AP
Published: Monday, December 4, 1989
Following is the text of the questions and answers at a news conference today with President Bush and President Mikhail S. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union.
The session came at the end of their two-day summit meeting. Mr. Gorbachev spoke through an interpreter. Status of the Cold War
Q. President Gorbachev, President Bush called on you to end the cold war once and for all. Do you think that has been done now?
A. In the first place, I assured the President of the United States that the Soviet Union would never start a hot war against the United States of America. And we would like our relations to develop in such a way that they would open greater possibilities for cooperation. Naturally, the President and I had a wide discussion, where we sought the answer to the question of where we stand now. We stated, both of us, that the world leaves one epoch of cold war, and enters another epoch.
This is just the beginning. We are just at the very beginning of our road, long road to a long-lasting, peaceful period.
Thus we were unanimous in concluding about the special responsibility of such countries as the United States and the Soviet Union. Naturally, we had a rather long discussion, but this is not for the press conference – that is, we shouldn’t explain our discussion – regarding the fact that the new year calls for a new approach. And thus, many things that were characteristic of the cold war should be abandoned, also the stake on force, the arms race, mistrust, psychological and ideological struggle, and all that. All that should be things of the past. Central America and Cuba
Q. President Gorbachev, what are the hot spots – what are the hot spots, President Gorbachev, that you spoke about? Is El Salvador? Were you able to assure President Bush that the Soviet Union would use its influence on either Cuba or Nicaragua to stop the arms shipments? And President Bush, were you satisfied with President Gorbachev’s response?
A. This question is addressed to me? This subject has been thoroughly discussed. We have reaffirmed once again to the President that we have ceased arms shipment to Central America. We also reaffirmed our position that we are sympathetic with the political process that is going on there regarding the settlement of the situation. We are in favor of free elections, with the representatives of the United Nations and other Latin American countries, to determine the fate of Nicaragua.
We understand the concerns of the United States. We listened carefully to the arguments by President Bush in this respect and we assured him that our position of principle is that we are in favor of a political settlement of the situation in Central America. I believe – and now I wouldn’t like to explain everything that we discussed on the subject, but to sum up, I would say that there are possibilities to have peace in that area, tranquility in the interest above all of the peoples of that region, which does not run counter to the interest of the people of the United States. Managua and San Salvador
Q. No mike. No mike. Question to President Bush from the Izvestia newspaper.
A. I think I owe him a short answer, then we’ll come over there. Please ask the question.
Q. The question was, were you, Mr. President, satisfied with – (inaudible).
A. My answer is that we had a in-depth discussion on these questions, just as President Gorbachev said. I will not be satisfied until total self-determination takes place through verifiably free elections in Nicaragua. And the Chairman gave me every opportunity to express in detail the concerns I feel about that region. He indeed has cited his concern, so I can’t say there are no differences between us.
But we had a chance to talk about them. And if there are remaining differences, I like to think they have been narrowed.
But you know, all of you from the United States, the concerns we feel that the Nicaraguans go through with certifiably free elections, and that they not export revolution into El Salvador. So we had a big, wide-ranging discussion and I would simply say that I feel we have much more understanding between the parties as a result of that discussion. Economic Cooperation
Q. How about on the Middle East? On Lebanon’s Prime Minister?
Q. Question from the Izvestia newspaper to President Bush. And if there are comments from Comrade Gorbachev, we would welcome it. There has been a longstanding issue of expanding economic cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is a very acute problem, taking into account our economic reforms and our economic difficulties. To what degree has that issue been discussed during your meeting, and what is the position of your Administration, Mr. President, regarding the expanding of your economic cooperation, and whether U.S. business would like to promote contracts with the Soviet Union?
A. We had a long discussion about the – on economic matters. We took some specific -made some specific representations about how we can work close – more closely on the economic front with the Soviet Union, and we are – we’ve made certain representations that we – that I will now follow through with in terms of observer status. And I think one of the most fruitful parts of our discussion related to the economy. And I would like to have a climate in which American businessmen can help in what Chairman Gorbachev is trying to do with reform and obviously with glasnost.
