Shifting Perceptions of Friends

Helmut Schmidt on America, the Soviet Union and Germany

It is an unprepossessing bungalow-style house unfashionably close to Hamburg's busy airport. Art books and records line the living-room walls, and a fire blazes in the hearth. A collection of Russian icons lines the stairway to the second floor. As his wife Loki sat quietly at a table near by, cataloguing flower seeds, Helmut Schmidt alternately munched cookies from a plate in front of him and inhaled snuff from a plastic box. Departing from his usual procedure, the West German Chancellor had agreed to be interviewed at home instead of in his Bonn office. He was relaxed, but his mood was somber. Excerpts from the two-hour conversation with Bonn Bureau Chief Roland Flamini:

Q. Are the U.S. and West Germany on a philosophical collision course over policy toward Eastern Europe?

A. I think that is an exaggeration. Different approaches do exist, but I have no doubt that they are reconcilable. I cannot detect a shift in European attitudes. What I do detect is a shift in American attitudes, a shift in American psychology, and I fully understand that. America has suffered a number of setbacks in both foreign and domestic policy. Take Watergate; take the fact that since Eisenhower no American President has been able to serve two full terms; take the Viet Nam War. You didn't increase your defense efforts, for instance, in the first two-thirds of the '70s as much as we in Western Europe did. The greatest negative step, in my view, was the abolition of the draft. We have not done that.

Ronald Reagan is the fourth American President with whom I am collaborating, and altogether I have never changed my constant belief in the reliability of the U.S. as a nation. We have believed in your continuity more than you yourselves have believed in it.

Q. But it is the Americans who seem to be calling into question the reliability of their European allies.

A. It is not the U.S. It is a segment of public and published opinion. If you look at the polls in the U.S., it is quite a different picture, and if you look at the polls in Western Europe, especially in West Germany, you find an unequaled and unchanged commitment to friendship with the U.S. and to the alliance. On the other hand, you also find that it does not mean that we think the social and economic and domestic order of the U.S. necessarily has to serve as a model for ourselves. It does not, it has not, and it will not.

Q. If the polls show that a majority of West Germans are not only pro-American but also pro-alliance, is something changing in the West German perception of the U.S.?

A. No. It is more a change in the U.S. perception of Western Europe. I will give you one example that struck me personally. Someone of importance in the U.S. [Arms Control Agency Director Eugene Rostow] made a speech recently, telling his audience that Americans should not delude themselves in thinking they are living in a postwar period; they should accept the fact that they are riving in a prewar period. This was never said by Henry Kissinger, nor by Cyrus Vance, nor by Presidents Ford and Carter. Remarks of this kind create an enormous disturbance in my country. I do not believe they represent President Reagan's attitude. I have great personal faith in Reagan. But I would welcome it if he corrected such loose talk. It misleads West Germans about American attitudes.

Q. What did you think of President Reagan's statement that the Soviet Union was ahead of the U.S. in nuclear strength?

A. I have no criticism. Instead, I welcome the explicit statement of the will to negotiate for arms limitations and equilibrium at lower levels.

Q. How do you explain heightened East-West tension?

A. There is additional tension now--after the invasion of Afghanistan, after the 13th of December last year [when martial law was imposed in Poland], after the enormous Soviet arms program. On the other hand, there is a certain tendency in both superpowers' leadership to overestimate the other from time to time. And that can lead to a false assessment of the other's intentions. Moscow is militarily active in sensitive areas around the world, whether it be Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Africa. All this is very disturbing, particularly when seen in connection with the extremely rapid buildup of the Soviet navy. But the Soviets now understand the position taken by the Reagan Administration: this far but no farther. With this attitude the President has already established a position of potential strength from which he can talk successfully with the men in the Kremlin, who do understand that kind of language.

Q. Do you see any need to toughen your position vis-`a-vis the military regime in Poland by imposing economic sanctions?

A. The old talk about sanctions is without substance. Trade between Poland and Western Europe is already minimal. Sanctions make the Polish people suffer, especially in the area of food, medicine and basic necessities, but they do not undercut military rule in Warsaw. I think the idea of imposing sanctions was understandable from an emotional point of view, but it could not weaken the grip of the military government there.

