An Interview with Helmut Kohl

Piped classical music plays softly in the background. A pen-and-ink drawing of Konrad Adenauer, West Germany's first postwar Chancellor, hangs in solitary prominence on one wall. Outside the office of the present Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, gardeners, mow the lawn and vacuum the leaves shed by the towering oak trees that screen the building from the Rhine near by. In an interview with Time Inc. Editor in Chief Henry Anatole Grunwald and TIME Bonn Bureau Chief Roland Flamini last week, his first interview with a U.S. publication since taking office, Kohl spoke of his strong personal commitment to the Atlantic Alliance and of the need for a solid defense posture toward Moscow. Excerpts:

On German-American relations: I believe that in the course of the past few years European-American relations have been defined too much in a military way. Of course it is important to talk about missiles. It is also important to count arms. However, NATO is in the first place a community of ideas, not a community of arms. As a matter of fact, the community of arms is there to defend the community of ideas. The important point is that we have common ideas regarding human rights, civil rights, our moral values, our moral laws. These have to be defended by the alliance. Hence it is vital that these common ideas be stressed again, in particular with a view to the younger generation.

This partnership is a partnership of countries having equal. rights. We are equal partners. Quite naturally, sometimes we have divergent interests, and these we should discuss with one another. Let me put it this way: we should talk more to one another instead of talking about one another.

The link I feel with the U.S. is something that is really a personal experience, and this is true for many in my generation. After the war, when I was a student of about 16 or 17, when we were half starved, it was the Americans who helped us. We have forgotten neither the Hoover assistance nor the CARE parcels.

On East-West tensions: The fact is that Communist ideology throughout the past decade has been and continues to be aggressive. On top of that it has been linked to the old Russian claim to being a world power. There are the immense armaments that have been built up in the East. Next, take the fact that treaties have not been honored. There is the Final Act of Helsinki [which enshrined detente], and contrary to that there is the invasion of Afghanistan and martial law in Poland. All of these facts arouse the fears and the worries of people living here. However, it is necessary to meet this challenge. And we have met it by adopting the double-track decision of NATO. This means that we are genuinely ready for disarmament, for detente on a worldwide and controlled basis. But at the same time, if there are no results in the first half of that decision, then we shall not remain silent and simply keep on watching.

On the possible deployment of new intermediate-range missiles in West Germany: We will abide by our commitment. And we shall do so with the consent of the vast majority of the people. Of course, there will be resistance, perhaps even major resistance. But we will still do it. It is not the West, it is not the Americans that have started the arms race. It is the Soviet Union that keeps on arming, that keeps on deploying batteries of SS-20 missiles. We have now come to a point when we in the West say: This far and no farther. We are not arming with a view to waging war. We have been forced to meet this challenge to be able to defend our peace and freedom. Nuclear arms, terrible as they may be in themselves, by their sheer existence have preserved peace in Europe for the past 35 years.

On the peace movement: There is no such thing as the peace movement in Germany. Rather it is a sum of many individual groups or individuals and of many divergent currents. There are pacifists who very often act out of religious motives. These are people to be highly respected. During the Third Reich, many pacifists were murdered under Hitler simply because they were pacifists. How could I ever deny my respect to their grandchildren? However, pacifism is a personal idea. I can renounce arms for myself. But I do not have the right to do so for my country, nor can I oblige my neighbor to remain unarmed, hence defenseless.

The second group is composed of people who are afraid. They are afraid of unemployment, of the economic developments ahead of us, of the technological developments in modern society, which they feel they cannot cope with. They are afraid of war. And, of course, there are those who want to profit politically from the fears of others.

Furthermore, there is a third group: those who basically act on behalf of the Soviet Union. Their slogan, "Ami [Americans], go home," their permanent criticism of the Americans, their very one-sided moral judgments, and in a general way their efforts to disorient people reveal the seductive art of Kremlin experts. These efforts will not be successful. The vast majority of people in this country, very clearly, back the partnership and friendship with the U.S. They know to whom they owe their peace and security.

On youth: Germany is the country of idealism. Hegel and Feuerbach were Germans. In the young generation there is a profound longing for ideals; those who are about 25 years old have known only our social security system. They have known only well-being and peace and freedom. They don't know what hunger really is. Too many people have catered to the young. An argument is not a good one simply because a young person has put it forward. The argument must be good. Young people are entitled to be taken seriously. But in order to be taken seriously, they also have to acknowledge authority.

On the economy: We have lived beyond our means. And some people, including some political leaders, have kept believing that you can live better and better while at the same time working less and less. We now have to face the most challenging economic situation since the end of the war. There has been too much public spending, and there are more debts than ever before. Here again we come back to a moral question. Does our generation have a right to burden the following generations with debts to the extent that they no longer have a future?

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