Richard Nixon on Nightline with Ted Koppel | FULL INTERVIEW January 7, 1992

Mr President let me let me start off by hitting you with a tough one and then we're going to get into uh some of the deeper thinking of what you have done on foreign policy and domestic policy also anytime you appear since 1974 there is always a chorus of criticism that says why are you putting that man on television uh he disgraced the office of the presidency shouldn't be there you shouldn't be listening to what he has to say now I present you with that so you can respond to it directly why should you be on television why should why should you still be writing books well I wouldn't be on television and I wouldn't be writing books and I I thought I had something to say that I didn't feel anyone else was saying or saying it adequately and as far as people who put me on or people who listen uh they must feel that uh that is the situation too they must agree with that and that's why I go on in fact it isn't a question of my asking to go on as you know no indeed we we've been after you for a long time time to come on I've been on a couple of times with you before once from China right uh and but but I mean the the the question seems to be that somehow you disqualified yourself it's not a question the criticism seems to be that somehow you have disqualified yourself from being the Elder Statesman oh I understand the criticism but I also understand that in today's world it's important to hear from people who have experience in world affairs and who have something to say that needs to be said and in my last book seiz the moment I try to do that and I think it's very important that I do continue to do that it would it be easy for me to do like many other farmer officials to spend my time relaxing playing golf playing bridge and that sort of thing uh but as far as I'm concerned when I have so little time left I want to use every minute of of It sharing my views to the extent that they are useful with others whether they disagree with them or not not I think it's important now that we hear all the views we can possibly get so that we make the right decision as you look around you now as you look at this new presidential campaign coming up you and I met a few weeks ago and you had some interesting observations to make for example about the impact of a fellow named David Duke now since that time there's been another fellow by the name of Pat Buchanan who used to work for you uh who has also thrown his hat into the ring give us your analysis of what the of what the Duke Factor will be and then if you think it's going to be a totally separate thing what the Buchanan Factor will be well the two are very different people to begin with uh they are both conservatives or at least they claim to be conservatives there's no question that Pat Buchanan is a true believing conservative I don't know David Duke but from what I read about him he is out of the mainstream he's not a Democrat he's not a republic Republican and I understand why some of the Republican chairman don't even want him on the ballot as a matter of fact I I think Massachusetts probably was correct in putting him on the ballot because it's best to knock him out running for the Republican nomination than to have him run as an independent if he runs as an independent he would siphon votes off potentially from our presidential candidate now let's look at Buchanan I know him very well because as you know we've worked together for over 20 years uh he is a passionate true believing conservative uh he is not a nut he's not a racist he's not anti-semitic uh he is very pro-american am and that makes him appear to be anti- others anti uh other countries uh but it's more that he is pro-american uh I would say that he's a man who feels so strongly that he'd rather be right than be president and that's probably what's going to happen to him uh on the other hand in a state like New Hampshire which is in recession Buchanan will get over 40% of the vote uh he will also make an impression in some of the other primaries he will lose and at the convention he'll make a fine speech supporting President Bush because he will realize that the choice is not between President Bush and somebody better but between President Bush and somebody much worse and Buchanan will support him and be a very effective supporter so what's the point I mean why go through the agony of these months is it just for that moment of Glory then in New Hampshire where you can say I got 40% against an incumbent president no Pat doesn't uh work that way he believes in his conservative principles he doesn't think the current Administration represents those principles adequately he believes that if he gets out there and campaigns for those principles they will have to listen to him and that he may be able to affect the platform and possibly the course of events in the next Administration that's why he's in it and uh I think under those circumstances you really can't criticize him for trying but in the end there's no question that he will be supporting the bush Quail ticket enthusiastically because the choice will be something that he will really cannot accept go back if you would for a moment to an analysis that you gave me a few weeks ago about David Duke and you drew the analogy between uh 1988 you you made the observation that even though it looked as though Bush defeated dakus in a landslide it was only an electoral Landslide it wasn't a landslide in the popular vote and and how you think the Duke candidacy might have an impact there well the Duke candidacy could have somewhat the same effect that the Wallace candidate had candidacy had on me in 1968 Wallace got about 10 to 12% of the vote uh but polls indicated because he was a conservative that about two out of the three votes he got came from me rather than from Hubert hry humpry it therefore made a race which otherwise uh would have been virtual a small Landslide it made it very very close now in the