I’m saying to you is that our policy has been and must be to do everything we can to make sure that a nuclear war never occurs. In my judgment, a policy of deterrence has contributed to that.

Q: Do you think that civil defense or some sort of “Star Wars” defensive system or combination thereof could make it possible for either the United States or the Soviet Union to fight a nuclear war?

A: I don’t think “Star Wars” can be effective. I think it’s a fantasy and a fraud and we ought to stop spending billions on it.

Q: You have said that you are not for deep cuts in the defense budget.

A: Unless we can negotiate significant reductions, and I think that that’s very possible, providing we get a (strategic arms reduction talks) agreement, a test ban treaty and conventional force reduction.

Q: What sort of effect would this have on the American economy? Will it lead to a loss of jobs? Some of the momentum of the Reagan Administration’s economic success has been due to the military buildup.

A: And $160-billion worth of red ink. Actually, when you make those defense cuts, you’ve got a responsibility--which I happen to take very seriously--to make corresponding investments in non-defense technology. You have to use those funds to convert, to retrain, to rebuild this country’s industrial base, which has taken a terrible beating over the last six or seven years--largely because of irresponsible fiscal policies that force us to borrow from abroad and practically killed us with this over-inflated dollar. I see a vigorous government role in actively promoting economic development. I always have.

Q: Would you concede that there is a problem for Democrats that Republicans don’t have in opening to the Soviets?

A: No, I don’t concede that.

Q: Richard Nixon went to China. It has been suggested that, had a Democratic President made that trip, he would have been eaten alive. You’re not afraid of being red-baited then?

A: No. There’s a right-wing fringe in this country that will attack any President. They attacked Reagan with a kind of savagery after he came back with the INF treaty. They accused him of betraying the cause.

Q: Are you going to be able to take the heat from the right wing saying you’re soft on communism?

A: They can say what they want to say. I’m a tough guy.

Q: You have said that McCarthyism had a large effect on your life.

A: More than that, the two most significant figures in my life as I was growing up politically were (Sen. Joseph R.) McCarthy and (John F.) Kennedy. McCarthy defined the four years that I was at Swarthmore. McCarthyism defined the political environment. For me and for those of us who were appalled by what he did and what he represented and what was going on, he was an enormously important influence. Kennedy, by contrast, was the other side of that.

Q: Didn’t McCarthyism also traumatize the Democratic Party?

A: It did.

Q: Are you free of that now?

A: It never traumatized me.

Q: It didn’t?

A: No, we reacted strongly, and outspokenly. I remember running a membership drive at the Swarthmore campus for the ACLU. I think we signed up nearly 50% of the entire campus. McCarthy was our greatest membership recruiter. I was the chairman of the Students for Democratic Action at the time.

Q: For a Democratic candidate, a very good test of his ability to take the heat is his stand on controversial issues like the Middle East, especially saying things that might not please the government of Israel. In your speeches you always mention your disagreements with Jesse Jackson. Precisely what are your disagreements?

A: I think that the next President’s job is to do everything he can to create an atmosphere within which Israel and its neighbors can sit down and negotiate permanent peace in the Middle East, but not to impose that settlement because trying to impose a settlement doesn’t work. I don’t think you negotiate with the PLO as long as they engage in active terrorism and are committed to the destruction of Israel. And I haven’t seen anything in the course of the past weeks or months or years which seems to have changed that basic view. And every time (PLO leader Yasser) Arafat is pressed, he gets very ambiguous. I don’t see what’s so difficult about the PLO or other Arab nations standing up and doing what (former Egyptian President) Anwar Sadat did, which is basically to say: “Yes, we agree that the people of Israel have a right to exist within secure borders with dignity and freedom, and we’ll negotiate on that basis.” I mean, what’s so difficult about that?

Q: But Sadat got all of his land back. The problem for Jordan, or Syria right now, is whether Israel is interested in giving back that land, and the government of Israel has already said that it would not give back Jerusalem.

