European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - February 25, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse Monday february 25, 1991 the stars and stripes a Page 13william f. Buckley Day opens door for new Gorbachev q Why did you say it was so important to the United states that Mikhail Gorbachev remain m Power a because it is Gorbachev who brought about Glas nost and perestroika the two foundation stones of the new Russia. Q but even if that were True a there were other factors of course a Gorbachev is now restricting Reform rather than encouraging it in t Hea Wem of course he has difficulties As anyone would in such situations. There Are the conservatives in the Kremlin who wish they could have Back the Good old Days. A a a . A a a a a a a a a q but these conservatives As you Call them Are in fact governing Russia Arentt they i mean there is bloodletting of the old Hungary Czechoslovakia style in the Baltic restrictions Are increasing soviet armies remain in Eastern Europe and arms reduction is stalled. Does no to this mean the conservatives Are really in control 7 a there is no doubt they have considerable influence a the Nomen Latura the Kab the military a but i ask you to imagine How much worse off the soviet Union would be without Gorbachev. Well what Are you doing q i am imagining. A i Hope you Are not permitting yourself to say that things in the soviet Union weren to worse in the old Days. That is irresponsible. Q no no of course they were worse in the old Days. But you asked me another question you asked whether things would be worse if Gorbachev were to lose Power and i am not sure they would be. The fact of it is that he is not the foundation on which moderate Russia rests. If he were to disappear perhaps the military Industrial Complex would prevail perhaps it would not. If it did it would face a hostile world and hostility within the soviet Union if it did not prevail then the liberalization of Russia could proceed. A but of course wed be much worse off if the military took control and went Back to its old ways. There is no doubting this. Q assuming that the military could go Back to the old Days a i.e., assuming the soviet Union could overcome its economic distress the separatist tendencies of its republics the revolution of rising expectations the forfeiture of the loyalty of its entire intellectual class a wed be Back to a Gold War with the difference that Eastern Europe is irretrievably liberated and the Warsaw pact is demolished. we get Orr in such a world pending the overthrow of soviet tyranny is it any different from what we Are coexisting with in Chin a the fact of it is that Gorbachev is a reformer. Q was a reformer. Lenin at one Point was a Reform a a h0w�,, grew j0b, in my Fiji d pm wac . O at>mlrfll0n, no a of amp is prize in a i he it it a def then i blew it a. On May Community a bit or. So was Khrushchev. Gorbachev is a canny politician an opportunist and supremely a competitor. Witness his most recent Man Euver in the persian Gulf in which he has contrived to dilute the will of the coalition indulging the venerable addiction of the soviet government to make problems where it can make problems. Isnit your problem the conventional problem of the bureaucrat who simply does no to want to imagine an alternative to existing arrangements a certainly not. But we done to want to see a stretch of Europe 7,000 Miles Long convulsed by civil wars and instability do we Quot q Why not a a you can to be serious.1 q in a trying very Ard to be serious. I am asking the question in what Way does it Hurt the United states for the soviet Union to suffer from instability _ a instability plus 12,000 nuclear warheads is hardly in the Best interests of the United states. Q i done to see Why those warheads would be any More tempting to use against the United states than they were in the stable Days of Brezhnev and andro Pov. Of what use Are those warheads to anyone in the soviet Union save As weapons with which to threaten potential aggressors i am no a suggesting we threaten the soviet Union. But if theseus to be civil War in which one party is insisting that a Commonwealth cannot be one part free and one part slave should we be distressed that such a Point is made by russian elements insisting on Freedom a you can to take old saws fashioned at the time of our own civil War and apply them to the nuclear age. Q Why and anyway remember that we lost 16 percent of our population in the civil War. No one is yet suggesting that a soviet civil War would result in 46 million deaths. But if it were to do so apart from our regretting violent death because we regret violent death How is this a strategic concern of ours a especially if one party to the struggle within the soviet Union As would inevitably be the Case would represent the forces of Liberty a it is impossible to argue with you. Q no. Its impossible for you to argue with Pross Syndicate a Tom Wicker Victory can t erase War s tie to Energy policy As . Forces Roll toward military Victory Over Iraq president Bush a High approval rating seems unlikely to be shaken by his Cool response to the soviet peace combat ultimately winds Down however and patriotic Fervour begins to fade the . Public May begin to recall two circumstances among others that helped bring Oft the persian Gulf War a for 10 Long years before the iraqi invasion of Kuwait with Ronald Reagan in office for eight and George Bush for two their administrations actively assisted the now hated Saddam Hussein in his War with Iran and his Rise to a position of dominance in the Middle East in the last Days before he attacked Kuwait last a gust the Bush administration gave him a Green Light by specifically informing him that the United states had no interest in Middle East Border disputes. A for the same 10 Long years the Reagan and Bush administrations systematically dismantled the extensive Energy conservation and other policies instituted by presidents Nixon and Carter following the Oil shocks of the 1970s As a result when Saddam Hussein posed a new threat to Middle East Oil supplies the United states in the Reagan Bush years had achieved nothing approaching Energy Independence and had hardly even tried Carter with largely unrecognized prescience had called the Effort for Energy Independence a the moral equivalent of v. A a a. a. Reagan and Bush with largely Nrec cognized myopia pursued a course that gave Bush one reason a Oil supplies for the West and Japan a for engaging in real War. Now in the midst of a War at least partially fought for foreign Oil Bush has produced an Energy policy that demands no Energy conservation asks no consumer sacrifice imposes no Energy taxes sees no threat in heavy Reliance on imported Oil pursues Little real reduction in Oil consumption makes Only faint efforts to achieve cleaner air and puts at environmental risk the Arctic National wildlife Refuge which would be opened to Oil drilling and production. Yet All the Oil Likely to be found in the wildlife Refuge is far less than could be realized from Strong . Conservation measures. Worldwide in the next decade enough Energy could be saved by higher automobile gasoline mileage alone to double agricultural production in the third world a a savings that can to Possi Bly be realized unless the United states takes the Lead. Based on the record of a foolish decade and Bush a proposals for the next that a not Likely. . Oil consumption has increased and imports have doubled from 4.3 million barrels a Day in 1985 to More than 8 million just be Brethe iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That increase alone almost equals the total lost by the world Market owing to the invasion and the subsequent embargo on Iraq. Even with additional Domestic Oil production a the Bush administrations shortsighted substitute for conservation and alternative fuels a the presidents proposed new policy would rely on imports for 45 percent of. The Gargantuan. . Oil consumption that he still would permit. No wonder sen. Albert Gore of Tennessee termed the Bush plan a breathtakingly no wonder Wilfrid Kohl director of the Energy program at the Johns Hopkins school of advanced International studies termed it a terribly a an Energy Bill offered in the House by rep. Leon Panetta of California and 25 other democrats is both More demanding and More promising a among other things it would raise automotive Fleet mileage targets increase Federal Energy research spending particularly on alternative and renewable sources offer inducements to utilities and their Consumers to promote Energy conservation and impose an innovative gasoline tax that would take effect Only As crude Oil prices might decline. A conservation ethic would be maintained and Domestic producers would he protected from Oil import Price declines by a $16-per-barrel floor Price experts no doubt can find fault with the Panetta Bill some May demand additional or tougher measures. But its at least an attempt to make up for what Panetta called the a sad and frustrating example of a nation ignoring the lessons of in Sharp contrast Bush a continuing Energy myopia raises the hard question whether the sacrifices and bloodshed of desert storm May have to be undertaken anew a when some future Oil crisis finds the United states still dependent on hostile potentates far off Sheik Doms and its own Gas Guz Ling addiction. C new York tire of
