 I think you could be the third. Well, listen, I have a warm memory of doing a program at BBC and almost missing it because we got lost. We couldn't find the studio. That's quite a... Was that in London or here? Was that in London or here? Yes, in London. And we were going down a long hall and everything and we kept getting in the wrong place. It happens to the staff, too. It does? Yeah. All the time. Well, I recall that there didn't seem to be much surprise on anyone's face that we were lost. No, no, no. The great surprise is that you were fine. All right, well, any time? Okay, we're all set to go, are we? That's fine. I have to use this to see how far we go through and do another typing thing. Mr. President, your meeting with Mr. Gorbachev is only three weeks away now. Everyone regards it as crucial. What do you hope, personally, to get out of the summit with Mr. Gorbachev? Well, I think that the most that we could get out is if we could eliminate some of the paranoia, if we could reduce the hostility, the suspicion that keeps our two countries particularly, but basically, should we say, the Warsaw Bloc and the West at odds with each other. And while I know everyone is looking toward and emphasizing reduction in arms, this is vital and important, but I see reduction in arms as a result, not a cause. If we can reduce those suspicions between our two countries, the reduction of arms will easily follow because we will reduce the feeling that we need them. Mr. Schultz is off to Moscow on Saturday to do the groundwork for this summit, fully aware, as he himself admits, that there are major differences between the United States and Russia. Apart from the paranoia, which we talk about, what are those differences as you see them? Oh, my heavens. Here are two systems so diametrically opposed that I'm no linguist, but I've been told that in the Russian language there isn't even a word for freedom. And two nations, everyone's referring to as the superpowers, obviously are competitive in our philosophies and our ideas in the world. And that probably can't be corrected, but we can have a peaceful competition. We have to live in the world together. There's no sense in believing that we must go on with the threat of a nuclear war hanging over the world because of our disagreements. We don't like their system. They don't like ours. But we're not out to change theirs. I do feel sometimes they're out to change ours. But if we could get along, they have a system of totalitarian government and rule of their people. We have one in which we believe the people rule the government. And there isn't any reason why we can't coexist in the world where there are legitimate areas of competition, compete, but do it in a manner that recognizes that neither one of us should be a threat to the other. When Mr. Schulz talks to Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shavadnadze, what will be the topics of discussion? Will it be trying to find some groundwork, for example, on arms control and reduction? I would think that probably the main point in their meeting ahead of the major meeting is to establish an agenda. In other words, Secretary Schulz will tell them the things that we feel are important to be discussed. Minister Shavadnadze will probably have lists of things that are on their agenda so that we can plan and neither one of us be caught by surprise at the summit with hearing having a subject come up that hadn't even been considered. So I think that this is probably the main useful purpose that will be served by their getting together. Is there any chance at all that the discussions Mr. Schulz has in Moscow might enable you to produce an initiative before you go to Geneva? Right now we are in the position of studying what we call a counter-proposal. In Geneva where our arms control delegations are meeting and have been meeting for a long time, we have had a proposal for a reduction of nuclear weapons. Now for the first time the Soviet Union has made a counter-proposal. We have put that in the hands of our people in Geneva. Now for them to look at, we ourselves are studying it. There are some elements in there that we have called them seeds to nurture. Things that we look at and say yes, these could very easily be acceptable. At the same time in their proposal there are some things that we believe are so disadvantageous to us that these should be negotiated and some change is made. And with all of this going on, I am not in a position to say now at what point will we make our reply to their counter-offer and state where we are or where we differ and so forth and then that should be the area in which negotiations would take place. Now whether that doesn't happen prior to the summit meeting or whether our team in Geneva tables it before they adjourn for their recess that is coming up I can't answer that still remains to be seen. Well I was telling you Mr. President that Mrs. Satcher has already told the leader of the opposition and she said this today in the House of Commons that you were going to come up with an initiative before Geneva. Well we're, I'm personally hopeful of that also. So she's right that that is what we're striving to do. Now can we look at some of the things which obviously are going to affect Geneva but particularly I'd like to talk to you about the Strategic Defense Initiative and how important that is going to be. Can anything be achieved at Geneva without some understanding from both sides in this area? Probably not but I think there can be an understanding when they hear what we have in mind. I believe that this is something that is probably one of the most momentous things in a century. We have a team that within the terms of the ABM Treaty is researching to see if there is a defensive weapon the possibility of a defensive weapon that could intercept missiles before they reach their target instead of having a deterrent to war as we have now which is both sides with massive weapons of destruction, nuclear missiles and the only thing deterring war is the threat we represent to each other of killing millions and millions of citizens on both sides. Now if we can come up with a defensive weapon then