There are two types of speakers one that does not need an introduction and the other one that doesn't deserve one. Now obviously they have put me somewhere in the middle to be situated in the middle. Of course also is the situation of my home continent of Europe being situated between the military and political thrust of the two nuclear superpowers. W situated in the middle also is the situation of my own country of Germany within that rather small European continent. I do intend to talk about the situation of my country first. then to talk about four phases of American Soviet relations after World War II and how they affected Europe and Germany And the third place I will dwell a little on the continuity of Russian Grand strategy. and the first place Give you my judgment about the present lack of a grand strategy in the west and in the end offer a few conclusions as regards Germany first. It's a country without any natural borders. Europe consists of four big peninsulas Scandinavia Iberian, Peninsula Italian, Peninsula, the Balkans a group of islands. England for instance also Sicily Sardinia and so on and the rest of Europe, they the the real continent and the real sense of the word is just an appendix to Asia. There are two people living in that appendix. That's the Polish nation and the Germans both of them without any natural borders and both have over the last thousand years and I really mean thousand years have experienced many many belligerent thrusts from the outside into the center or to the other. Side of the European continent mungo's hungarians Russians French Vikings Spanish Emperor's what have you? and also have way experienced our own thrust from the rather densely populated Center to the outer parts of Europe most horrible thrusts in World War II under Hitler which then led to the division of Germany into three and a half Parts one part was giving to the Soviet Union and other part was given to Poland. This is the part. We lost and I guess for centuries if not forever. The rest was divided up into two states. This is part number to the German Democratic Republic a communist state and the Communist dictatorship and Soviet subs warranty and thirdly the West German State my country the Federal Republic of Germany and then 1/2 1 namely the island of Berlin in the center of Freedom Aquatic Berlin in the center of the territory of East Germany. Neither East Germany nor West Germany is capable of Defending itself alone if there was need or attack or aggression both have become members of the to confronting Alliance systems partially because they wanted to find some allies friends shelters partially because the superpowers wanted them to be come member of their confrontation. Doing Alliance systems. This has led to a situation where you have an East German Army plus the Soviet Army on East German soil. Quite a very dense concentration of troops and Military means and even as dense as the concentration of military means and troops on our side and West Germany West Germany does about have does have about the size. Let's say territory wise of Oregon you have two or three million people living in the state of Oregon. We have 62 million living on that same territory. And you have some National Guard in Oregon and perhaps a training program for Reserve officers, maybe one or two air bases. We have half a million German soldiers army and Air Force we have almost quarter of a million American soldiers army and Air Force French army and Air Force British Dutch Belgian Canadian Detachment Army and Air Force even a Danish Journal all in that little country on on top of that we have about four to five thousand nuclear weapons in American French and German and French and British hands. Deployed on our soil serving as a threat vis-à-vis the SBA the East but also of course are they considered to be targets for East European for Russian missiles by the Tactical or SS 20s or what have you so the situation is rather unconvenient and has been since the end of the war. But as I said earlier there have been different phases different stages of the development of relationship between West and East which also had a quite a bearing on Europe and on Germany. The first phase was rather short on could correct her eyes it by the Baruch plan and the Marshall Plan the first one offering the Soviets to abolish all nuclear armaments developments and the world to forego any nuclear Armament the Marshall Plan as you will recall offering Europe and other allies in the world, but also the victims of World War Two the The Losers of World War II economic recovery Soviet Union said no to both these American plans and this phase was over in 47. It lasted just two years from 47 on Starling try to conquer that island of West Berlin first Berlin crisis and this then led to the foundation of the North Atlantic Alliance and of NATO and it was the beginning of the second phase a phase of very strong polarization between West and East a polarization. Which also of course Affected Europe and Germany very much some of the Eastern European countries like Hungary like Poland like Czechoslovakia specially had wanted to join the Marshall Plan, but they were forbidden by the Soviet Union to do so and the polarization became almost insurmountable in the early 50s. When also the Soviets and the meantime had gotten their own nuclear weapons and their own hydrogen bombs. This now is the time starting in the late 40s and Lasting until the middle 60s. The time of polarization is the time of the Cold War. It's the time when the Soviet Union felt encircled by Alan by John Foster Dulles systems. Of alliances around the territory in Europe and Western Asia and Southeast Asia. It was the time in which the military component of our joint Western strategy was dubbed massive nuclear rally retaliation. Meaning that if ever the Russians do something which violates our borders we will