ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

these tactics. But of course there was always some concern among all of us that he might be tricked again in these one-on-one sessions. Reagan had good instincts but he clearly did not have the grasp of substance that Gorbachev had. He was also vulnerable because he was basically a nice guy who hated to say no. One of his strengths, however, was that he knew his limitations. For the most part, he listened to and followed his advisors. It was probably why he was misled in the Iran-Contra affair, but it also prevented him from getting into trouble on many occasions. Reagan was a great person to work for because he did use the talking points prepared for him. He used these 3 x 5 cards but those were his lines and he read his lines. I mean, he was an actor. He was trained to deliver his lines. It was a fascinating experience because I used to write these lines and, whereas with many people you never knew if they were going to be used and probably nine times out of ten they were not used, with President Reagan there was a very good chance that what you put on that 3 x 5 card is exactly what he would say. I was in a lot of the Oval Office meetings, and sometimes you could see that if there was something critical or negative in Reagan’s talking points, he really hated to say it, but in the end he usually did. He would say it because it was on his card and because he knew he was expected to say it. In that respect he was a pleasure to work for, especially to a mid-level officer who was writing the President’s lines. This was, of course, very different from my experience working with most other senior people. For example, I worked for the first Bush, for George Bush and he was quite the opposite. You could write a briefing book for him and you would never know if he would look at it or not because he felt he knew the issues, and he very rarely used the talking points that were given to him. Reagan learned his lines because he knew his limitations on substance and details. But Reagan, at least in my view, had pretty good instincts on larger issues, like SDI or the Soviet Union. And these came from Reagan himself, not from his advisors, who were often flustered by them. Q: I interviewed somebody who was at the White House who talked about how nervous some of his handlers would be when he was alone with either Brian Mulroney or Margaret Thatcher. No one knew what he would be saying. PERINA: That may be true with Margaret Thatcher because they were such friends. He trusted her and did not feel obliged to stick to his lines. But in most instances I think Reagan could be trusted more than a real expert on foreign policy like Henry Kissinger. Kissinger felt he needed no one. With him, you never really knew what would be done or agreed to behind closed doors. And you would probably never find out, unless you trusted his memoirs. Q: Advisors always tend to be nervous when principals get together. What are they saying and what are they doing? PERINA: They were certainly worried in Moscow at those on-on-one sessions. During that Moscow summit there were two one-on-one sessions and then there were two plenary sessions. The plenary sessions involved the whole delegation, including the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and so on. It was a dozen people or so. 48
Those plenary sessions I actually wasn’t involved in. I was in the small one-on-one meetings where Gorbachev did try to get these broad declarations. But Reagan resisted. In the end, the sessions became largely non-substantive discussions, and I can’t say that any dramatic things were agreed or disagreed. Q: Well, during this time what were you picking up from your colleagues about Gorbachev? Was it becoming clearer who he who he was and what he was up to? PERINA: There was a growing sense that he was something quite significant and that there were important ways in which he really wanted to change things. But certainly no one, including Gorbachev, expected the Soviet Union to fall apart. And this was in 1988, quite near to the end of the Soviet empire. People believed that Gorbachev knew the Soviet Union was in trouble economically and technologically and could not compete with the U.S. and thus he was trying to buy time so that the Soviet Union could be strengthened again. I think that was the dominant view of Gorbachev. But there was still a lot of debate on this. The CIA even hired a psychologist to study Gorbachev’s physical gestures and body language to try to get insight into his personality. I spoke with the man, who knew no Russian, but had studied hours of silent films of Gorbachev to try to figure him out. As I recall, he did not come up with any particularly revealing insights. Q: Well, let’s go back to the NSC at the time. In earlier years, under Nixon and then under Carter, you had Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski who both had strong opinions and were very strong operators. By the time you got there you have