But I think the climate as a result of these talks for investment inside the Soviet Union and for certain things we can do to help the Soviet Union, and indeed other countries, seek common ground with these multilateral organizations related to finance, all of that’s a big plus. It was an extraordinarily big plus as far as I’m concerned. The Momentum from the Talks
Q. President Gorbachev?
A. I would like to comment on the answer. First of all, I confirm what I have said, what the President said. And the second point, things that have taken place at the meeting could be regarded as a political impetus which we were lacking for our economic cooperation to gain momentum and to acquire forms and methods which would be adequate to our contemporary life. Well, as to the future course of this process, this will depend on the Soviet actions, whether legal or economic.
You understand that today we try to turn drastically our economy toward cooperation with other countries, so that it would be part and parcel of the world economic system.
Therefore, we think and hope that that has happened during the meeting on this subject of the agenda – well, let’s call it the agenda – these have a principal importance. Stance on Lebanon
Q. How did you discuss that particular option in Lebanon? And what happened, President Bush and President Gorbachev?
GORBACHEV: We couldn’t but address this Lebanese conflict because both the U.S. and the Soviet people are sympathetic with the grave situation and sufferings of that people. We explained our views, we shared our views on assistance in this respect, and agreed to continue the exchange of views so that each according to its possibilities. And I think that everyone has its own possibilities. Well, President Bush thought that we had more possibilities and I thought that we had equal possibilities in order to resolve positively this conflict.
Q. May I ask the question to President Bush, please?
A. I remember – (inaudible) – and our aspiration, shared in by President Gorbachev, to see a peaceful resolution of the question regarding Lebanon. We support the tripartite agreement. He has supported it very actively. We do not want to see any more killing in Lebanon. The Chairman agrees with us. We’re in total agreement on that. And so Lebanon was discussed in detail and we would like to see a return to a peaceful, democratic Lebanon. And everybody in the United States, I think, shares the agony that I feel about the turmoil in Lebanon, but we’re going to try to help. We are trying any way we can to help. The Course of Foreign Policy
Q. My question is to President Bush. Gennadi Vasilyev, Pravda. You, as President of the United States take – participate for the first time at the summit meeting, but you were the Vice President of the previous Administration and took part in forming foreign policies. So, what is your assessment of the course that our two countries have passed since Geneva to Malta?
A. We call it slow ball in the trade – means it’s an easy question – because I really think they are improving dramatically. There is enormous support in our country for what Chairman Gorbachev is doing inside – inside the Soviet Union. There is enormous respect and support for the way he has advocated peaceful change in Europe. And so this meeting accomplished everything that I had hoped it would. It was a no-agenda meeting, and yet it was a meeting where we discussed, as the Chairman said, many, many subjects. So I think, if a meeting can improve relations, I think this one has. Chemical and Nuclear Weapons
Q. President Gorbachev, did you reach any actual understanding on instructions or timetables or deadlines to negotiators on chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, conventional arms?
A. Well, you know we devoted much time to the discussion of concrete issues that related to disarmament and negotiations on different types of arms. And just as an example to show you that this was a substantive discussion, I’ll tell you that in the near future our foreign ministers will meet, which have been instructed to do some specific work to move the oppositions closer.
In connection with the new interesting proposals by President Bush regarding chemical weapons which have the goal of a global ban and provides for certain phases and movement towards this global ban, then we have the possibility of a rapid movement toward it.
As to strategic offensive arms, the analysis of the situation and the instructions that have been given regarding the preparation of that treaty demonstrate that we may be able by the second half of June – and we agreed on the formal meeting at that time to do the necessary work to agree on the basic provisions of this treaty, which then later in the coming months would be ready for a signature. Therefore I highly assess and evaluate what we have done here.
Well, of course there are questions which would require detailed discussion so that there would be no concerns on both sides. As to our concerns, they are – as regards strategic offensive arms and the preparation of the treaty on the 50 percent cuts of such weapons – they concern SLCM’s – well, and in general we raised a question with the President that when we have advanced along different directions on the reduction of nuclear arms and conventional forces, when we move toward defensive doctrines – that is we, the Soviet Union – we are interested in having new elements in the military doctrines of the NATO countries. And, therefore, the time has come when we should begin discussing naval forces. We should discuss this problem also.