massively retaliate by using our nuclear strategic superiority. We will destroy you or cities that was in a nutshell the official military strategic doctrine of not only the Americans but the Western Alliance in the middle 50s Some doubts did arise for instance brought forward by A Great American General and author Maxwell Taylor who wrote a book under the headline the uncertain trumpet where he asked the question what happens if we find it impossible to blow the trumpet to drop all these strategic bombs on Moscow. If we don't do it what will happen then will not then they get the upper hand by using their conventional armies and their conventional air power. I think he asked the right question and during the first half of the 60s people came to understand and America that the old military strategy wasn't really credible. That one couldn't really be Sure that oneself wooden case of need use that kind of strategy that in the meantime. Not only had the West lost its qualitative and numerical superiority in the nuclear field. But President Kennedy Kennedy, as long as he was candidate at least even thought that the Russians had gotten the upper Edge. He was talking of the missile Gap it appeared in the early 60s that there was roughly speaking equilibrium and appeared to be very very unlikely and still it is unlikely today that one of the two Powers would ever be able to gain a decisive Edge over the other this inside and they've Middle of the 60s lead to a basic change on we are now entering the third phase of west-east relations insofar as both sides understood that they could not out produce the other side and nuclear or rocket hardware and that it would therefore be wise to try and fix the equilibria. Mm between themselves by agreements and even limitate the effort which they need to maintain that equilibrium limited the effort by limitation of the arms on either side limit the amount of armaments to lower levels. This is how the first test Ben was brought about already in the under Johnson and The Great breakthrough came under Nixon Nixon and Brezhnev and the salt one treaty and especially so in the ABM Treaty a treaty that limited For either side the the permitted capabilities to install anti-missile systems, which could intercept the missiles of the adversary this time of this phase of growing arms limitation done on the basis of negotiation and agreement also was the phase that led to that one unique great meeting in Helsinki 1975 were on the European states did meet the Russians as well. But also the Canadians and the United States being considered an accepted by the Soviet Union at that time as belonging to Europe. It was a European country conference, but Americans and Canadians were participating this was so to speak the peak of the era of A taunt just before the peak and it had been has been mentioned by. Bye, mr. Cleveland couple of minutes ago. We Germans started our negotiations with the Russians with East Germany with the poet's but the checks and got out treaties negotiated so that we for the first time then could take up normal diplomatic relations with all the East European states with the one exception of East Germany. We have not really normal relations, but not so bad relations either. We don't call it. Diplomatic relations. We think it's a relationship of a unique special kind one could correct her eyes that phase which lasted from the middle 60s toward the end of the Nixon Ford Kissinger era one could call it the phase of the double track philosophy. Double track in the sense that on the one hand we the Western Alliance. where agreed to take all the necessary effort in order to be able to defend ourselves if necessary and by this capability to deter and contain the Russians from doing anything harmful to us, but on the basis of that security secondly and this was the other track of that philosophy reach out our hands for cooperation firstly in the field of arms limitations secondly economically and thirdly even I hope and we hoped then in the cultural field. Well this phase broke down. Rather quickly in the middle of the 70s. We entered the second Cold War which we are in still a situation that is correct terrorized by a new arms race by shouting matches between the leaders of the two superpowers. That is correct terrorized by uncalculated ability for many even to some degree for us European allies of yours, and it appeared that the European countries whether in the West Or in the East that the European countries deeply disliked. There's lapsing back into the cold war and therefore. not only a Hungary not only Romania but also the gdr to some degree also Bulgaria and on the western side Germany Scandinavia, even France and others Italy all of us tried to rescue the amount of normality that we had been able to bring about between West European States and East European States during the foregoing period we try to maintain that they attempt for instance or the intention for instance of mr. Hanukkah Head of State of East Germany to reciprocate my visit there when I was a chance room and come to bond to visit Chancellor Kohl is just one of the many signals or symbols where they as much as we in Western Europe try to maintain the amount of normality that we have gained and the fact that the Russians and the and crushed this little signal by telling him that he better stay home. And if somebody was going to talk to the West on behalf of the Eastern Bloc at would then be the Russians themselves and not him and it would be done by mr. Gromyko in Washington and not by mr. Hanukkah and bond is only Again, illustrating the super role of the Soviet Union the serenity of the Soviet Union as regards Eastern Europe the West Was more tolerant as regards. As regards Western Germany now to come to my third little chapter. It seems to me that there are some incomplete images which are being printed and broadcasted in this country