A: Well, I don’t think it is realistic to assume that all of the land is going to go back. And whatever settlement comes out of what I hope can be constructive negotiations I think will have to provide for borders different than the pre-’67 borders.

Q: Do you think this settlement would involve a Palestinian state?

A: That’s a judgment to be made by the parties. As a practical matter, if Israel and/or Jordan don’t want an independent Palestinian state--which is likely--you are not going to have an independent Palestinian state.

Q: You’re saying that, if the government of Israel takes the position that there will be no independent Palestinian state, that the U.S. . . . ?

A: Then there isn’t going to be an independent Palestinian state.

Q: So then what happens to the Palestinians?

A: That’s a subject to be negotiated. I think the notion of limited autonomy leading to something more permanent makes sense.

Q: Aside from making sense, is there a fundamental human rights problem involved here? What rights do individual Palestinians living on the West Bank or Gaza have right now? Are there any that are being violated by Israel?

A: I want Israel to use maximum restraint. The President said that. I said publicly at the time that I supported him. I think that you’ve got to use maximum restraint wherever possible. The Israelis themselves have recognized that. Some people have been disciplined, and the procedures have been changed, but this problem isn’t going to be resolved unless and until Arab leaders do what Sadat did.

Q: The Israeli army has said it is holding more than 5,000 Palestinians without charges. Do you feel that violates their human rights? Do you feel that’s wrong?

A: When you’re dealing with civil disturbances and occupied territories, you ought to use the maximum restraint possible.

Q: But is it wrong to hold people without charges?

A: Dealing with civil disturbances--some of which I have no doubt are being encouraged and supported from outside the occupied territories--is not an easy job, as anybody who’s ever tried to deal with them knows.

Q: That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking can you hold people without charges being brought against them, without any due process, some for over a year, without that being a violation of human rights?

A: I think Israel has a responsibility to try to deal with that situation as fairly and as responsibly as it possibly can. But this situation wouldn’t be a problem today, if leaders of the Arab world had done what they should have done 40 years ago or 20 years ago or 15 years ago, and that is to sit down and negotiate a permanent peace which recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

Q: No matter how irresponsible or reactionary the Arab governments may be, no matter how stupid and violent the PLO may be, do the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza have any fundamental human rights that the Israeli government must respect and that the U.S. government will criticize them for not respecting? And have any of those rights been violated in the events of the last five months?

A: Yes. Yes. And the United States government has been properly critical of Israel when it used what, in our judgment, was more than the kind of restraint than what ought to be used under these circumstances.

Q: The U.S. government right now does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Would you continue that policy?

A: If Israel wants its capital in Jerusalem, then, as far as I’m concerned, its capital is in Jerusalem. If it wants its capital in Tel Aviv, then its capital can be in Tel Aviv. That’s their judgment to make.

Q: That’s not the U.S. government’s position right now.

A: Well, I don’t happen to agree with it. I think it’s a basic principle of doing business with other nations. They say their capital is in X, then that’s where we go.

Q: The argument is that you’re accepting the legitimacy of their control of Jerusalem.

A: Well, I do.

Q: So you do believe that all of Jerusalem then would be part of a future Israel?

A: Yes.

Q: So that Jerusalem is not negotiable.

A: Except for the rights of religious groups, which are rights that Israel has accepted.

Q: Let’s take Angola as another example. Do you think there’s a possibility of cooperation with the Soviets there?

A: I think our support of (rebel leader Jonas) Savimbi and UNITA is absolutely bizarre. We’ve got a situation where we’re supporting this group, whose principal patron is South Africa, which attacks American oil companies that are defended by the Cuban army. If we’re serious about building the kind of relationship with the front-line African states that I think we must if we’re serious about getting tough with South Africa, this policy has got to end.

Q: So do you see the possibility of an arrangement whereby the Cuban troops leave and we and the Soviets guarantee the security of Angola?

A: Well, I don’t know if it should be we and the Soviets; I prefer to work wherever possible through international organizations, not because I’m romantic about international organizations, but I think you are much more likely to get a permanent settlement when you do so. I want us to stop voting on the (U.N.) Security Council against sanctions on South Africa. I want us to lead that effort for sanctions against South Africa.