Thus, I would also like to confirm, and I think that the President would confirm it, that our discussions were very thorough, which encourages. And therefore we can count on success. This was a salute. Reasons for Optimism
Q. Can I ask you a question —
Q. Mr. President, will you tell us – President Gorbachev, will you tell me why you were so cautious at the beginning of the negotiations? The Soviet side was very optimistic and now you voice certain optimistic elements. What is the reason for it? Maybe that optimism was not justified. This is the Portuguese television to President Gorbachev.
BUSH: Oh, to President Gorbachev. Go ahead.
GORBACHEV: Well, I would say that there were elements of optimism and pessimism here, and I wouldn’t dwell into the details. Well, the core of the question is that, if I read you correctly, is that to what degree we can speak of optimism or pessimism regarding the results of this meeting. Or perhaps I didn’t understand you correctly. Did I get you right?
Yes – well, you know, on the eve of the meeting, both sides were restrained and had a well-balanced position, a cautious one, I would say again. This did not mean, however, that we were pessimists. That meant that we were highly responsible. Today now that the meeting has taken place and we have summed up the results with – together with the President, I can tell you that I am optimistic about the results and the prospects that are open now. This is dialectics. Cuts in Naval Forces
Q. May I return to the question of naval forces please, that President Gorbachev raised just a moment ago? Can you respond to your feeling and exactly what you’ve told President Gorbachev about your disposition toward reducing naval forces, NATO’s disposition on that regard, and if in fact the Soviets are prepared to move to a defensive posture, is not it time to consider some cuts in this regard?
BUSH: The answer is that this is not an arms-control meeting in the sense of trying to hammer out details. We still have differences with the Soviet Union. He knows it and I know it, as it relates to naval forces. But the point is we could discuss these things in a very constructive environment and I certainly – the Chairman knows that I could not come here and make deals in arms control, and I’m disinclined to think that that is an area where we will have immediate progress. But we talked about a wide array of these issues, but we have no agreement at all on that particular question of naval arms control. But the point is, he knows that and I know that.
The point is, he had an opportunity to let me know how important it is, and I can – as a part of an alliance – have an opportunity to discuss a wide array of armament questions, disarmament questions, with our allies. So, it’s exactly the kind of climate for a meeting that I had envisualized – that I had envisioned, and that he had envisioned. We can sit there and talk about issues of which we’ve had divisions over the years, try to find ways to narrow them. And we did narrow them in some important areas. And there are still some differences that exist. There’s no point covering that over. Helsinki Talks and the Mideast
Q. Did you discuss the Soviet proposal on Helsinki 2? And joining which – are you prepared to take a joint initiative with Soviet Union about the Middle East crisis?
BUSH: Is that to me?
Q. Yes —
GORBACHEV: With the President, we said that the Helsinki process should be developed, in keeping with the new demands dictated by the times, so as to conceive and build a new Europe on the basis of the changes, which brings the European countries closer together. We confirmed this a common business of all European states which signed the Final Act of Helsinki, and the Vatican.
Incidentally, the question of Europe arises not only in Europe, but with the active and constructive participation of the United States and Canada also. So we said that this process should gain momentum and get a second breath – a second wind. And transformation of the institutions which have arisen on the basis of the Helsinki process at this stage should proceed in such a way that their nature changes in the direction of the demands of the times. As regards the Warsaw Treaty, it shouldn’t be so much a military alliance.
We’re entitled to expect that there will be changes in the correlation between the European Common Market and the – our economic community and with the active participation in these processes of the United States. Our view is then, in any case, that the time has come in a balanced fashion, step by step, to take action in the light of the demands of the times, not by leaps and bounds or in an irresponsible reckless fashion in order to disrupt stability or reduce security. No, what we must do is to proceed in such a fashion as to improve the atmosphere, the situation, our relations, stability, and consolidate security. This was the dominant key of our discussion and I’m sure the President will confirm that we had a convergence of views on this.