case of Duke he's not going to get if he runs as an independent 10 to 12% he could get three to four to 5% and in close States states like California Illinois Ohio uh New York Pennsylvania in close states that could make a difference therefore it's very important that Duke be knocked out early on uh we don't want any part of him as far as accepting the fact that he is a republican because he isn't he isn't a republican he isn't a Democrat he's just for Duke that's all let's talk about a a Democrat who almost did and I I gather that you have been in touch with Mario cor even since he decided not to run why do you think he made that decision I expected him to run uh but I think he looked looked at the situation in his own State he felt that unless he could handle the budget problem there that that would be a liability which would run the risk of his not being able to run a good race for the presidency Cuomo doesn't want to lose we must remember that before he had his victories for governor on two occasions that he' lost a couple of times he doesn't want to lose again I think he probably decided that well he's still young enough he can make it next time and so I think he'll be in the ring in 96 I think he would have been better advised probably to run because of all of the democratic candidates he's the only heavyweight uh the others I would say are either lightweights or at best middleweights at least at this time I would add however in in effect that that will change uh once one of the Democrats nominate is nominated uh then uh he can get uh a very great lift uh from media steroids because they will give him the lift and they can make a lightweight a heavyweight virtually overnight so I think the Democratic nominee whoever it is in this period assuming that the recession is still on we'll run a good race but Bush will win when you say assuming the recession is still on let me let me pin you down on that one a little bit you think the recession is so going to be on obviously the president's going to do everything he possibly can even if it's done with smoke and mirrors to at least give the impression that the recession is over uh am I inferring too much if if I infer that you don't think that's going to happen no I think the recession should be over or at least a recovery should begin not a very strong recovery but enough of a recovery so that the recession is not the issue that it is today I think that should begin in the summer but even if the recession continues in in a somewhat diminished form you still think that President Bush is strong enough to beat any of the Democrats out there right now I do it will be a close race uh but he will win he will win by winning all of the South he will win all the South incidentally except for a possibly a few border Straits even if Clinton is nominated uh and then he will pick up an addition some Heartland States Illinois and Ohio California is going to be very tough for him New York Pennsylvania these states will be very tough for him but I see him winning uh due to the due to incidentally something he's criticized for that he's the only candidate in the field who is really a heavyweight he's the only candidate in the field who knows foreign policy now I know that all the polls show that people don't care about foreign policy but they will and President Bush should campaign on foreign and domestic policy because he will demolish any of the democratic opponents all of whom are amateurs in foreign policy they know very little about and most of them what they do know is wrong all right let's take a short break we'll be back with former President Nixon in just a moment back once again with former president Richard Nixon even as we speak uh President Bush is in Japan uh and there is sort of a a sense even though I think the president is doing what he can uh to Tamp it down a little bit there's a sense that he's over there with all these heavyweight businessmen uh to engage in a little bit of arm twisting you don't think that's necessarily the smartest thing to do do you well I feel it's very important to keep the whole Japanese American relationship in perspective now let's just look at the two countries what the stakes are in the first place between the two of us Japan and the United States with 8% of the people in the world produce 40% of the world's wealth if the two of us can work together we can affect the course of events of the whole world for the next 10 years into the next Century it's very important that we recognize that we have common interests we have common interests in another respect we are both democracies we are both for the free market uh we are both committed to peace we don't have designs on E any on the other territorially or any other way having all those things in mind we have to recognize because we are the two strongest economies in the world we're going to be competitive we're going to have differences was the president well advised do you think to take these Business Leaders along with him I mean it does look as though they've gone over to engage in a little Japan bashing I can't uh be critical of the president on that because he had to look at what the situation was in so far as his domestic policies were concerned the criticism he was getting for spending all of this time in foreign policy and not enough on domestic policy his concern about the recession whether he was right or not it'll depend upon what happens when he comes back whether the polls go up or the polls go down you mean politically whether politically we're speaking of politically but I'm asking you as a foreign policy decision was it was it I mean you know how sensitive the Japanese are to things like that should we care about how sensitive they are I think as far as the Japanese are concerned uh as the Prime Minister indicated they're aware of the fact that uh they've had a virtual free ride in the foreign policy area because of the US commitment uh and they expect some bashing uh I think it's