we reach and we know that we have it, that it is there, that it is practical, that it will work then my idea is that we go to the world, we go to our allies, we go to the Soviet Union and we say look we're not going to just start deploying this at the same time we maintain a nuclear arsenal we think this weapon, this defensive weapon, we would like to make available and let's have the world have this for their own protection so that we can all eliminate our nuclear arsenals and the only reason then for having the defensive weapon would be because since everyone in the world knows how to make one, a nuclear weapon we would all be protected in case some madman some day down along the line secretly sets out to produce some with the idea of blackmailing the world and the world wouldn't be blackmailed because we would all be sitting here with that defense I've likened it to what happened when 1925 after World War I all the nations got together and outlawed poison gas but everybody kept their gas mask so we would have a world with some nuclear gas masks and we could sleep at night without thinking that someone could bring this great menace of the nuclear threat against us say Mr. President you go to the world once you had proved you've satisfactorily yourself that here was a weapon which would actually work you go to the world would you include Russia in that? yes I think that what could be safer than if today everything is offensive weapons it's the only weapon I know of that's ever been developed in history that has not brought about a defense against it but what would be safer than if the two great superpowers the two that have the great arsenals both of us sat there with defensive weapons that ensured our safety against the nuclear weapons and both of us eliminated our but the Russians presumably would have to make their own SDI you wouldn't offer them would you offer a show? why not? and I think this is something to be discussed at the summit as to what kind of an agreement we could make about in the event I would like to say to the Soviet Union we know you've been researching for this same thing longer than we have we wish you well if there couldn't be anything better than if both of us came up with it but if only one of us does then why don't we instead of using it as an offensive means of having a first strike against anyone else in the world why don't we use it to ensure that there won't be any nuclear strikes are you saying that Mr. President that the United States if it were well down the road towards a proper SDI program would be prepared to share its technology with Soviet Russia provided of course there were arms reductions and so on on both sides that's right there would have to be the reductions of offensive weapons in other words we would switch to defense instead of offense that of course is quite a long way away this idealistic world of yours if I may say so we're optimistic we've had some good breakthroughs in our research so far it's going well is it? yes and is the research going so well as to suggest to you that a defensive weapon of this kind is really practical now as a matter of fact very leading scientists who are involved in this have said that that they can foresee us achieving this weapon will it take long? oh I think we're talking a matter of years let us say though that this isn't going to come about come about as you say for a matter of years Mr. Gorbachev as we all know is very worried about SDI would you be prepared to negotiate on SDI at Geneva? well negotiate in a sense of coming to an agreement which we are bound by in the future for whenever that weapon happens bound to this matter of worldwide sharing I wonder if you'd be kind enough to clear up one point on the SDI and it's this Mr. Gorbachev I think accepts the idea that you could do nothing about research because it's not really verifiable testing on the other hand worries him now does testing in your view come within the ABM treaty? yes I believe it does I think there were well within it and within a strict adherence to the treaty although you could have a more liberal interpretation of the treaty that I believe is justified but rather than have any debate or argument about that we are staying within the strict limits of the treaty do you think the SDI is likely to be a stumbling block at Geneva bearing in mind what Mr. Gorbachev thinks about in his reservations? I think it should be the other way around I think it should be one of the most helpful things in erasing some of that paranoia I mentioned or that hostility or suspicions between us you have a horror of nuclear weapons and that's why you say that SDI is a good thing if we had SDI worldwide would there still be nuclear weapons available? I wouldn't see any need for them but all I wouldn't know why a nation would strap itself to invest in them but as I say there is always the possibility of a madman coming along and as I say you can't eliminate the knowledge about building those weapons who might seize upon them we've had an experience in our lifetime of a madman in the world who caused great tragedy worldwide and so I would think that this this would be our gas mask Mr. President can we turn now to some of the things you said in your UN speech one of the central themes you brought up there concerned those areas of regional conflict such as Afghanistan in which the Soviets have a hand are you going to bring these up with Mr. Gorbachev if so do you expect him to respond positively? Well I would think that this is very much a part of trying to rid the world of the suspicions they claim that they fear that we of the western world threaten them that somehow we're lying here and wait for a day when we can eliminate their method of government and so forth there is no evidence to sustain that if you look back to the end of World War II our country for example absolutely undamaged we hadn't had our industries destroyed through bombings and so forth and we were the only nation with the bomb the nuclear weapon we could have dictated to the world we didn't we set out to help even our erstwhile enemies recover and today those erstwhile enemies are our staunchest allies in