Q. Did you assure President Bush – President Gorbachev, did you assure President Bush that you will not —
Q. Globo TV from Brazil, Mr. Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev – a question to Chairman Gorbachev from Globo TV, Brazil —
BUSH: The question – I think I owe this gentleman — Forces in Mediterranean
Q. Here’s a question on the Middle East. This meeting took place in the middle of the Mediterranean . . . At the meeting, did you discuss the problem of reducing the military presence of the sides or the parties in the Mediterranean?
BUSH: To me? Well, first on the reduction we did not have specific figures in mind. The Chairman raised the question of naval arms control and I was not particularly positive in responding on naval arms control. But we agree that we want to move forward and bring to completion the C.F.E., that does affect Italy and other countries in the sense of they’re part of our – strong part of our NATO alliance. So we didn’t get agreements crossing the t’s, dotting the i’s, on some of these issues. But that’s not what we were trying to do.
May I respond to this gentleman’s last half – the question was Soviet and U.S. – please repeat —
Q. Joint initiatives.
A. It doesn’t require joint initiatives to solve the Middle East questions, but we have found that the Soviet Union is playing a constructive role in Lebanon and trying throughout the Middle East to give their support for the tripartite agreement, which clearly the U.S. has supported. And so there’s common ground there. That may not always have been the case in history. And that may not always have been the way the United States looked at it as to whether – how constructive the role the Soviets might play.
But I can tell you that, after these discussions and after the discussions between Jim Baker and Shevardnadze, there is a constructive role that the Soviets are implementing. And again, I cite the tripartite agreement. I’m sure that they share our view after these talks in terms of peaceful resolution to these questions in the Middle East – be it Lebanon or on the – in West Bank question. So I don’t think we’re very far apart on this.
Q. President Gorbachev, did you assure President Bush that the Soviet Union will —
A. My views on the Middle East in terms of our discussion at this meeting, you mean? I can only add to what was said by President Bush that we did discuss this thoroughly, in fact just only very recently, very thoroughly. And it seems to me we do have an understanding between us that we must do our very best, independently and together, to promote a solution to this problem, a very long-standing conflict which is having a very adverse effect on the whole world situation.
We agreed that now the results of what the sides have done – we’ve reached a point, there’s a real chance of taking a decisive step to open a process of a settlement. And what it’s important to do is not to miss the opportunity to do that, because the situation changes very swiftly. And we think that we will make our contribution to that. Status of Brezhnev Doctrine
Q. Did you assure President Bush that the changes in Eastern Europe are irreversible, that the Soviet Union has foresaken the right to intervene there militarily? And President Bush, similarly, as a result of this meeting, are you now more trusting that the Soviets have, indeed, renounced the Brezhnev Doctrine?
Q. A most important question from Czechoslovakia for Mr. Gorbachev. Will Soviets renounce the Brezhnev Doctrine which enabled the Soviets to invade Czechoslovakia in 1968?
A. I don’t want to be understood as being authorized to speak on behalf of all Eastern European countries. This would not be in keeping with the facts. We are part of Eastern Europe certainly. We are part of Europe as a whole, too. And we work together with our allies in all areas. We have profound ties, but each country is an independent power, an independent factor in world politics. And each people has the right to decide, and does decide the fate of its own state.
All I can say is my view. And I think that these changes in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries, as an objective fact, have been caused by the actual historic process itself, and no one can avoid that. It’s a problem whose time has come. We have to solve it by new means, using our experience and the potential which these states have accumulated, and also opening up opportunities for the use of everything that’s been a positive accumulated in human experience.
And I think the orientation of these processes is something that we should welcome because it’s connected with the desire of these peoples to ennoble their societies, to make them more democratic, humanitarian, to open up to the rest of the world. So I’m encouraged and inspired by all these processes, and I’m sure this is the way they are understood and appreciated by other peoples.
Of course, I also see that there are processes going on, profound processes of change in Western countries, too, including Western European countries. And this is very important, too. There’s a kind of a movement bringing states, countries, and continents together. But nevertheless, there are processes where each individual country prefers its commitments, its choices, and its individualities. That’s very important, and it’s important for all of us to understand that.