a mistake however I think Japan bashing on the part of the United States is a mistake I think uh American bashing on the part of some Japanese which as you know is developing at the present time is a mistake I think too that as far as our policy is concerned uh we have to get something straight let me demolish some of the myths one the myth that uh the Japanese policies on trade and so forth have caused the recession that's not true we would have had a recession whether we'd had any differences with Japan or not uh the idea that Japan is now going to own most of America uh there's no basis for that they have a very strong economy we have a very strong economy I'd make another Point too uh that when we talk about trade I looked at the numbers there a bit uh if all of the non-tariff barriers which are wrong the Japanese have if all of their other trade restrictions which are wrong particularly for example on Rice Etc if we got rid of all of them uh as far as the trade deficit is concerned which is about $60 billion a year it would amount to only8 to10 billion a year in working on that off that deficit we have to look at other words to ourselves rather than just to the Japanese we've got to bargain with them to get them to get rid of their restrictions but we got to get rid of some of ours as well we're going to be better served by a policy of free and fair trade than one of trying to protect against each other I want to take another brief uh break and when we come back some of the views that you have about the Middle East most particularly what we should be doing about Iraq more on that when we come back in a moment and with former president Richard nion I said before the break Mr President that I was a little surprised uh when I read your book and I read what was really a a a critical observation on your part of both the bush and the Reagan administrations for having dealt with the Iranians for having dealt with the Iraqis for having sold as many weapons to the Iraqi as they did for having engaged in an arms for hostages deal with the Iranians you were pretty tough well I guess I can be pretty tough because I don't have to make the decisions and I am sure that both of them had facts that were made available to them that may not have been made been made available to me uh but I believe that my analysis is an honest one I think it's a fair one and I think in retrospect that both of them might reach the same conclusion that it was just not a smart thing to do in either case uh well let's first look at the situation of helping Iraq during the Iraq Iran War we had to balance the situation there and so that perhaps is a justification for that uh as far as Iran is concerned uh the idea that we're going to find some people in Iran are going to be Moder it's just pure nonsense here's a country that is engaged in over 400 terrorist incidents and incidentally it's still a terrorist State uh there's no question about that you find that it's a little bit demeaning for the United States to be in effect thanking and congratulating both the Iranians and the syrians for helping in the release of hostages when they were directly or indirectly responsible for the taking of those hostages in the first place absolutely you don't thank a kidnapper for returning the individual that he's kid kidnapped particularly after you've paid him off to an extent now I think that as far as that is concerned they deserve no brownie points at all for returning hostages that they shouldn't have taken in the first place one more interesting footnote about Iraq uh and and it's sort of buried in your book and yet you're saying if we can't find or if Iraq if Saddam Hussein is not totally Cooperative uh in letting those un inspection teams go in that we are to bomb a few of those facilities I was I was surprised to read that no doubt about it uh we have to understand that there's been some criticism of President Bush for not going further for not continuing the war for a couple of more days and taking out out Saddam Hussein and have him die in a bunker as Hitler had since he' compared him with Hitler I understand why he didn't the reason that he didn't is that he had at the outset Enlisted the Congress and also Enlisted the Allies for one purpose and that was to get Iraq uh out of uh Kuwait once that was accomplished the concept of a just War would not allow him to carry the war further but now at this time in the event that Saddam Hussein stiffs the UN doesn't allow inspection and if we have good evidence hard evidence that they he is going forward with chemical or nuclear or any other kind of weapons no doubt we should go in after a warning and bomb him you were not all that easy on the kuwaitis in your book either on the on the Kuwaiti royal family I would say that I find it uh really revolting that the Kuwaiti royal family after all of the money that has been spent and the lives that have been lost in order to save their country that they have made no progress whatever that I can see in so far as political reform is concerned the you know the American people are very idealistic uh we fight our Wars we hope to success to Victory but we also have to be uh urged on we have to be inspired by ideals and to fight a war to put back on the throne uh a regime that denies uh civil rights that is doesn't even make an any the attempt to move toward democracy is something that most Americans are repelled by let's move a little broader now on the Middle East and then I want to talk to you briefly also about the Soviet Union uh you make the observation in your book and you say that you have said it many times when you were president of the United States that no president is ever going to Desert Israel right correct I put it more bluntly I said as I told Congressional leaders during the 1973 Yan Kipper War no American president will let Israel go down the Tobe democrat or republican it's not an isue that is stated fairly categorically and yet in your book you make it clear at