35. Editorial Note
In preparation for President Jimmy Carter’s April 25, 1977, interview with European journalists, President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski provided the President with a thematic overview in an April 23 memorandum. Brzezinki indicated that the interview would help the President “set the scene for the London summits” and afford him the opportunity to discuss his views on “industrial-state relations.” He devoted the first portion of the memorandum to the upcoming London meetings:
“The three meetings in London are all of a piece. In each, you have a chance to meet, on a group and personal basis, the leaders of most of our industrial state allies (you have seen so far Callaghan, Jenkins, Luns, Trudeau, Fukuda, and Soares). In each meeting, you will be able to lay out basic American commitments—both the steadfastness of purpose of a new Administration and directions and guidelines for the future.
“This is a start on a new time of building—different from the late 1940s (all start from an advanced industrial base, and the U.S. no longer has the same economic pre-eminence); but this time of building is just as challenging, just as vital, and even more difficult to gain popular support for new directions.
“Your trip is a direct extension of Vice President Mondale’s trip 92 hours after Inauguration: it is a break with the past, in that there is a much clearer sense that allies are important in their own right, and that these relations should have pre-eminence. The past three years of economic slump have also reaffirmed the need for strong industrial state partners, in order to guarantee the security and prosperity of any one [Page 144] nation. Interdependence has gone from being a slogan to being a practical reality in everyday life.
“Thus the summit meetings will not produce spectacular new initiatives or proposals for new institutions; that is not what is required, now. Instead, the various leaders need to begin thinking in common about problems in common. This can result in a framework for dealing jointly with basic issues; about building a broad framework of industrial state concerns leading to coordinated action. It is the creating of ways and working together—ways that can be developed and will endure over the coming years—that is the real ‘news’ to be expected from the summit, and the groundwork of future progress.
“Your energy policy is part of this new time of building. It will enable the United States to play a more effective role in the world. Clearly, foreign and domestic policies are related more closely together than at any other time in peacetime history.
“Basic Themes
“A number of basic American themes, to which you have been alluding in the past three months, will become clearer at the summit meetings:
“Leadership and Purpose: The emergence of the United States from a time of doubt and uncertainty, in which even some of our friends and allies abroad questioned our ability and willingness to act. An American sense of purpose has returned: but it is more mature, and is directed towards political and economic relations and developments—the building of new patterns of behavior and action for the future, in a shared leadership with other nations.
“Economic Actions: The need for coordinated strategies for ending the recession, and for breaking loose from the ‘stagnation’ pattern that led to the current difficulties (e.g. 15 million OECD unemployed). In all of the commercial issues—non-proliferation, arms transfers, defense procurement, advanced technology—there must also be a sharing of benefits. In defense procurement, a clear two-way street.
“Institutions: The importance of strengthening the work of existing institutions, whether NATO (where the issue is following-through on its potential) or the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, or the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, and the IEA.
“Global Problems: The need for common effort on the global problems that are either here, or are emerging: including the spread of nuclear weapons (an issue that is inseparable from secure energy resources for all nations), the transfer of conventional arms, the relationship between rich and poor countries. In each, industrial-state leadership is needed.
“Developing World: The importance of not seeing the industrial states as an exclusive club, but directly concerned with what is hap [Page 145] pening in the developing world. Interdependence extends clearly into this dimension; and only by building upon the potential in relations with developing states can we provide for our own future. This means a better response to poor country needs: especially in the poorest countries of all. In greater justice, there is greater strength for us all.
“European Unity: Genuine U.S. support for European unity—however tentative and faltering it may be at the tail end of a recession. This is no less than a basic respect for European integrity, and a recognition (based on the past three years in particular) of the vital need for a strong European Community to help us all meet economic difficulties.
“U.S. Response: The United States is prepared to respond in a forthcoming way to Western European ideas and interests (as well as those of Japan). For all of them, U.S. receptivity is an incentive to develop and speak out on their own perspectives, their own contributions to common efforts. Already, there has been a virtually unprecedented series of consultations with the Allies—whether in working with the Japanese, in the Mondale trip, or in the many consultations held directly with the North Atlantic Council.
“ NATO: A renewed American commitment to the NATO Alliance, with the emphasis on the strength of alliance unity, the value of existing strategy and doctrine, and the added value that can be gained from making NATO work more effectively than ever.
“Democracy and Human Rights: The added strength that all the Western nations draw from a renewed understanding of the democratic basis of common action—and of our internal political strength. For the first time the NATO Allies are all democracies, and—with developments in countries like Portugal and Greece (and Spain)—the basic vitality of democracy has been proved again. This has given an added impetus to the human dimensions of policy: not just human rights, but also the basic moral purpose of our nations which given them both legitimacy and strength.
“East-West: Working with Allies also involves East-West relations; including their interests in U.S. negotiations on SALT; Alliance responsibility for MBFR; better understandings on East-West trade; coordinated policy for Belgrade (which will come up at NATO the day after you are there)—as a constructive, non-confrontational effort that will still stress our shared concern for human rights.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Subject File, Box 50, Presidential Interviews: 1–4/77)
The interview took place in the Oval Office at the White House at 2:30 p.m. on April 25. The journalists conducting the interview included Fred Emery of The Times, London, Henri Pierre of Le Monde, Horst-Alexander Siebert of Die Welt, and Vittorio Zucconi of La Stampa, Turin. During the interview, Pierre inquired as to the President’s gen [Page 146] eral approach toward Europe and the European Community, noting that some of Carter’s predecessors “seemed to fear that a united Europe” might rise as a competitor to the United States and impact U.S. economic and political interests. Pierre asked if Carter held similar views. Carter responded:
“No. I think within 100 hours of my becoming President, the Vice President had begun consultations with the leaders of many nations in Europe. I have already met with Prime Minister Callaghan, with the leaders of Portugal, with the European Community, NATO. I will meet with the other leaders within the next 2 weeks. And this will likely be the only trip I shall take outside our country this year. I have no other plans at this time.
“I think all these items describe my deep concern about good relationships with Europe. I see no way that we can have a successful resolution of East-West problems without the full comprehension, understanding, participation with our allies and friends in Europe.
“We have, in addition to that, demonstrated, I think, in my own budget proposals to the Congress, an increasing emphasis on military capability within NATO. And I intend to stay over after the conference with the heads of state, to meet with the NATO leaders as well.
“The people of our country, regardless of who happens to be President, have a natural sense that our historical ties and our future are intimately related with the European countries.
“The other part of your question is that I strongly favor, perhaps more than my predecessors, a close interrelationship among the nations of Europe, the European Community, in particular.
“We have a legitimate reticence about trying to interfere, but I will do everything within the bounds of propriety to strengthen those natural ties—economically, politically, militarily—that do exist now among the countries of Europe and to strengthen them in the future. And when the nations involved consider it appropriate, I would certainly welcome the absorption within the European Community of Portugal and Spain.
“So, I think that already I have both come to realize and also have begun to act on the premise of a strong Europe as essential to our own good future and have recognized the importance of the bilateral relationships with the nations involved.” (Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, pages 776–777)
The full text of the interview transcript is ibid., pages 775–783.