which are being presented to you by the media some incomplete images about Soviet communism about Soviet strategy about Russia as a whole let me tell you bluntly. I do not believe that the foreign policies of Russia under the Communist whether under Lenin Stalin Crush of or brezner or under the present day leaders who have changed rather quickly and the last three years. I do not believe that it has very much to do with Communism or has anything to do with Marxism. I think it is just a continuation of basic understanding of Soviet strategy of Russian strategy as the Russians did understand their strategy strategy over centuries. It's been a very continuous Russian strategy. One should rather not read marks or angles or Landing one should rather read Russian history in order to understand what they are doing. It goes back almost half a million IAM that the Russian czars who originally were nothing more than then principles of the grand principality of Moscow that they first conquered the other principalities and then conquered the crania and then all the territories and the south of what is now European Russia where the Asian tribes and Nations lived and try to conquer Istanbul, but then was called Constantinople and early on Byzantium that they went across the river Volga across the urals across the vast landmass of Siberia to Kamchatka even to Alaska and they got as Southward down and on your continent as to what still is being called the Russian River in some 30 or 40 miles north of San Francisco. Somebody bought Alaska from them for five million dollars and he was a genius I guess. So there has been this expansion all the time. And already I won the third and even more so I want the 4th the so-called terrible. among many titles which Russian Emperor's did Carrie Also, did he carry that they carry the title gatherer of Russian soil which in practice meant always that had they had the task to conquer the territories of other people in afterwards russified the population and this is what they did over half thousand years. And always also did they have this queer mixture of being very great hosts to foreigners. Sentimental even sometimes and on the other hand deeply suspicious of foreigners. They haven't seen a phobia. They have some complexes one of their complex is a security complex has always been that way and Couple of generations ago even one of their foreign secretaries long before communism arrived coined the phrase that the most secure Russian border is a border where they have Russian soldiers on either side of the Border. And this in a way explains, they're feeling they need to have a glossy on the other side of the Border than they need to defend the glossy and defend the next border and the next and the next and it is a mistake to believe that this is just an attitude with Communists have been have brought about in Russia. It's Russian. I think three quarters of the international behavior of the presence of your union must be understood as a continuation of Russian strategy historically developed and maybe 1/4 of it could be explained by communist ideas ideology or in Heritage in many cases for instance, like in Central America is spreading communism is just a means for Russian foreign policy. It's an instrument. Now it's obvious that vis-à-vis that expansionist drive which the Russians have followed over centuries. It's necessary that those who feel endangered by that thrust try and contain it. And if they can do it on an individual individual basis form alliances and order to contain Russian expansionism, the Western strategy as much as it may have changed over four phases, which I have tried to depict a you always did contain this very necessary unavoidably necessary. Most important element of being able to contain further Russian expansionism, but on the other hand and let me now come to the fourth point of my little talk the grand strategy of the West. Has been rather in continuous especially lad me. Let me emphasize. Let me illustrate this when we talk about salt 2 so 2 was first. engineered designed and engineered negotiated by Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger. They had a meeting with Brezhnev and Vladivostok at the end of 74 and the university actions had gotten as far as to be easily finalized. The Americans at the time didn't wish it to be finalized because Governor Reagan already was looming large as regards the oncoming Republican Convention of of 76 and Ford wish to First be re-elected and then finalize salt to this of course didn't happen because his re-election did not happen. There was a second necessity to not finalized it in Vladivostok. That's the fact that the Russians at that time. We're not willing to include ss-20 missiles. So to speak not InterContinental strategic but continent strategic misery into the into the into the package and not their their long-range bombers as well and they offered the American offer to include such kind of bombers and missiles on either side into the Strategic arms limitation and assault to did not meet with any respond of the Russians in Vladivostok, but it was foreseeable that they might have a might have agreed to it. If the whole thing had been taken up immediately. It was not taken up a lot of time was wasted. President Carter tried a totally new approach for sword to failed totally and more or less got to the same thing which already had been sketched out and Vladivostok, but only five years later in 79 and did not get the approval of the required majority of Congress. The treaty has never been ratified we had been asked in Europe to please be of assistance and do anything we can make speeches and the United States from LA to the Twin Cities in favor of the of the Of the side to agreement and its ratification. It didn't really help then you got a new president who had told the world that this was all nonsense was putting the Western