Richard Nixon on "Inside Washington"

good evening and welcome to the premiere edition of inside Washington on SBS I'm your host Richard Alan permit me to introduce my longtime friend and co-host miss doyoung shim a member of the Republic of Korea's National Assembly and a longtime specialist in korean-american relations miss doe is also the president of the newly formed Korean Institute for American affairs miss doe it's a great pleasure to have this opportunity to work with you on the exciting new edition of inside Washington Thank You mr. Alan certainly is an exciting event this evening and I'm very pleased to to occur inside Washington with you as many our viewers know mr. Richard Alan is a very familiar face to many Koreans he's one of the u.s. leading experts in Foreign Affairs and national security issues he served as national security adviser to president and his longtime campaign adviser he also worked for President Richard Nixon as foreign policy adviser he is currently the chairman of Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation and also senior fellow at Hoover Institution and Stanford also he is a chairman of a EA and international business consulting firm offers us both in Washington DC and in Seoul tonight SBS is delighted to have on the premiere edition of inside Washington a very special guest his career spans 50 years beginning with his service in the military as an elected member of the House of Representatives the United States Senator 8 years as vice president in the administration of President Eisenhower and finally as twice elected 37th president of the United States Richard Nixon has left a truly lasting imprint upon the shape of public policy in the United States and especially upon foreign and national security affairs although it's been 18 years since President Nixon has been in office he continues to exert a very important influence on the shape of the public policy debate in United States he has just completed his ninth book of his career this book called seize the moment America's role in a one superpower world is a book filled with prescriptions and analysis of trenchant debate and it itself has had a profound impact on the newly developing debate about the role of the United States in the post-cold war world mr. president thank you very much for being with us and millions of SBS viewers along with miss doe and myself welcome you and thank you for taking time to be with us this evening well I'm delighted to be on this program because I have such pleasant memories of my first visit to Korea which was which was in 1953 when Miss Dole was just five years of age and I remember on that occasion how impressed mrs. Nixon and I were but the fact that it was a very very cold day that we were wearing overcoats and there were thousands and thousands of Korean children and just little cotton suits that were out there waving American Korean flags and at that time I said to her that there's no question these people are going to make it they're so strong mr. president all your life you have been an advocate of taking the long view what you call the long view and that means a long-term strategic view in your book seize the moment you describe a very poignant moment when some 32 years ago in a medium when the key to Khrushchev you each made predictions about your grandchildren each other's grandchildren to be precise could you tell us about that moment and what about the predictions how did they come out well the disagreement that we had has been well publicized it was called the kitchen debate because it occurred at an exhibition that the United States said they're in a model kitchen we were talking about what was going on there but also what was going on in the world and it went on and on and the differences that we had have been very widely publicized but as we neared the end of the conclusion that near the end of the discussion Kershaw who was a very volatile man stuck his finger into my chest and he said your grandchildren will live under communism well I responded your grandchildren will they live in freedom at the time I was sure he was wrong but I must admit I wasn't sure I was right but now events have proved that I was right because kirchhoff's grandchildren do live in freedom and the great question of our time can they continue to live in freedom or will they revert to the old or a new despotism what do you think made your predictions so accurate and placed his prediction to use Marxist terminology on the dustbin of history the prediction I made proved to be accurate not simply because the West stood firm as it did but because communism had a fatal flaw it just wouldn't work it was doomed to fail he believed in communism as did all of the leaders who followed him Brezhnev for example believed in communism so did Gorbachev the reason he failed was that he couldn't give up on his belief in communism but communism was an idea which simply would not work it did not produce a better life for people and the Russian people the people of the other republics in the former Soviet Union rebelled against it it's interesting to note that the Communists came to power in Russia through violence in 1917 but they peacefully were thrown out and this is of course gives us a good idea as to what can happen in the future mr. president you have pointed out after the communist victory in 1975 in Vietnam that many thought United States finished that he was unwilling and unable to act decisively yet in 1992 u.s. emerges as the only complete superpower of the world how do you think mr. president the United States will use its unprecedented power and how is it going to best protect the interest of United States as well as those of its allies it is a role that the people of the United States don't particularly want the United States really would prefer not to have the responsibilities abroad but there's no one else looking around the world today if the United States does not lead who is going to lead the Japanese the Chinese the Russians the Germans those are the only other nations that have the military and economic potential to lead so the United States must lead second as far as the American people are concerned they do not want to impose their system on anybody else that is why the leadership position is good not just for the United States it's good