Q: So you could foresee a situation where the U.N. or the United States in cooperation with the U.N. would guarantee the security or the survival of the government of Angola or Mozambique against South African . . . ?

A: I want to see us getting tough on South Africa. I want to see us leading that effort. Part of that effort--assuming that the international community is working together--has to be helping those front-line Southern African states to reduce their dependency on South Africa economically.

Q: Do you see any possibility of improved relations with Cuba?

A: The first thing I want to do is to end the conflict in Central America, get foreign military forces out of Central America, and begin to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and the Contadora group to end the war and get the peace process working. After that, we’ll take a look at Cuba. What happens then depends on whether Cuba is willing to take steps to demonstrate that it’s prepared to extend human and democratic rights to its people. That’s the same principal that we ought to adopt in dealing with any country in this hemisphere.

Q: You have said we can’t have a communist, a Russian satellite in Central America. And then, when you were pushed by the New York Times, you said a satellite that would be the base of subversion.

A: No, no. There are two fundamental issues here. One is the presence of a foreign military power in the hemisphere that threatens our security. That’s problem No. 1. And we can’t tolerate that. The second is efforts by any nation in this hemisphere to subvert its neighbor. We can’t tolerate that, and it’s prohibited in any event by the (Organization of American States) charter. That applies to us and it applies to any other nation in the hemisphere.

Now, if you have a Soviet satellite--at least, as that phrase is commonly defined--then you’ll have both a foreign military presence, which threatens our security, and an ideology which systematically attempts to subvert neighbors. We can’t tolerate either one.

Q: The United States has military bases in countries that border the Soviet Union. Do you think the Soviets could enunciate a principle that they will not tolerate any foreign military bases on their border or any threats to their security?

A: I’m talking about this hemisphere, and in this hemisphere we have a very special relationship.

Q: For example, after the Soviets get out of Afghanistan, could they enunciate the same principle for Afghanistan that you’re enunciating for this hemisphere?

A: Look, I’m not interested in tolerating any Soviet expansion into anywhere. I’m just saying that, in this hemisphere, it has been recognized for a long, long time that a foreign military presence that threatens our security won’t be tolerated. I think that’s a sound principle. I support it.

Q: So, your view is that we have rights in this hemisphere that the Soviets would not have in Afghanistan.

A: My view is that we have the right to prevent or stop a foreign military presence in this hemisphere that threatens our security. Period.

Q: And do the Soviets have that right in Eastern Europe or on their Asian border?

A: Well, they’ve certainly asserted that right in Eastern Europe and, as a practical matter, the United States has not interfered with it.

Q: We’ve tended to adhere to a fairly simple view of the world.

A: I know that. Our problem has been that we’ve tended to view, or at least we’ve had some people who occasionally govern this country who tend to view, all regional conflict through an East-West prism, and it’s one of the reasons why we’re failing in Central America. You support Somoza for 40 years, you support Batista in Cuba, you support these people and then you get radical revolutions and you wonder why. It’s one of the reasons why we’ll continue to fail if we continue to view these kinds of conflicts as being nothing but a mirror image of the Cold War.

Q: One concern about Afghanistan is that the forces that we have defined as freedom fighters tend in some ways to be similar to forces in Iran which bother us.

A: That’s right--and bother the Soviet Union. As we all know. That’s why I think it’s very important to have a continuing international presence in these areas. The same in South Africa. I don’t think there’s any question that, if we’re going to put pressure on South Africa--as we must--and work with those front-line Southern African states, we’ve got to work in concert with the international community.

Q: In the general election, Bush is going to blast you on this question of supporting the front-line states, and that you’re withdrawing support from the Angolan guerrillas.

A: I think that this Administration is so vulnerable on South Africa. I’m looking forward to a debate on foreign policy with Bush.

Q: But he’s going to say you’re soft on communism.