the NATO alliance they on the other hand have created well they've gone through the biggest military buildup in the history of man and it is basically offensive now we therefore claim we've got some right to believe that we are threatened not the other way around but to eliminate that suspicion and that fear if they really want to live in a peaceful world and be friends and associate with the rest of the world then we need more than words and the deeds could be the stopping of their attempt to either themselves or through proxies and through subversion to force their system on other countries to stop the world and that could be one of the greatest proofs there is that do you think you were being a bit optimistic in your UN speech you posed the idea that these areas of regional conflict should be discussed but of course you took much further than that what you actually said it should be discussed up to the point when they're just eliminated now do you think you're being optimistic when you recognize the fact that the fellow sitting is Mr. Gorbachev and he's tied up in these things yes but on the other hand he has some practical problems in his own country some problems of how long can they sustain an economy that provides for their people under the terrific cost of building up and pursuing this expansionist policy and this great military buildup is economic problems yes and if we can show him that he can resolve those economic problems with no danger to themselves convincing that we represent no threat then I could see us as I've said before we don't like each other's systems maybe we don't like each other but we're the only two nations that can probably cause a world war we're also the only two nations that can prevent one will you want to talk to him about human rights you probably heard that Mrs. Yelena Bonner has just been granted a visa to come to the west so she can get medical treatment but she'll have to go back to Russia of course do you see that as a propaganda move by the Russians or is it a step along the road I would like to feel it's a step along the road and there needs to be more I don't think however that the human rights thing should be a kind of a public discussion and accusing fingers being pointed at each other and their claim that this is an internal matter with them but I think it should be explained that some of these violations well first of all is the violation of the Helsinki Pact this was one of the main reasons why we are signatories to that pact is this agreement about not separating families and so forth allowing people freedom to choose what they have to understand is that in some of the major areas where we could seek agreement we have a better chance in our type of society of getting the approval that we need from our congress, from our people of some of these agreements if these issues, these human rights problems are not standing in the way and maybe I can point that out Mr President there have been fears expressed in Europe that arms control will be pushed right down the agenda but in favor of issues like regional conflict and human rights which we've been discussing can you give an assurance that that is not the case? I certainly can as far as I'm concerned but as I've said that follows another thing the effort is to arrive at an understanding about our ability to live in the world together and the peace and the other that can follow someone if I can only remember the quote correctly the other day said nations aren't suspicious of each other because of their arms they are armed because they are suspicious there is a feeling Mr President that Mr Gorbachev has seized the initiative in Europe European leaders have undoubtedly been impressed by his performance Mrs Thatcher as you know said that he's someone she can do business with what do you think about it? Well I don't know him as yet but he seems to have shown more of an interest in the people, the man in the street than other Soviet leaders have he has expressed great concern about the economic problems and the improvements that he feels that should be made there he's younger and more energetic than some of the more recent leaders have been and I just I'm optimistic by nature but I have to be optimistic that he is looking at the entire picture on the other hand I don't think we should believe that he is not dedicated to the principles of their system to communism and so forth if he wasn't he wouldn't be where he is Do you think he's in terms of youth energy like intelligence and obviously a powerful grasp of public relations do you think he's a pretty formidable Russian leader to deal with compared with his predecessors? Well I don't know on the public relations thing he did far better with some of our own press than he did with the French press on his recent visit when he was there I just I can't judge him on that sometimes public relations is made by or are made by those reporting not by those doing Can I take one or two other areas with you Mr. President the first is terrorism we know how you handle the Achilles-Laro affair but does that carry the risk of alienating friendly governments? Egypt, if you remember, wasn't too pleased Well I know and yet we felt that there wasn't we had no choice in the matter if we were going to prevent those terrorists from suddenly as so many in the past have disappearing into the rabbit warrens that bound in the Middle East and in Lebanon and so forth and therefore they would escape being brought to justice they had murdered a man, a helpless individual we felt we had to do it but I'm pleased to say now that I think the flurry is over and that both Egypt and Italy want to continue the warm relationship that we've had and so that has worked out all right Mr. President, would you do it again even if it meant, say, violating international law? Well it actually didn't violate international law Well I'd say it could in the future It could I suppose This is hard, it's a hypothetical question Terrorism is always with us Yes, and I think that you just have to say you'd have to judge each case on its own as to the need to bring terrorists to justice the need to convince them that terrorism