for the other people in the world whether it is Korea or Japan or the nations of Western Europe or the people and what was formerly the third world now we call it the second world our only interest is to have them have the opportunity that we have to grow up in a world and peace to choose their own governments through a democratic system if they prefer that and to have freedom and its broadest aspects mr. president you say that the United States has a vital interest in preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons particularly among the developing countries as we look at the Korean Peninsula today however there is a very dangerous situation rapidly developing and our government in Washington has defined this as not only the most serious security threat in Asia but perhaps the most security serious security threat in the world in referring to the potential acquisition by North Korea of nuclear weapons now president no Teague of the Republic of Korea has renounced the nuclear option for his country and he's tried to engage Mill sung in a dialogue a peaceful dialogue in order to persuade North Korea also to renounce the nuclear option how could the United States best participate in this process of persuading Kim il-sung and the North Koreans not to choose the nuclear option first the United States must continue its all-out support of the Republic of Korea that at least is a deterrent to North Korea if they do engage in aggressive action they're going to commit suicide we have to make it clear that an attack on the Republic of Korea by North Korea would be an attack on the United States we must begin with that then the United States must work through other governments the Chinese for example the Russians to the extent they want to play a whorl role to get them to lean on North Korea to abide by the non-proliferation treaty and not to go forward with its nuclear weapons program let me say why having nuclear weapons in North Korea cannot be tolerated France has nuclear weapons Britain has nuclear weapons we're not afraid of that because they we know they will never be used aggressively but North Korea is an outlaw regime nobody knows what Kim il-sung will do maybe the South Koreans do but I don't know I don't think our government knows under the circumstance you cannot have in that man's hand or his successors hands these weapons which could start not just a war in the Korean Peninsula but in the whole world I would say finally the Japanese are involved here the Japanese do not have nuclear weapons they could get them almost within a matter of months because of their enormous industrial capability in the case that North Korea acquires nuclear weapons that would be a mortal threat to Japan and Japan would have to go nuclear so what we're talking about here is not just the Korean Peninsula we're talking about peace and security in the balance of Asia and the balance of the world mr. president if North Korea should require if North Korea acquires nuclear weapons what specific steps can we and our allies can take for example can the United Nations step in well the United Nations could step in but the problem there is that we say well why doesn't the United Nations do something we want to remember that during the Korean War the only reason the United States was able to get the United Nations into that action was that the Russians were absent and could not and Soviets I should say were absent and could not exercise a veto I do not think it is enough to say the United Nations can step in and do something about it it means that the great powers that that means the United States China which still has influence there Japan to the extent it can have influence in the future and of course the nations of Europe we have to make it very clear that we cannot tolerate that situation I'm not I don't have an answer to it because what we have to bear in mind here is that North Korea has its problems I mean they have an economy that is a disastrous shape the per capita income in South Korea is at least four maybe five times as great as it is in the North they need assistance from the west from Japan etc and it's got to be made clear that they've got to choose do they want to grow do they want to join the great revolution for progress in the rest of the world or they simply want to have nuclear weapons and then thumb their noses at the rest of the world which as I say leads suicide is the military option then foreclosed or must we keep it open in that event oh the military option must be kept open the idea that if only we are for peace they will be four pieces nonsense in dealing with without law governments we know that I've known it all of my life and you have to as you have dealt with these problems we have to have a military option we have to maintain our strength we must not we the United States must not reduce our forces in Korea because the military option is the only is the only kind of activity that's going to deter the North Koreans in the meantime we've got to proceed through diplomatic channels since the North Koreans say they would like to have a nuclear-free zone we've got to put all the pressure we can economically and otherwise to get them to abstain from developing nuclear weapons mr. president the the world has been virtually turned upside down on the two-and-a-half years since the Berlin Wall came down a new dynamic is a word emerging and also emerging is a new Russia there's a great superpower yet this Russia is having trouble getting its feet on the ground so to speak and and turning its directions into a capitalist economy a free market economy you have made recommendations not only in your book but in your speeches and it's your recent conference about what the United States should do to help Russia and you've also pointed out what the consequences of not helping Russia will be would you share with us your thoughts well Russia at the present time is at a crossroads it is often said that the Cold War is over and that the West is wanted that's only half true because what has happened is that the Communists have been defeated but the ideas of freedom now are on trial if they don't work there there will be a reversion to not communism which has failed but what I call a new despotism which would pose a mortal danger to the rest of the world because it would