A: Oh, I don’t care what he says. This is a disgrace. Being aligned with South Africa in Angola. That’s not what the United States is all about. Believe me, if I’m President, we are going to change it. Our policy down there has been disgraceful, as it has been in so many other areas.

Q: Turning to domestic issues, you recently gave a speech in Long Beach calling for a major effort in education. But some in the audience found your concrete proposal--increasing federal spending on schools by $250 million a year--disappointing. That seemed to them like chicken feed compared to what the government spends on, say, one military weapon.

A: The next President of the United States is going to inherit a fiscal mess. And I’m not going to promise what I can’t deliver. You’re going to have to make some serious cuts just to begin to bring the deficit down in the interest of building a strong economy, which in turn can produce the resources to use for public education.

Q: Jesse Jackson has said he wants to take money out of the military budget and put it into things like education.

A: So do I.

Q: But he’s talking about more than $250 million.

A: He’s talking about $20 billion. Given what the next President of the United States is going to face, talking about $20 billion in the first year for increased federal aid to education is not realistic.

Q: Shouldn’t we pay teachers $50,000 a year if we pay aerospace engineers working on missiles $50,000 a year?

A: We ought to pay our teachers a lot more than we’re paying them. Whether or not we have the will to do it, remains to be seen. I am going to do everything I can to encourage a greater and greater national commitment--federal, state and local--to that kind of investment.

The single, most important thing I can do to help that is to lead us to a full employment economy that’s going to create the kind of economic growth and the economic base that would make it possible for federal, state and local governments to make those investments.

Q: One thing that clearly has emerged in this election is that the black community in America is alienated from white leadership. I think you would agree that this massive vote for Jesse Jackson is astounding. It shows a unity . . . .

A: I don’t see that at all. As I’ve said often, he is getting the lion’s share share of the black vote; I’m getting the lion’s share of the Greek-American vote for the same reason. I get 96% of the black vote when I run in Massachusetts.

Q: I am not asking whether you can appeal to blacks. I’m saying we’ve learned something about the mood of the black community through Jesse Jackson. To put it as a question, is there a more serious problem there than people have thought?

A: It’s been a serious problem since blacks were brought to this country as slaves.

Q: So what is your program for addressing it?

A: My program is to do at the national level what I’ve done in my state, and that is to create economic opportunity for every single citizen in this country. The minority unemployment rate in Massachusetts is 5.5%. Five years ago it was 14%. The national minority unemployment rate has moved about two percentage points in 5 years. I didn’t wait around until Jesse Jackson ran for the presidency to discover this issue.

Q: Have you learned anything from the Jackson campaign?

A: I think Jesse has done a terrific job of addressing issues. He obviously has great gifts as a public figure. While we disagree on some issues, we share a lot of the same goals and a lot of the same hopes and dreams and aspirations for the people of this country.

Q: It looks like you’re going to get the nomination. Do you also see a role for Jackson in the future?

A: Sure. He’s a man who’s demonstrated an ability to win support across the country. He’s an important party leader. I think most Democrats are united in the view that we have a special responsibility to address questions of equality. Which party supports affirmative action, and has traditionally? Who are the presidents who have appointed members of the Supreme Court who have tended to be progressive on these issues?

Q: Do you see a different Democratic Party coming out of this? Has it moved left?

A: I think it’s moved forward. There’s going to be a legislative agenda waiting for the next Democratic President ready to go with congressional majorities already in place. That’ll be on everything from the minimum wage to plant closings, to welfare reform, to health care, to housing, to education. I think that, once this Administration is out of there, these kind of things are going to move and move very quickly, and I think it’s terrific.

Q: What would you hope to accomplish in your first year as President?

A: Minimum wage, the (Sen. Edward M.) Kennedy bill, which gets us up to $4.25 an hour. Then periodic steps up based on wage levels. A responsible trade bill, which is the bill that’s currently in the Congress, which includes a 60-day plant closing notice and, more than that, a very substantial additional investment for training and retraining, adult literacy, workplace literacy--all of these things are in the trade bill.