Q. The American critics you mentioned earlier say that detente is in danger of turning into appeasement. Is there anything to this?

A. The American Government has never used such language. Outsiders, speechmakers, article writers say so. They don't know Germany, they don't know Europe. If they ever talked, as I have done, with the top military leaders in the Soviet Union, they would understand that the Soviets have great respect for the defense capabilities of the Federal Republic of Germany. And I would add: correctly so. We are not going to diminish our defense capabilities. On the contrary.

But over the past 1 5 years we have always stuck to the alliance's double-track philosophy, namely by maintaining a sufficient capability and will to defend ourselves while being open for negotiations and agreement. It was not just West Germany that negotiated with the Soviets. It was first Nixon. If you analyze the Reagan Administration's strategy in depth, you will find that it follows that double-track philosophy as much as we do. I would like, by the way, to remind you that just 40 kilometers from here, great masses of Soviet tanks are combat ready. Much more than any American living in South Carolina or Georgia or Texas or California, we here in Hamburg or in West Germany in general are aware of that.

Q. How do you explain the growing momentum of the peace movement in West Germany?

A. It's not only a movement in the Federal Republic. It started in the '60s in the U.S. Martin Luther King's widow was one of the symbolic figures of the West German peace movement last year. Of course, if you do away with the draft, your peace movement declines in volume. In a country where you have the draft, as in West Germany, as in Holland, as in other Continental countries, you have a greater potential for resistance. So you have taken the easy way out.

You also have Senators criticizing the President's strategy. I wouldn't call people like Fritz Mondale or Edward Kennedy anti-American. I would like Americans to understand that people who are demonstrating for peace in my country are not necessarily anti-American either. Having said all this, I am not totally happy with these demonstrations, because they appear to be one-sided. No big mass demonstrations for the maintenance of peace can ever occur in the Eastern, Communist-governed part of Germany, nor can they happen in Poland or in other places in Eastern Europe.

Q. Some U.S. Senators might be led by public opinion in America to vote for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Western Europe.

A. Extreme solutions are not appropriate. The situation vis-`a-vis the military and political power of the Soviet Union requires reason, not emotion. In such a precarious situation, what you need is reason and decisiveness and continuity in order to be predictable to your adversary. This is an essential philosophy of mine.

Q. One hears West Germans say that one factor in these changing relations is that the Federal Republic has grown up.

A. No, I don't think so. We grew up a little earlier than 1982. On the other hand, we will never be in a situation like other states in the Western Alliance. We are amputated. The German nation is divided into two parts. And the old capital is a sort of political and strategic island in a Red sea. Communications between 17 million I [East] Germans, about as many people as are living in New York State, and the 61 million of us living in West Germany are hampered. Since the wall was erected across Berlin 21 years ago, we have been able to regain some communication. We are still deeply dissatisfied with it. But it is more than nothing. We don't want to sacrifice it. It is much more important for the 17 million Germans living on the other side than for us.

Q. Is there a greater desire now for reunification?

A. Yes, but this is not new. Every German, since 1945, has thought about the question of how, one day, the Germans could live under one roof in one house. But you must not delude yourselves. We are hoping for evolution in the Communist part of Central Europe in order to have at least the same openness between East Germany and West Germany as we enjoy with, say, Austria or Switzerland or, for that matter, Hungary. The first sentence of our constitution, which was adopted in 1949 under the stewardship of the victors of World War II, speaks of the task of re-establishing German unity. I have sworn my oath of office on that constitution.

Q. In view o the internal conflicts within the S.KD. some people are raising the question of whether your government can survive until the end of its present term.

A. Since the outbreak of the present world economic depression, after the first oil price explosion at the end of 1973, your government has changed three times. There is no NATO country that has not changed its government at least twice. Except my country. We have the same type of government now for the 13th year It's only natural that West Germans also are dissatisfied with the economic situation. But I think we will manage to be in a much better position economically at the end of this year than we are right now. I do have the intention of staying on until 1984. I'm even threatening the Christian Democratic opposition with the prospect of running again.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.