Frank Carlucci and Colin Powell. This is quite a different NSC. PERINA: Yes, I think that’s true, and that’s more like it should be. The NSC was not dominating over the State Department as it was in the Kissinger years. There was a good relationship with George Schultz who I think was an excellent Secretary of State. Q: Did you get any feel about the influence of the Pentagon? Casper Weinberger was still there. Did you find that there was a pressure there to overplay the Soviet menace to keep up defense budgets and so on? PERINA: I wouldn’t single out the Pentagon because I think in all the departments, as well as in the CIA, there was a conservative side of the house that was still arguing, look, we can’t let our guard down. Gorbachev is one man and he can’t change the Soviet system. The missiles are still all there, the generals are still all there. We have to keep our guard up. My first boss in the NSC, Fritz Ermarth, was sympathetic to this view. Before the Moscow Summit, we made a lot of effort to try to prepare Reagan for this trip, even to the point that we asked the CIA to make a film for him about Moscow and about the sites he would be visiting. We thought he could particularly relate to a movie. The CIA did make a film under NSC bidding, albeit reluctantly because they seemed to feel it was not part of their mission, and the film was actually pretty disappointing. It was a bunch of clips from travelogues. I remember this because I organized it. I also organized a lunch for him with Soviet experts from all over the United States, academics and outside people ranging from Jim Billington to Richard Pipes. We got them to the White House for lunch 49
Page 1 and 2: The Association for Diplomatic Stud
Page 3 and 4: Holbrooke visits Albanians Dayton M
Page 5 and 6: throughout the country were execute
Page 7 and 8: capitalists and so on. At that time
Page 9 and 10: taken to an apartment which initial
Page 11 and 12: Q: You said that after Cleveland yo
Page 13 and 14: they agreed to send me there. Marxi
Page 15 and 16: most comprehensive collection of in
Page 17 and 18: Q: What was the background of your
Page 19 and 20: is there from that trial?” I thou
Page 21 and 22: word that he was going to come to a
Page 23 and 24: Q: During the Vietnam War, there wa
Page 25 and 26: very different interpretations. The
Page 27 and 28: Q: So you were there from 1979? PER
Page 29 and 30: I will always remember that staff m
Page 31 and 32: was very tough. We did suspend the
Page 33 and 34: line was that a person was made to
Page 35 and 36: there. The Polish economy was nose-
Page 37 and 38: Q: What sorts of issues did you tal
Page 39 and 40: war. But I can tell you that the So
Page 41 and 42: museums. Even in the private sector
Page 43 and 44: to the Soviet Union. Everything tha
Page 45 and 46: phrases “Open this gate, tear dow
Page 47: PERINA: Yes, they did. Jumping ahea
Page 51 and 52: PERINA: That is exactly right. The
Page 53 and 54: Q: OK, in 1989 you’re going to th
Page 55 and 56: PERINA: This was an issue because o
Page 57 and 58: position in Europe, and really the
Page 59 and 60: Soviet domination. They had histori
Page 61 and 62: Q: That was my impression as well w
Page 63 and 64: welcoming dinner in a restaurant an
Page 65 and 66: Q: How were you received by the Ser
Page 67 and 68: eard, and he functioned as everythi
Page 69 and 70: Part of the reason that we didn’t
Page 71 and 72: One of the more interesting people
Page 73 and 74: Q: So what was happening with Kosov
Page 75 and 76: Albanians were very anxious to have
Page 77 and 78: I remember Holbrooke’s first visi
Page 79 and 80: cannot now remember what finally tr
Page 81 and 82: Q: And this was not an idle comment
Page 83 and 84: price for having a very bad leaders
Page 85 and 86: PERINA: Certainly during the period
Page 87 and 88: Q: So you took over the Holbrooke r
Page 89 and 90: PERINA: Not really. We coordinated
Page 91 and 92: why I believed that it was not wort
Page 93 and 94: Q: Can you give a brief summary of
Page 95 and 96: PERINA: Well the American interests
Page 97 and 98: shorter visits of three to four wee
Page 99 and 100:
Q: How so? PERINA: Well, he felt un
Page 101 and 102:
Q: Still, it strikes me that all of
Page 103 and 104:
As for the European Union, most Mol
Page 105 and 106:
PERINA: Nagorno-Karabakh is the mos
Page 107 and 108:
e called the “Prague Process” w
Page 109 and 110:
we physically crossed the front lin
Page 111 and 112:
were about three-quarters of the po
Page 113 and 114:
down to the Black Sea. Since I was
Page 115 and 116:
PERINA: It is difficult to say. He
Page 117 and 118:
political interests to keep it goin
Page 119 and 120:
a huge personal embarrassment. It l
Page 121 and 122:
clearly followed the advice because
Page 123 and 124:
good governance and so on. In its b
Page 125 and 126:
Deputy Secretary, Richard Armitage,
Page 127 and 128:
PERINA: Relations with Europe were
Page 129:
End of interview 129
show all

ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?