the Americans in particular at a disadvantage should never have been negotiated. He was then when he became President telling us European leaders that we had done the wrong thing like God. I had told us we had done the wrong thing to closely cooperate with Ford. Now, we were of course told that it was wrong that we have closely cooperated with Jimmy Carter and what we please cooperate with the new president and the new president after two years understood that sought to was not that bad and he adhered to its producers. Although it has not ever been ever been transformed into into law at an ratified treaty still. We are quite happy that it's now being at here to and me being obeyed. But this little example does show that it's very difficult for European leaders who do have to stand up before their own parliament's and answer questions stand up before their own public opinion and answer questions how they could tell their public something quite different from what they had told them less last year and the year before just due to the changes in Washington DC. What we need is from a European point of view is a greater continuity and consistency on the other hand. I must admit that in the last eight years the role of Europe has decreased within the Western Alliance. Europe politically is not strong enough. It's not really United We dislike the labs back into the Cold War, but the Europeans have not come up with an arms control strategy either. They complain and so do I about the unclear military strategy, which is just one component of the grand strategy. Especially as regards the early first use of nuclear weapons on which nowadays we do rely where we Europeans have not come up. I must admit were the military strategic proposal of our own so far so I can give you only my personal Judgment on that matter namely I do think that. Hard work for space wars are hardware for strategic. Nuclear exchanges of the highest destructive power one could think of is not really a means to defend West Berlin had cannot conceive of an American president who would who would put his Nation? Who would put the sheer physical exist existence of his Nation at risk? Just an order to defend West Berlin obviously nobody thought of doing so in order to defend Afghanistan or in order to defend Cambodia just to name three examples. I could name many more. So we've I feel that it's not really the best thing to put all of one's effort into the space war and high strategic spheres of mutual destruction, but that one also needs some military means of containing there. Advancement containing their expansion on the earth in very real concrete situations, whether it's three examples that I have named or whether it's Angola or whether it's Ethiopia or South Yemen or whatever where they extend their influences or whether it's Central America, but you do not have taken that decision so far your luck conventional troops, you will lack Manpower you try to make up for men by spending dollars. It's a basic difference in concept. We and Continental Europe have at the time where you dropped conscription and national service. We have maintained it. It was not easy to tell one's own public. I was defense minister and Supreme Commander at the time. It was not easy to tell one's own public and one's own campuses that despite the Americans had given the example of doing away with conscription because it wasn't really necessary one could rely on Nucleus to tell them while we in Europe need to maintain the draft you are to be drafted your to serve. And we have done. So this means we have a greater Reserve capability now a greater mobilization capability on the spot in Europe than the whole United States of America together despite the fact that you're about four times as many people than we are. On the other hand, we would rather like you too. Enable yourself, too. Be able to mobilize some more conventional troops and spare as some of the thousands of nuclear weapons which are deployed on our little German soil as been as has been mentioned earlier. I'm not I don't wish to be misunderstood. I'm not against nuclear our minds of the West in general as long as they are nuclear weapons and the East I'm a strong believer in equilibrium. Also in this field. I'm a strong believer and the necessity of equilibrium also for instance between Russian SS 20s and western pershing's or whatever they are. But also do I strongly believe in a military strategy that does not end force ourselves to in the first place to start with the use of nuclear weapons and thereby destroy the very territory and population in the center of Europe, which we really do wish to Defend there is not only no clear-cut military strategy of the West. There isn't a clear-cut arms control strategy either nor is there a clear-cut economic strategy of the West right now all the components of a grand strategy are more or less in shambles doesn't make sense to deny them apart like pipeline but sell grain to them to feed their army is obviously obviously not a coherent strategy. There is no coherent strategy of the Europeans economically with a V the United States or vice versa or VISA Vie Japan or vice versa. Therefore just gotta stand. I propose these economic Summit meetings some Ten years ago, they were not too successful. But nevertheless they were good thing because people had to listen to each other. It's very important that people listen to each other. It's also important that the leaders of superpowers by the way talk and listen to each other. I saw an eight and a half years as a Chancellor. I saw Brezhnev 6 x + 4 hours and days the present president of yours hasn't seen ever any Soviet leader Carter saw him once Ford saw him twice. We saw him once every 15 months and he saw us once every 15 months. It does not mean that one will agree about most matters rather the country, but it does mean that the one side does better