116 THE END OF THE COLD WAR
of . . . a treaty whose co-signatory is a nation conducting criminal
activities against a largely defenceless people?’ Shultz replied: ‘Come
off it, Senator.’ He added: ‘We have rallied others, and we have done
things that are completely consistent with our view of Soviet behaviour
in Afghanistan. Not only that, Soviet behaviour in Cambodia. Not
only that, Soviet behaviour in Nicaragua. Not only that, Soviet treat-
ment of individuals in the Soviet Union.’ But the important thing,
Shultz stressed, was to go on working to achieve an arms reduction
agreement and prevent a Third World War.^95
The American administration was under assault for both softness
and hardness, and Weinberger was attacked as often as Shultz. Leading
veterans in the Senate queried whether the sums of money disbursed
to the Defense Department were being well spent. Senator John W.
Warner of Virginia proposed to cap the increase in appropriations at
three per cent per annum after allowing for inflation. On 4 February,
when Weinberger appeared before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Senator John C. Stennis, a Democrat from Mississippi,
exclaimed: ‘Tell us what we’ve gotten for that money. Why could you
not try harder to make it go further?’^96 Weinberger asked the senators
to remember that the USSR was still developing new weapons.^97
Unlike Shultz, he did not think it mattered much who Chernenko’s
eventual successor as General Secretary might be. He wanted to
tighten the pressure rather than make overtures. The balance of influ-
ence in the American administration between Weinberger and Shultz
continued to depend on which of them had the President’s ear. The
situation was not primed for easy conciliation with the USSR.