the same time that Israel really is not of any enormous strategic value to the United States anymore that's correct so why then would the United States continue to burden itself with huge loans in some cases outright grants to the Israelis jeopardize possibly uh Young American fighting men uh when there is no strategic value involved or little strategic because the United States is concerned by more than strategic values uh that's maybe a weakness but it's the way we are uh and there are moral issues involved here we don't have an alliance with Israel as you know they're not a an ally of the United States in a technical sense but we have a bond to Israel that's much stronger it's a moral commitment a moral commitment because of what happened uh during the Holocaust and a moral commitment because it is a democracy the only democracy in that area and under the circumstances that is why American presidents and the American people in the future will support all out the survival of Israel if it's attack you've always been a very tough pragmatic man uh and I just wonder if you were the president of Israel and you heard Richard Nixon talking that way or for that matter heard any sitting American president talk that way and say but there's really no strategic value anymore how much Faith would you place in that kind of a moral Commitment if push really came to show if I were the president of Israel I put a great deal of faith in it because of the track record of the United States and also because he would know that that is the way the American people are there is no doubt whatever of our commitment to Israel although you referred Mr President to the track record the track record was established at a time when the Soviet Union tended to be allied with Israel's enemies with the Arab world and we're not worried about the Soviet Union anymore in that sense the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore therefore haven't things changed appreciably in the Middle East and then we'll use that to get into the Soviet Union well at the present time uh we could be thankful for the fact that this is the best opportunity in 40 years to make the right kind of a deal in the Middle East because the Soviet Union no longer is going to poison the deal as they would have previously and have in every previous virtually every previous crisis that we've had uh the Iraqis have been taken out of the play the Egyptians were taken out by Camp David uh the Saudis are now being at least not unhelpful so under the circumstances this is the time for Israel to make its deal it also should make its deal now for another reason Israel at the present time is the only nation in nation in the area that has Atomic weapons others are going to get them therefore it's better for Israel to make the deal now rather than waiting till later because while Israel would be responsible in so far as the use of weapons were concerned use them onlyi in defense some of the crazies out there might not be responsible and that's why for Israel for the United States it's important for us to make this deal rather than waiting until later when they would be looking down our throats you state that categorically that the Israelis have Atomic weapons you know they have never admitted it publicly you stated as a former president of the United States you must know what you're talking about uh I'm not going to divulge any of my uh so-called uh secret information and so forth but I will say this that if I were in Israeli uh I wouldn't indicate that I had them and I wouldn't indicate that I didn't have them but let me say most experts in the area assume that they have them and as long as they assume that that's enough but you don't qu because the Israel the Israelis will use them you didn't qualified here this evening and you didn't qualify it in your book you stated it categorically in your book also and I'm sure you were very that I believe based on what I know that that is the case all right Mr President we're going to take another break and when we come back we'll talk about the Soviet Union or what was the Soviet Union with former President Nixon and we're back once again with former president Richard Nixon Mr President uh let's take a look at the Soviet Union I must tell you uh I read you were kind enough to give me the the gall of your book before it was printed uh and I was surprised at uh how percept you were with regard to yilson versus gorbachov you effect kissed gorbachov off months ago yes the book was finished in September and that's when I wrote the garbage off off and not because I wanted to but because that was the fact well it wasn't just a matter of kissing him off but you were you were quite critical of those in the in the administration uh who were being somewhat hesitant about giving yilson his due well I think it's been a mistake to to engage in yelon bashy U I don't think he's the second coming I don't think anybody is as a matter of fact but on the other hand he has the power uh he has repudiated communism he is for the free market he is going to adopt a foreign policy which is not aggressive uh he's going to cut off all Aid to Cuba and Afghanistan and these other losers in the third world uh and anybody that does those things deserves the support of the United States we should hope that he survives you think he will I think he will survive I am uh more optimistic on that than many are uh I think he will survive first because he believes in the right things uh he is the only alternative uh I think second he will survive because he is a very strong leader third he has a characteristic that every leader should have he isn't afraid to have people smarter than he is around him he has surrounded himself with very bright young people people and they are they have worked out his economic plans garbacho unfortunately who was very bright himself made a mistake he was surrounded by what I would call First Rate second rate people except possibly for Chev naazi who was first