understand. The other does not need to depend on Newsweek or Dare Spiegel or To come back to the economic situation. You have experienced an economic upswing over the last let me say 18-24 months but alas this has to a considerable part be an economic upswing in this country on borrowed capital. the richest The richest society and economy and the world has become the greatest net importer of other people's savings capital and credit and the Order of about 922 a hundred billion dollars per year. Maybe even more that means the Japanese are financing 1/3. The Europeans are financing the other 2/3 of your Gap in your balance of payments and you could also say they are financing or together one half of your budgetary deficit. In order to attract all this. No, this is nothing to pay tribute to rather the contrary. In order to attract all this foreign savings you had to offer a very high interest you which you do the highest yield and real interest ever since centuries, maybe since the birth of Christ. And it's of course leading to a misallocation of savings in Europe. And in Japan instead of the profits and savings to be put into a housing there or to productive capacity of Industry there where it can offer some profit but not 12 percent per year. It's been shifted to the United States in order to buy American treasury bonds you have of course to change Yen and $2 or Dodge mock or Swiss franc or Dutch guilder into dollar. That means there is a demand for dollar. That's the reason why the dollar has been artificially overvalued by 25 or 30% Then it leads to a lack of investment radek capital in Europe and contributes considerably to the mass unemployment. We still have in Europe. It is even more dangerous for the so-called depth or country's most of them incurred their debt when the rate of interest was somewhere by around Of an 8% nowadays this Beyond 12 meaning that they really are not in a situation to fully serviced their foreign debt and I would like to mention the LD sees the least developed countries who were not credit worthy when the two oil price shocks game. So no Commercial Bank. Neither German or American was in a situation to land them any money. They are in the most severe hunger and starvation situation now, although we don't really know it because they do not make the headlines of our newspapers or television news. They are not a debt problem. Therefore we Overlook the problem of millions hundreds of millions of people who are about to starve. this is Leads me to some of the conclusions obviously economic and social unrest can lead to political unrest and political destabilization as you see it now and Central America as we have seen it in the early 30s and a number of European countries for instance Hitler would never have come to office. If not for more than 30% of the Germans being unemployed over years in those and in the years of the Great Depression the same can happen now in Central America, it's more important to basically save their economic well-being to help them economically. There is really no great Prospect and only from hindsight intervene with military means without correcting the economic situation. this is the economic have Auto be also on the future of the task of the Europeans of the Americans the Japanese of the rich countries and the world answer many rich, but these three great economies the European American and Japanese also should be understood as forming sort of a triangle triangle also as regards the three main currencies daughter a coup and Yen on which the well-being and the continuous development of the world's economy Otto be based politically. It's different politically. It's another kind of triangle politically you have the United States and the Allied European countries and the Allied Japan and Korean careers on one. On the one corner of the triangle on the other corner, you have the Soviet Union and their allies and on the third corner, you do have the non-aligned countries and the People's Republic of China prepare yourselves for the future role of the People's Republic of China. Not the not to become the super power of the non-aligned about become one of the strongest spiritual and political leaders of the non-aligned country. That's it quite another kind of triangle. We need not be worried about China. We need not be worried about the non-aligned countries. We need to be worried about the Russian strategies. We need to be worried about our own shortcomings and dealing with the Russians. I personally still and for the rest of my life probably do believe and the necessity of a dual-track philosophy Because Of You the Russians namely on the one hand peace and security to be achieved by Containment on the basis of equilibrium of military capabilities not on the basis of superiority. I do not believe I do not believe in the concept of superiority because I just do know too much about Russian history. If they can be made believe that Russia has fate is at stake Mother Russia is in danger. They will then be willing the Russian masses to even tighten their belts a little more in order to not lose the arms race. They will not lose the arms race. They are the greatest sacrifices in the world ever. It comes to defend Mother Russia. They're willing to much greater sacrifices than any other Nation. They have lost 20 million of lives in the war between Stalin and Hitler that didn't like Stalin but they followed his command because they thought it was necessary to defend Mother Russia. I think the whole concept of superiority is a vein concept not based on any knowledge of Russian history and Russian psychological. Heritage secondly the other part of the dirt track philosophy is cooperation in the fields of arms limitation economic and I hope cultural cooperation as well the concert programs and Saint Paul or Minneapolis could hardly do without Tchaikovsky almost saw ski or Shostakovich