have be infected with the virus of Russian imperialism which of course has been a characteristic of Russian foreign policy for centuries we begin with that therefore the West has the United States has all those who want peace and freedom in the world a great state in freedom succeeding in Russia if it succeeds it will be an example for others to follow it will be a book for China for example to follow for the other communist states the view that remained if it fails it means that the hardliners in China will get a new life they will say it failed there there's no reason for us to turn to democracy that's part of what is at stake here the other point that we have to have in mind is that it's vitally important that it succeed because it means that Russia which for 70 years has been exporting or trying to export the idea of communism - the world will now be exporting the ideas of freedom the ideas of democracy the goods of freedom it means that Russia for example will be able to export goods that'll be a huge export market for example for the United States and other countries so I would simply sum it up to save for our Korean audience it means a great deal to Korea - because Russia the Soviet Union I should say was a very strong supporter of North Vietnam Russia will not be a supporter of North Vietnam and that means that they we have here a potential ally joining with the United States and other country other free countries in putting pressure on North Korea not to go forward with the nuclear option Gorbachev was once everybody's favorite hero now he's out and Boris Yeltsin is in in not only in Washington but in other parts of the West Yeltsin was described as a bore a power-hungry a power-crazed lunatic a man who was not cosmopolitan enough or deep enough a thinker not intellectual or savvy politically enough how could we have been so easily misled about Gorbachev real weaknesses which you seem to perceive very early on and warned about and Yeltsin strength which very few people picked up on in time it's the tendency among many of those in the foreign policy establishment of which you were a member of the deadly to emphasize style to be impressed by style more than substance Gorbachev had style he was smooth he had an elegant wife and incidentally he did some positive things he did open up the Soviet Union Yeltsin made I mean Gorbachev made Yeltsin possible but looking at the two men they both began the same they were both born as peasants garbage off became a man of the world Yeltsin remained a man of the people they were different in another respect Yeltsin has repudiated both communism and socialism Gorbachev would not do so and many of the observers didn't see that the reason Gorbachev failed was that he sincerely believed in the communist idea right to the present day if you follow his column recent column in The New York Times and then he sincerely believed that the Soviet empire should remain intact it was those beliefs that brought him down Yeltsin on the other hand is one who is believes in democracy believes in free markets and that's why we should put our chips on him at this time mr. president you said one of the briefers on Yeltsin in 1991 sounded just like recording of briefer forgave you briefing on Khrushchev some thirty years ago what about the advisors to the president is fairly difficult for a chief executive to sort out the accuracy of what advisors tell him oh yes it is difficult the main thing is is to get plenty of advice but then the president has got to decide and in this case for example the briefers were overly impressed by the style factor they said because Khrushchev drank too much and he wore sloppy clothes and spoke bad Russian grammar that he was not going to be a strong leader he was one of the brightest leaders in fact he had the quickest reaction time of any leader I've ever met and with Yeltsin they say that well he's buried that he he for example one that one columnist made the point that at a state dinner he used to lick caviar off with his fingers and butter and let me say you Austin may not know what kind of a fork to use at a state dinner but he has a very sharp political knife and that's what they failed to see Yeltsin the man is a very strong leader he has his weaknesses but he has good people around him but mainly he believes in the right thing he believes in democracy he believes in freedom he believes in free markets and therefore he deserves our support mr. president there are lots of pressures on on a president or the chief executive and they come from the media from the political opposition from the legislature from all sorts of places in your book you refer to lithuanian president lance Burgas who quote simpson in saying the strongest man in the world is he who stands alone and then you go on to say there must be absolute inflexibility on matters of principle does the president have to risk his political popularity even when swimming against the tide of popular opinion of the time no question about it the purpose of popularity is not to horde it but to use it a popular president should use his popularity to accomplish great objectives and here's where yelstin comes in Yeltsin was enormously popular after he put down the couch standing on top of that tank facing down card-carrying killers from the Stalinist coup attempt but then he had to make a decision to go toward the free market in order to do that he had to let the prices go up that risked his popularity his popularity is down but without doing that there's no way they can move to a free market that is using popularity rather than hoarding it my advice to any president any leader when you are popular don't just sit on it use it to accomplish great goals in other words don't lose your nerve the nerve is more important than any other factor in leadership many Asian leaders are very concerned that vacuum will develop if United States gives up its vital role in stability of Asia and as the tensions in Asia reduced what are we to assume the long range interest of Russia China in Japan which you refer them may try a Pacific triangle the Pacific triangle yes any one of the United States gradually withdraw its roll and the security from Pacific Basin well as you know there is a great move on at the present time among what I call the new isolations to have the United States