- 8 -

A. It's a very important question. And I'm not sure I have a good answer to it. Because President Lopez Portillo looks at it from the perspective of the Mexican experience. And, of course, it is true that in Mexico the institutional framework evolved, which then permitted solutions to be found. And, of course, the question is: would it have been possible to evolve this framework in Mexico before the civil war?

President Reagan is conscious of the fact, which is also true, that Cuba and Nicaragua and, therefore, to some extent the Soviet Union, have supported the other side. And that cannot be denied either.

Now, is it possible to find a solution in which, which is not just a way-station for one side or the other to destroy its opponent. I think it is important for this dialogue between the two sides, to continue. I, as I said at the beginning, I don't know enough about the conditions in Salvador to know that it is possible to win for one side or the other. But I think these two perspectives should be discussed at greater length with mutual respect. But I recognize I haven't given you a solution.

Q. José Santiago Healy, Channel 13.

Mr. Kissinger, the U.S., however, has provided military assistance to the Salvadoran government, and within the next few days it will carry out joint maneuvers with Honduras. To what extent are Honduras and the U.S. resolving their

problems by military means and not politically. To what extent is this a military and not a political solution as you said.

A. No. What I said, I said two contradictory things. I have said, If I spoke here as a professor of political science, I would, of course, say a political solution is desirable. I've also said that as a historian I don't know any civil war in Spanish-speaking countries that ended in a political solution. And I've said that I don't exactly know the solution. It's a dilemma.

Q. It seems, to a certain extent, the U.S. has already adopted a military solution.

A. To a certain extent that's true. But so has the other side. And, therefore, as in all these things, the balance that we establish will determine the nature of the negotiations. I have learned one thing in press conferences. You should always quit and not let somebody ask an additional question. I promised it to this lady, and I will take her question.

Q. Doesn't the manufacturing of the neutron bomb go against President Reagan's good wishes to preserve world peace, because it will leave a cloud hanging over all countries of the world.

- 10 -

A. Well, you know, one can argue about the neutron bomb, whatever, but I have great difficulty understanding this problem. You can argue about it forever on technical grounds, but there is one aspect that totally eludes me. An ordinary atomic bomb kills by radiation and incineration. A neutron bomb kills by radiation only. A neutron bomb is considered immoral. I don't know why it is more moral to be burned to death in addition to being radiated, than it is to be only radiated. I can't understand the additional problem caused by the neutron bomb. I can understand why people are against the atomic bomb, but to make a moral distinction within categories of atomic bombs, that is beyond my imagination.

You have to remember I'm not a member of the Reagan Administration.

* * *