Q. I’m speaking on behalf of a group of Czechoslovak —
BUSH: And as President Gorbachev talks about democratic change, and peaceful, that certainly lays to rest previous doctrines that may have had a different approach. And so we are – he knows, and not just the President, but all the people in the United States would like to see this peaceful, democratic evolution continue. And so I think that’s the best way to answer the question, because the change is so dramatic and so obvious to people. But I will say we had a very good chance to discuss it in considerably more detail than I think would be appropriate to discuss it here. Dispute on El Salvador
Q. President Bush, you have accused the Soviet Union for sending arms to El Salvador, to Central America, and President Gorbachev, you have denied those charges. Now both of you are sitting here together, who is right?
A. Maybe I ought to take the first shot at that one. I don’t think we accused the Soviet Union of that. What we did say is arms were going in there in an unsatisfactory way. My view is that not only did the Nicaraguans acquiesce in it, but they encouraged in it – encouraged that to happen. And the evidence is demonstrable.
But I’m not challenging whether – the word of the Foreign Minister. He and Jim Baker talked about that, and President Gorbachev and I talked about it. All I know is that – and he said it earlier, elections – free elections is – should be the mode. And I also reported to him what Mr. Oscar Arias called me about, blaming Castro and the Sandinistas for exporting revolution and for just tearing things up there in Central America. So we may have a difference on that one, but I want to be careful when you say I accused them of sending these weapons. I did not, because Mr. Shevardnadze made a direct representation to Mr. Baker. And everyone knows that there’s a wide international arms flow out there, but whatever it is, however it comes, it is unsatisfactory for countries in the region that want to see the evolution toward democracy continue.
GORBACHEV: The President has quite rightly reported our discussion on this. There was no accusation made against us and we didn’t have to accept or reject such an accusation, therefore. We told the President that we have assurances – firm assurances from Nicaragua that no deliveries using certain aircraft actually were carried out. President Bush didn’t agree with that and we heard that also. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the principle, I said, and President Bush confirmed this, that we’re in favor of free elections. We want to see this conflict ended by political means, and we want to see a normalization of the situation there.
BUSH: That’s what we agreed on. I agreed – I agree that that’s where the —
Q. What about the accusations of Oscar Arias on Cuba?
BUSH: That, that’s the assessment. I still feel that arms are going into El Salvador. We’ve seen clear evidence of it, and – but I can’t argue with the factual presentation made here. But we have a difference. I don’t believe that the Sandinistas have told the truth to our Soviet friends. And why? Because we know for a fact certain that arms have gone in there. I’m not saying they’re Soviet arms. They’ve said they aren’t shipping arms and I’m accepting that. But they’re going in there and I am saying that they have misled Mr. Shevardnadze when they gave a specific representation that no arms were going from Nicaragua into El Salvador. And that’s – so we have some differences in how we look at this key question. And the best way to have those differences ameliorated is to have these certifiably free elections in Nicaragua.
And Castro – I have no influence with him whatsoever. And maybe somebody is yelling that question at President Gorbachev. But look, we’ve got some differences in different places around the world. Accusations Against Cuba
Q. President Gorbachev, what about the accusations of President Arias on – about Cuba? Oscar Arias apparently called President Bush and told him that Cuba really created the situation in the region. It was fomenting revolution in —
A. We discussed the situation in Latin America, expressed our views on the basis of our own analysis and our own assessment, said to the President that the conditions are ripe for changing the situation for the better. The different sides do have a wish to do this, to normalize the situation, not only in the region but also in the United States. Changes in the Germanys
Q. How do you assess the German situation?
A. Do you want to begin on the German question?
BUSH: I’d be glad . . . Somebody better tell me what the question was then, if I’m going to answer. Was it the question of Germany? The United States, part of NATO, has had a longstanding position. Helsinki spells out permanent borders. We – I made clear to President Gorbachev that we, for our part, do not want to do anything that is unrealistic, and causes any country to end up going backwards, or end up having its own people in military conflict, one with the other.
And so, I think we have tried to act with the word that President Gorbachev has used to – and that is, with caution, not to go demonstrating on top of the Berlin wall to show how happy we are about the change. We are happy about the change. And the German question is – I’ve heard many leaders speak about the German question, and I don’t think it is the role of the United States to – to dictate the rapidity of change in any country. It’s a matter for the people to determine themselves. So that’s our position, and the last word goes to the Chairman on this one.