to withdraw from Europe because there's no longer a Soviet threat and to withdraw from Asia for the same reason I believe that it's very important for us to maintain a presence in Europe I think it is indispensable that we do so in Asia if we withdraw from Asia what do you have you have Japan a an economic giant about a military militarily no nuclear weapons do you have China with nuclear weapons you have Russia with nuclear weapons now Russia it's true is not the Soviet Union but it still has nuclear weapons what does Japan do of the United States withdraws it has two options one it can make a deal with the Chinese or the Russians or it can go nuclear what I am simply saying is that the United States presence in Northeast Asia is absolutely indispensable the Japanese it is not in our interest it's not in their interest their own people don't want to go they have a stronger military we should not encourage them to have a stronger military if we leave they have no choice but to do so but that mr. president my follow-up question is that US has been encouraging very much the expanded Japanese military expense last decade or so then do you think mr. president I was wrong u.s. foreign policy and rather short-sighted the u.s. foreign policy encouraging to Japan to explain military well there is a view that Japan should increase its military spending I support only military spending for defensive purposes under no circumstances do I think it should Japan to develop an offensive cloud because basically we have to face it the memories the World War two is still out there that would terrify Koreans it would terrify people in Taiwan it would terrify people in Southeast Asia the Indonesians and the rest we cannot have that happen it is not in our interest it's not in the interest of Japan of the Japanese people for them to increase their military potential that's why we have got to retain the American guarantee of Japan's security against outside aggression and on the other hand Japan should increase what it does in the foreign aid area there it is already doing slightly more than the United States it should do massively more it should pay for the free ride it gets on the military side by increasing its foreign aid particularly for example to Russia it should bear one of the major burdens of helping the freedom survive in what is now Russia and of course the other former Soviet states there are those mr. president who argue that the presence of American troops in Japan itself constitutes a cork in the bottle theory is that something with which you could agree the description of cork in the bottle has been used of course in other respects as you know around the world I would accept it though I would accept it in this sense that if we move out if the American troops move out from Japan Japan is not going to sit there as a helpless giant this is the second most powerful economy in the world the Japanese people have a great and proud history and if we move out they are going to then have to take steps to increase their armaments enormous Lee and that would have tragic repercussions all over Asia in the rest of the world as president since the end of World War two American troops have been in Korea and not only that for more than a hundred years Korea in the United States have had extremely peaceful productive relationships and as Korea has grown dynamically and has been able to take on more of the challenges of modern life it also evolves into a potential long-term ally for the United States that is certainly the disposition of Korean leaders would you foresee a more responsible assuming rule for Korea as a real partner of the United States in the region perhaps to offset Japanese growth or simply to maintain our presence in a very significant way I wouldn't put it in terms of offsetting anybody else let me say the Korean American relationship is good for Korea and it's good for us it's remarkable that Korea has done what it did see Japan after World War two had an economic miracle but Japan had an infrastructure of people who knew how to run a modern private enterprise economy Korea had nothing it had to start from scratch it had a per capita income of only $50 when I visited there in 1953 it's now $4,600 that is very exciting Korea also has a military potential and Korea should play a role diplomatically on the world scene Korea is a valued ally of the United States it they need us to assure their defence against a possible attack from North Korea but we need them as an influential partner on the world scene it's now in the United Nations because Korea can be a better example for example - and now what I call second world countries of what countries that are low on the totem pole in terms of production can do if they adopt free market and democratic principles a democratic growing strong Korea is in our interest but it's in the interests of those who cherish freedom all over the world mr. president while several countries are breaking up into smaller states such as former Soviet Union in Yugoslavia others are uniting and Germany has been often cited as model for Korean reunification as you have stated mr. president korean case is quite different and there was a bitter war between south and north which in 1953 trip you have witnessed and you described it in your book in details for 47 years that North Korea has been completely isolated from the world while South Korea became international player what do you think of Korean reunification and how do you think it can best be achieved well first naturally I'm for it that's like saying I'm I'm against sin because basically it's unnatural for Korea to be divided just as was unnatural for the Germans to be divided the Germans are now together but for the Koreans to get together will be more difficult than for the Germans to get together because the differences between North and South are even much greater than were the differences between West Germany and East Germany what has to happen here is that the Koreans themselves must work this out but on the other hand others can play a role the Chinese for example one of the reasons it's very important for the United States to continue a very good close relationship with China is that China has good relations with North Korea China can influence North Korea I believe Russia maybe can and