The education bill, which has just been passed but not signed. There will have to be major farm legislation, which I hope can do a much better job than the current bill in reducing the level of farm subsidies and in providing our farmers with a fair price for their crops.

The Kennedy-Waxman bill, which would require all but small employers to provide basic health insurance for their employees and which would insure some 26 or 27 million of the 37 million people who are not insured in the country.

Q: How would you be different from Jimmy Carter?

A: Why do people ask that question? It’s really a foolish question to ask, you know.

Q: Well, he was the last Democratic President; he was the governor of a state . . . .

A: So the guy before him who was a governor was Franklin Roosevelt. Why don’t you ask me how I differ with Franklin Roosevelt? The last governor to be President was Ronald Reagan. How do I differ from Ronald Reagan?

Q: Well, that’s another fair question. Jimmy Carter was known for having a particular interest in each question down to the details. He was known to involve himself excessively. Ronald Reagan, by contrast . . . .

A: The Reagan Administration has fundamental problems: One is that the President’s style is so hands off that we are now seeing a kind of crumbling of the place. Second, I think his is an Administration that is contemptuous of public service and contemptuous of the Congress. They came to office with a view that government and public service were both dirty words. If you come to government with that attitude, then the chances are you are going to pick mediocre people at best. You are not going to really pay attention to what it means to provide good public services effectively and well. Third, they’re contemptuous of the law and the Constitution.

Q: Jimmy Carter was not contemptuous of the Congress or hostile to government, but many Americans believe he was a disastrous administrator.

A: He was not a disastrous administrator, and I know because I worked with him. In 1977, when my state was in deep trouble, we got a great deal of help from that Administration. There were very serious and very tough problems then that were not the fault of anybody in Washington or anybody in this country. We had a series of energy shocks, which are still reverberating around the place. We had a hostage-taking in Iran, which was a terribly difficult thing. In retrospect, it is fair to say that the Carter Administration did a better job of getting those folks home than the current Administration has done. There weren’t any Iran Contra scandals.

Q: But Carter also campaigned against Washington.

A: But I’m not campaigning against Washington. My vocation has been public service. I think it’s a very noble calling. That’s 180 degrees from where Reagan is and the people around him. I have a rather clear philosophy of public service and what it’s all about, and it’s an activist view.

Q: This next election is, in some way, a contest over the composition of the Supreme Court and the future of its interpretation of the Constitution, particularly as it deals with the so-called social issues, such as abortion, pornography and crime. As a liberal, do you feel vulnerable on those issues?

A: I think it’s the woman who ought to make the decision when it comes to abortion. I don’t know of many people who think abortion is a good thing or that it ought to be encouraged, but the decision on whether or not to have one ought to be the women’s. I happen to think that’s the position of the vast majority of Americans, though I respect the right of people to disagree with me.

I think there is a constitutional distinction between political speech and obscenity. That is, I think we can regulate constitutional obscenity. I think it’s got to be limited and restrained. I think if somebody wants to put a pornographic bookstore in the middle of downtown Stoten, Mass., the people of downtown Stoten have the right to say: “Sorry, we don’t want that bookstore.” But on political speech I think we, constitutionally, have to allow the broadest possible range.

Q: How do you draw the line? Henry Miller? “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”? D. H. Lawrence?

A: That’s a good question and great people have been trying to make that distinction for years. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it, you know? All I’m saying is that, constitutionally, I make a distinction between those two things.

Q: When you say this thing about pornography are you endorsing the work of the Meese Commission?

A: No, no, no, no. Look, I’m a card-carrying member of of the American Civil Liberties Union and I think you have to be very restrained, but I’m not somebody who takes the position that under no circumstances can society impose restrictions on material that, by any standard, is clearly pornographic.

Q: Why are you against the death penalty?

A: Because I’m opposed to killing people. I don’t think you respond to murder by doing the same thing. We have demonstrated in Massachusetts that you can make a significant impact on crime and violent crime without imposing the death penalty. I’m tough on violent crime. I don’t like people who do violence against others. Period.

Times researchers Nina Green and Nona Yates contributed to this story.