GORBACHEV: Yes, on that as he ended, the President wrote in English and I don’t read English. I answered him in Russian and he doesn’t read Russian. But, we agreed.
BUSH: No matter what it said. . . .
GORBACHEV: I have several times expressed my views on this point, and because we discussed it with the President, we considered all these questions on the condition of the Helsinki process. We realize that the real situation in Europe, the current situation in Europe is that in modern Europe there are two German states, Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic.
Well, there are two German states in Europe today, the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic. They are members of the United Nations, sovereign states. This is the bidding of history, this is what history has willed. I always have recourse to this argument. So as to remain realistic, we must understand that history does dictate the fate and the processes on the continent, and also determines the role and place of these two states.
And we think that there is an understanding today in the minds of all. And any artificial attempt to do anything to that process -well, we mustn’t do anything to belittle the great significance of the great changes which are happening in this continent. It’s a central part of contemporary history. It would not be – we don’t want to do anything to accelerate these changes artificially for the peoples of these two great German states.
Can we thank the press for its cooperation? Of course, we don’t know what they’ve written yet, and what they will be writing.
BUSH: Reserve the right to thank them afterward, you mean? After they’ve written?
GORBACHEV: No. I think right now, and they will write better. I’d like to thank you for your cooperation.
BUSH: We do have to leave at 1:20. Should we each take one more question or not? Agreeable? All right, last one – last one for me right here. No rebuttal, no back up question. The last one. Ties Between the Chiefs
Q. What’s your personal relationship now between the two (inaudible) and would regular contacts that would perhaps no longer be called summits be helpful?
BUSH: I had known President Gorbachev before and I’ll let him speak for himself, but I think we have a good personal relationship and I believe that helps each side be frank, point out the differences as well as the areas we agree on. And that is a very, very important ingredient, I think, because of the standing of the two powers and because of the dramatic change that is taking place. And I am not saying that if he likes me, he is going to change long-held policies, and I’m going to say if I like him, we’re not going to change long-held policies.
But what we’ve been able to do here is to get together and talk about the differences without rancor and as frankly as possible. And I think it’s been very constructive. So I couldn’t have asked for a better result out of this non-summit summit. And the question is regular meetings? I’m open for – to see him as much as it requires to keep things moving forward. We’ve already set a summit meeting. That summit meeting will drive the arms-control agenda. And that’s a good thing, because I represented to him that we wanted to see a Start agreement, a C.F.E. agreement, and hopefully a chemical agreement. That’s a very ambitious agenda. But I think if we hadn’t sat here and talked we might not have understood how each other feels on these important questions.
GORBACHEV: I’d like to confirm what’s just been said by President Bush, that we’ve known each other for quite a long time now. I’d just like to add that perhaps – of course we didn’t agree on this with the President, and I don’t think I’m disclosing a great secret, that we’ve already had detailed discussions when we had our previous contacts, and we informed each other of each other’s positions basically. Pleased With the Discussions
At Governors Island or in the automobiles, we’ve had discussions, and we’ve had correspondence subsequently. And this meeting we’ve had here has made our personal contacts, placed them on a different level, and I’m very happy with the meeting we’ve had, the talks we’ve had, two talks one-on-one.
Like the President, I do feel that personal contact is a very important factor in relations between political leaders, particularly of such states as the Soviet Union and the United States. And I am committed to the idea of personal contacts.
Although, as I said to the – as the President said correctly, this doesn’t mean that for the sake of personal contacts, we can back away from our positions or can forget our responsibilities. No, it’s just that personal contacts makes it possible for us the better to carry out our responsibilities and work together more effectively and more effective cooperation in the interest of our two peoples and in interests of the whole world community.
On my own behalf I’d like to thank you for this meeting. Thank you, Mr. President, for your cooperation for Soviet-American endeavors.
BUSH: Thank you, sir. Well, I guess we’re going to fly away to Brussels.
Photo of President Bush and President Mikhail S. Gorbachev at the conclusion of the news conference they held after their talks. (AP)
A version of this text appeared in print on Monday, December 4, 1989, on section A page 12 of the New York edition.