not as much as the Soviet Union could have possibly but Russia at least will have the intention to do so I think too that as far as the United States is concerned we will use all of our influence in Worm world forums for example including the UN the nuclear proliferation organizations and so forth we will use our influence to get the North Koreans to abandon their plans to go forward with a nuclear capability and therefore to pave the way for north-south agreement as I as I know as you know much better than I and our audience knows much better much better there been some encouraging signs lately but it's been only rhetoric as far as North Korea is concerned it has been substance as far as South Korea is concerned what has to happen now is that all of us the Chinese the Americans the other interested parties in that area the Japanese as well might play a role have got to bring economic and political on the north to face up to the reality that this unnatural division must end because it's good for both that it end mr. president in the years ahead the remaining part of the the 90s and perhaps even into the year 2000 and beyond there will be increasing pressures on the United States to pay more attention to its domestic house get it in order you mentioned for example and seize the moment the problems of drug abuse education inadequate medical care and all sorts of pressures that are operating to refocus our attention at home now that the Cold War has been won and supposedly we don't to worry about that anymore can the United States remain a viable reliable ally with these pressures operating at home to focus those energies and those resources inward we would be a good long-term partner for our allies and can we play the role that you've described it's difficult at this time because we're in a recession it's a mild one but it's the longest one since the end of World War two there's a tendency then in both political parties to turn inward and say we've got to devote our attention to our problems at home and let the rest of the world take care of itself I think we have to realize however that foreign and domestic policy are like Siamese twins neither can survive without the other the American people will not support a strong foreign policy unless you have a strong domestic policy and by the same token the United States cannot be at peace in a world of wars we can't have a strong American economy and a sick world economy so we have to therefore have a foreign policy which will move toward a peaceful world and a productive work for example take the area of trade trade means jobs for us to go isolationist and protectionist means that we will save the jobs of some and lose the jobs of many times many more so one of the circumstances then I am for dealing with our domestic problems but I realize that you cannot deal with our domestic problems effectively unless you all so have an effective way to deal with your foreign problems the United States must continue to play a role in Asia in Europe and of course and what I now call the second world mr. president you have an out of office for 18 years are you having very influential policy in the United States your recent conference in Washington made the news throughout the world we watched in at home in Korea and your private member's circulation in Washington DC initiated greater debate in Russian fate and in your recent reporting about calling mr. Pat Buchanan to withdraw from presidential race all this shows how influential you are in the United States mr. president what do you think the formal role I mean role of former presidents and Democratic world democratic society such as country like Korea where the democracy is still young a former president and there now I guess four of us a farmer president will have a role to the extent that he wants to play it I concentrate only on foreign policy and people will listen only when you have something to say when you don't have something to say they do not listen there can be no formal formal role the parliamentary system is a little better that way for example when Churchill was defeated back in 1945 he's still a member of parliament he still had a forum a farmer president has no forum unless he goes to speak to the breakfast club here or the merchants and manufacturers there or some of these other many who do invite them to speak it's very hard to delineate the role but I would say that if a former president has something to say he will be listened to he has been president he has her reputation and but the main point is he's got to have something substantive to say he just can't get up there and and make do with the fact that he has this great office and has had it the reputation isn't enough mr. president you have known so many leaders in your time in fact you wrote a book called leaders of all of those leaders of the pre Cold War era of the Cold War era and the post-cold war hero who stands out as your own personal hero is there one well everyone's personal hero certainly in the West it has to be Winston Churchill I didn't know him when he was at his best but Churchill at half-speed was better than almost any other leader at full speed among others who impressed me enormously and I will leave out US leaders that's another factor de Gaulle was a very impressive leader he's one you don't forget and then in Asia I remember many leaders there in Japan Yoshida who is really the one who made possible the modern Japan I think in China for example of Joe in live who was a farsighted leader I didn't agree with him on a lot of things but he was a farsighted leader I can't say that there's one I would put above the others except that Churchill if you're going to pick a man to the century he has to come in first mr. president you certainly have had something to say to us this evening and on behalf of millions of SBS viewers on behalf of the Seoul broadcasting system itself I'd like to thank you for providing us with this dynamic and insightful 30 minutes interview thank you so much Thank You mr. president engaging us very gracious of you to spend this evening with us well thank you and I wish you well you in your new program and I want to extend my best wishes and mrs. Nixon's best wishes to our many friends in Korea many of them we have not met that we have very fond memories of all of them