prokofiev just to mention a few names and other to call to mind how much we owe to their cultural heritage and how much they by the way 02 hours. This is one world and it's ridiculous to cut it into half. But this kind of a dual-track philosophy and you attract Grand strategy, of course does require leadership cooperation does require leadership and Leadership does require information and judgment. Cooperation and leadership are nowadays being needed for in many fields. It's very unlikely that's going to come from Europe. It's almost impossible that it will come from Japan. It has to come from the United States as so many times after the end of World War Two it's being needed for the subject of grand strategy plus its implementation as being needed leadership and cooperation for the relationship of countries within the West. It's be needed for our relationships with China and the other non-aligned countries. It is also being treated for the worldwide General problem of overpopulation. Which is really a menace to mankind the worldwide General problem of hunger and food which as a global problem and menace to mankind. It's also needed for the worldwide problem of the dangerous erosion of natural environment. It's a worldwide danger and on top of all this it's being needed for the short term or medium term problem how to overcome the world structural economic crisis and the both short-term and long-term problem. And this will be the last word of how to mutually limit the the arms race now thank you very much. I'm perfectly willing to answer questions in any fears that I have been touching upon or other fields as well. Do you still feel as strongly as you did at the end of the 70s that the deployment of? Euro missiles of the the pershing's and cruise missiles is a good thing. I do not think it's a good thing. I think it's an unavoidable thing. We the West have and 79 told the Russians. That we feel threatened by their ss-20 missile buildup. That we secondly wish to negotiate that such type of missile in order to limit it on either side thirdly that we set aside for years for such negotiations and the fourth place that if nothing would be agreed upon after the fourth year that we would deploy some such similar missiles in Western Europe. This was told to the Russians. The negotiations didn't really get under way in the first place due to a Russian misbehavior secondly due to the American presidential campaign of 1980. and the change of administration's only got started in the end of 81 and Early 82 negotiations failed. I don't analyze and this minute who was whose fault it was or how many percent of the of the fault lies with the Russians. And how many were the race doesn't really matter the negotiations failed and therefore it was inevitable to do what we had acknowledged to do for years earlier if we had not done it. The Russians might have would have taken the conclusion that we are just paper tigers that either the Americans didn't dare to deploy their missiles in Europe or we Germans or we Italians or we British or we Dutch don't dare to tell our public opinion that it is necessary to put them there. They might have gotten the impression that to play it. Rude, and brutal will win. What is your position on the nuclear freeze? And what if you think a freeze is possible do you think we should be doing to affected? Well, I think in general it's possible and I think it's good that there are people in Europe and in this country who publicly come out for a freeze. There by urging others to think about the matter and urging their political Representatives their Senators congressmen and administration to take the matter of arms limitation serious. It is a deadly serious matter a general fries is on the other hand rather unlikely to be brought about as sort of a first step of resumption of arms limitation talks. It's not very likely in my view. The first thing to do is get a meeting. maybe two between the top people in Washington and the top people in Moscow in order to talk and listen to each other serve them a little of whiskey or a little of what car that and the night that they also may become more human and less tense. and let this meeting last do not allow present media people to sit in a hover around. Because the more of them are present the more presidents and general secretaries are tempted to talk to the Press rather than to each other and after one or two such meetings try and find out by analysis which maybe the fields and which progress of mutually agreed limitation offers the greatest the relatively greatest chance of that being successful, but please never forget that right. Now the Western military strategy is based on rather early nuclear first use and if you want to do away with that, you'll need other means in order to defend ourselves and to contain the Russians. It's not just a matter of doing away with the nucleus and not doing anything else. It is a choice between two things. Nothing is really liked you've recently been in China. You mentioned just briefly in your talk view about the future of China. What can you tell us about? The feelings of the present Chinese government about the issues you discussed with them. There has been a major shift in many fields the for the people have become optimistic again economically. They are on a course of discovering the advantages number one of decentralization and delegation of decision-making power toward the province's toward the cities and especially south of the directors of plants of Corporations. If they can remain on that course, it will mean that China by the end of the century comes out as superpower number three not in the sense that it becomes the head of a great Alliance. They will not need any allies. They don't have any allies. It's a country of 1 billion people and they'll be 1.2 billion at the end of the century. But as I said earlier, they will be one of the most