is not going to be successful it is not going to make governments like your own or our own change their policies out of fear of terrorism if that ever happens then the world has gone back to anarchy so you would have to judge that against how much you would be violating international law to achieve your goal But if it was necessary I take it you would Yes And you would pursue terrorism as hard as you can as often as you can Yes, it's been very frustrating for a number of the things that have happened and I've been taken to task by members of the press that I talked but I didn't take action but just look at the nature of some of those terrorist acts the terrorist blows himself up with all the innocent people that he also kills at the same time so there's no way you're going to punish him you now seek to find well who does he belong to what group brought this about well there the difficulty is almost insurmountable but also even if you do get some intelligence that indicates it's a certain group they're in some foreign city and you say well how do we punish them without blowing up a neighborhood and killing as many innocent people as they did and this has been our problem up until this last time when we had a very clear-cut case Mr. President this may be a difficult question for you to answer but what would you most like to be remembered for by history? Five years ago when we came here the United States had allowed its defenses to decline the United States economy I remember attending my first economic summit in Ottawa, Canada and that was just in the spring of the year my first year here I remember our friends and allies the heads of state of the other summit nations there beseeching me to stop exporting our inflation and our recession to their countries in this world of international trade and all that we were exporting bad economic situations to the rest of the world the Soviet Union again as I say through surrogates there was Afghanistan there was Ethiopia South Yemen and Gola and Nicaragua they had forced governments of their choosing into all those countries well it's been five years now we have the greatest recovery economic recovery that we've ever had in our history it is not we who are exporting inflation anymore inflation is down from those double digit figures well for the last five months it's only been two and a half percent and none of our trading partners can match that our interest rates are down we have created almost nine million new jobs over these five years with our economic recovery and in the world abroad the Soviet Union has not stepped in or created a government of its kind in any new country these five years it's not moved on to one additional inch of territory and I'd just like to feel that maybe some of the things we did here the American people their spirit was down they had heard talks prior to our arrival that maybe we should give up our high expectations that never again could we look toward the future as we had in the past to lower our expectations and so forth today we have a volunteer military we exceed our enlistment quota every year we have the highest level of education in the military in this volunteer military that we've ever had in our history even in wartime drafts the American people have rallied and with a spirit of volunteerism voluntarily stepping into problems that once they just let go by and thought somebody in the government would take care of them and as I say the economy last year some 600,000 new businesses were incorporated in our country I would like to be remembered not for doing all those things I didn't do them the American people did them all I did was help get government out of their way and restore our belief in the power of the people and that government must be limited in its powers and limited in its actions and that part I helped in I'd like to be remembered for that cancer and then it had an operation to remove the cancer and therefore you cross your fingers and hope that everything will be alright no, all I had to recover from was the incision because what I had my intestines was a polyp there are two kinds and I urge everyone to have as the years go on have regular examinations because one of those polyps is nothing it's harmless and it's easily removed the other polyp if allowed to remain will become cancerous well in going in to get one of those harmless polyps they found one of that other kind that started but it was still just a polyp but that requires major surgery and they took it out so I hadn't suffered from cancer at all and as I say all I had to recover from was all those stitches and that 10 or 11 inch incision and I've recovered from that I'm riding horses regularly now as I've always done and I'm doing my exercises in the gym every day at the end of the day I have a little gymnasium upstairs and some weights and so forth and I'm doing all those things and I've just never felt better it's a pleasure that you look remarkably fit it's been a pleasure to talk to you my pleasure and I thank you thank you good interview yes as you know with this use of tape any more of those things we have a wonderful story from Hollywood about the great director Cecil B. D. Mill that brings up the frustration did we get it or not this was when he was doing the 10 Commandments and had the Israelis and the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea and then the Egyptians came along behind them and the Red Sea came in on them and so he had three cameras set up including one in a 100 foot tower and he said now you know gotta have a constant so forth so three angles will get this because we only want to do this once and all the mechanics that were involved and then he said over here through his megaphone how about you camera number one and they said sorry C. B. we had a film buckle we didn't get it and he turned the camera to yell over to you well something had happened over there and they hadn't got it finally he yelled up to the one on the tower and now when they done the boys came down and said ready when you are ready ready ready ready ready ready ready ready ready ready ready if you have any questions please leave them in the comments