Channel: Richard Nixon Foundation

Views: 196,163

Rating: 4.8587818 out of 5

Keywords: Richard Nixon, Inside Washington (TV Program), South Korea (Country), President Of The United States (Government Office Or Title)

Id: o2mhvEuGHLI

Length: 36min 26sec (2186 seconds)

Published: Sun Apr 05 2015

Reddit Comments

[u/b_meme]

Wow this is perfect. And of course he was right and Clinton mucked up the Russian rebuilding, Yeltzin was a drunk and the people got tired and turned toward autocracy with Putin in 2000. And the part about China, the hardliners in the CCP have taken the cue from the Soviet failure by ditching communism for state capitalism and avoiding democracy

[u/DoctorEmperor]

For real, seeing Richard Nixon discuss Clinton’s response to the USSR falling was freaking mind blowing the first time I saw it. Two historical figures that I assumed had never crossed paths at all

[u/punarob]

I have to wonder what he would think of his party being aligned with and deferring to a Russian dictator.

[u/IllInflation8]

He gave it a perfect formulation: New despotism. In the meantime it even reached the west, through Trump, Brexit and similar catastrophic events.

[u/Shiloh86-12]

Nixon was an extremely smart man but not a particularly good man, so in him we have the interesting phenomenon of many great ideas juxtaposed with many terrible ideas (he and Kissinger are natural colleagues in that respect). This is one area where you can see Kissinger's insightful, shrewd thinking rubbed off on him.

[u/Techgeekout]

God this is depressing. If only :(

[u/lugeadroit]

He was painfully wrong about Yeltsin, which culminated in the public falling out between the two before Nixon’s death. It’s ironic how antagonistic populists can be to democracy.

[u/coolboy182]

Minus watergate Nixon was one of the best presidents of the 20th century. He was basically a Rockefeller republican who pushed for stuff like healthcare reform and even a form of ubi as well as creating the EPA. It’s fair to say he bungled Cambodia but still he took a realistic approach to diplomacy with China and even Vietnam in his second term. There’s a book a read a while ago that’s name is something along the lines of “Foreign policy from Nixon to Obama”. It’s really good and goes in-depth about the Nixon presidency I wish I could find it again because it’s really excellent.

[u/ExtremelyQualified]

Remember when GOP candidates could form sentences? What a glorious age.