important spiritual and political leaders of the non-aligned countries of the world to which belong the India's and the Yugoslavia is and the Switzerland and the Sweden's and whom have you many of the Arabs and on the other hand, they feared strong enough militarily to be able to defend themselves against Russian aggression. They are worried by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They are worried by the Russian assisted Vietnamese Invasion into Cambodia. They are worried in the third place by the enormous military buildup tank divisions mechanized divisions. And as as 20s on the Soviet side of the thousands of miles long sino-soviet border they have made these three points. I have declared them to be the main obstacles and there. Talks with the Russians which are meant to alleviate the tensions a little but won't really do but on the other hand, they are not to be taken for granted as a potential American Ally either and the way in which they talk about America is not too friendly either mainly has it to do with Taiwan and with your relationship to towards Taiwan. There is one thing which I think are to be mentioned here. Don't be dropping a man of 80 who is practically speaking the commander-in-chief of four million Chinese soldiers. Who was the one to whom the great military parade? Fortnight ago, which I could watch from on Tiananmen Square to whom the parade was being reported to by the Commanding General and who addressed the million people who were gathering on Tiananmen place and towards the end of his speech when he talked about Hong Kong and about Taiwan. He said well this Hong Kong agreement with the British is something which all Chinese and this country can Applause and all the Chinese in Hong Kong and all the Chinese and Macau and what the Chinese and Taiwan or the Chinese living abroad all the descendants of the yellow emperor. It's quite something for a communist to tell the world about all the descendants of the yellow Emperor isn't it? And it shows the enormous amount of self-confidence. They have regained now and it also shows in a nutshell that they have now rehabilitated the cultural heritage to historical Heritage of there's going back 5,000 years from today at the eldest uninterrupted cultural development. They are proud of it. They are showing it off again and they're entitled to do so, I think they are going to play a growing role in in the future not necessarily a role in the military field not certainly not in the field of making or breaking alliances. for the final question Chancellor Schmidt We come back to the Atlantic relationship. Why should the United States? Hang in there with a quarter of a million troops in Europe? This question has been asked time. And again, I can remember when I as a young Member of Parliament and the middle 50s used to come to Washington DC. I asked for an audience to be given by Senator Mike Mansfield who then was the floor leader of the Democrats and the Senate and he was of the opinion that American soldiers should leave Europe and I as a young European having come back from World War II had been a soldier and a half years. I told him no you mustn't do it because this would give the Russians the upper hand they would just Not necessarily attack Western Europe, but make the military weight felt psychologically and the West European people would would gradually yield to such pressure. He didn't believe me there have been others over the last 20 years who have come up with the same proposal time. And again, I must tell you rather bluntly. I am fed up with answering that question is if you want to do it do it, please this will change the world. It will change the world considerably and it will lead to a situation in which we will not heed many of your advices any longer. We and the other. weather We'll have to we'll have to put our own defenses also in the nuclear field. We are not going to allow you to defend us within within parenthesis defend Us by nuclear means only which means Destroyers. It will change the world will put our own defenses and Western Europe whether this is good for Europe is very questionable to me whether it's good to the United States is very questionable. But remind you the Europeans are rather at least my generation fed up with all this question, which mostly is related to the another question. Why don't you do more for your defenses and this then is being qualified in matters of money and in terms of money. I would just have told on these people who criticize Europe and that direction. I'm at said that I have to say they're also Senator Samuel none and Henry Kissinger. I have made speeches or written articles. along these lines rather recently in earlier 1984 I would only answer to them. Well, if you think that you can defend the west by spending more for defense, you might do it see to it plays that you finance your defense budget by your own savings and not by hours. And we on the other hand. I do think that man met him more than money and couldn't you come back and tell him I tell us to spend more on our side for defense. Once you have reintroduced to draft in America wouldn't be then be on an equal footing some Americans are telling other Americans that the Europeans are not willing to bring forward the necessary sacrifices. But if you have to deal with a young intellectual green movement or young intellectual Communists and I say France or other countries and still very unpopular maintain the draft until it's tell them it's necessary in order to contain the Russians and not give them the feeling that they can just overpower us then please don't tell us we are not willing to sacrifice. We are by the way, we do it our way and we are not necessarily convinced that the American way of doing it will always be the best way especially are we not convinced that this is so because you are changing your ways every once in four years.