first rate in every respect what would you say is the biggest danger facing that entity which we used to call the Soviet Union that that new Commonwealth is it nationalism is it the ethnic divisions that have existed uh and have been essentially suppressed over the last 70 some odd years is it the danger of nuclear proliferation that is of some of these weapons falling into other hands nationalism is a danger uh but it's one that I think that yelon will be shrewed enough to handle uh as far as nuclear proliferation is concerned it isn't a question of the weapons proliferating it's a question of the knowledge to make them proliferates they're not going to take these weapons and cart them over to somebody else won't know how to use them or to make them and in that respect you've got to find a way to improve the Russian economy so that they will stay home and a way to work out joint uh Ventures with the United States and other Western Country scientists so that they will have a place to go you want to remember of course that German scientists weron Brown and others helped us develop our missile capability we don't want to have the Russian or Soviet scientists who are very very good in this area they may be last in many other areas but they're very good in this area we don't have that we don't want to have them ending up in places like Libya or Syria or other Rogue States and how do you prevent that it is a difficult thing to do but the point is to give them a better option give them a better option at home improved conditions there other activities for them to engage in and better options in working with their compatriots abroad well I mean when you talk about you've got to give them back who are you talking about that the United States has to do that that the United States has to be helpful the United States has to be helpful not only in that respect but also uh with regard to uh humanitarian Aid with regard to possible aid for the transition purposes and so forth but we have to recognize that whereas right after the great victory in World War II we had to do it alone because there was no one else to do it that now after the defeat of Communism in 1991 there are others who should assume that birth more than we do those that we helped after World War II the Germans have already done for their own reasons you know have provided a considerable amount of help to the farmer Soviet Union but the Japanese should pick up a lot of the tab a lot of Americans are saying how can we afford to continue giving foreign aid around the world when things are going so badly in our own economy uh people have a tendency to look upon foreign aid as being another variation of Charity you agree totally not if it were charity then we wouldn't do it although we are a very generous people as you know whenever there's an earthquake or a tragedy any place in the world Americans pour out their hearts and their money as well but on the other hand as far as foreign a are concerned we're doing it for our own interest it's very important at this time that yelon not fail because as Russia goes the rest of the farmer repu Soviet Union will also go as you look back now and and you've live during an extraordinary period And I hope you don't feel I'm giving away any secrets when I say you're going to be 79 later this week as you look back now on your career do you think we are better positioned today than we have ever been assess for me the you know the possible dangers and and and the possible gains we still live in a very dangerous world because of the instability in the world but that instability is very as preferable to what it was before when you had stability with all the power in the Soviet Union in One Source uh that was a potential danger to the United States of great magnitude because that was the only Power in the world that could destroy the United States today that power has been passed around to others the Russians Ukrainian for example the control of nuclear weapons as you know uh is now in the hands of four the button so-called that cannot be pushed unless four agree that makes it a much safer world I would say as far as the world generally is concerned though it's a much more hopeful world because of the march of democracy when you stop to think that today as Freedom House reported just last week over half the countries in the world are now democracies are in the way to becoming democracies that's something new in the world when you think that today we have a situation where freedom freedom is on the March every place communism has been discredited socialism has been discredited authoritarianism has been discredited the people of the world know that freedom works it works in the United States it works in Western Europe it works in Japan and if we can help make it work in the former Soviet Union then it means the victory will have been won and it'll mean the next Century Can Be A Century Of Peace it can be a century of progress it could be a century of freedom and that's something that's certainly worth Americans supporting whether with foreign aid or any other facility we can use President Nixon thank you very much it's been a pleasure speaking with you happy birthday and uh I I wish you good fortune with your new book and hope to have you back for your 80th well I hope I don't celebrate my 80th on television because that's the time when you don't want to look back you want to look forward to see what you're going to do with the rest of your life there you go thank you sir

Channel: Richard Nixon Foundation

Views: 232,381

Keywords: Richard Nixon, pat nixon, presidents, best us presidents, watergate, impeachment, israel, israel conflict, middle east, peace in the middle east, president nixon, nixon middle east, nixon yom kippur war, support for israel, israeli support, ted koppel, nightline, nightline abc, abc nightline, richard nixon nightline

Id: iWPwT6DPrDw

Length: 30min 2sec (1802 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 08 2023