This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1258

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
(Palm Desert, California)

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 1:50 P.M. PST

NOVEMBER 27, 1971

SATURDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President, as you know, from Don Irwin's pool report, left the Dedication Ceremonies and drove over to the El Dorado Country Club with Bob Hope and Mrs. Hope. As the pool report points out, he is having lunch with Bob Hope and with Paul Jenkins, who is from Palm Desert. Paul Jenkins is Program Chairman for today's Dedication Ceremonies and is also a member of the Board of the Eisenhower Medical Center. Pollard Simons is also having lunch with the President. He is from Dallas, Texas.

Also, there with the President prior to lunch was the Vice President, Governor Reagan, Frank Sinatra and they spent time chatting there at the El Dorado before lunch.

President Nixon will play golf this afternoon before returning to San Clemente with Bob Hope and with Mr. Paul Jenkins and with Mr. Pollard Simons. Vice President Agnew will play golf this afternoon with Governor Reagan and Frank Sinatra and another man in the foursome. I wasn't able to get the fourth in the Vice President's foursome. The wire services are over at the El Dorado and they will cover the President's activities the rest of the day.

I am going to give you an announcement now. Then you will have an opportunity to do your work here and then we will return by helicopter as soon as you complete your work to San Clemente.

The information I am going to give you at this time has a strict embargo on it. It is embargoed until 3 p.m. Pacific time and I want to emphasize that that embargo means that it should not and will not move on your wire until 3 p.m. Pacific time. You, of course, may call your bureaus and file your stories with your bureaus, but it may not move on any wire service to any client out of your bureau until 3 p. m. Pacific time.

I will read the text of the joint announcement at this time:

MORE

#1258

- 4 -

#1258

Q. Didn't President Ceausescu of Romania come to the Western White House?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. Foreign Minister Manescu of Romania made a brief courtesy call at the Western White House a year and a half ago.

Q. Where will the Prime Minister be put up?

MR. ZIEGLER: Those arrangements have not been worked out yet.

Q. Will they meet in the compound at San Clemente?

MR. ZIEGLER: They will meet at the President's office at the Western White House. I do not know yet where the Japanese official party will stay.

Q. Will Secretary Connally meet separately with the Japanese Finance Minister?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not prepared to say to you or to announce to you who the official Japanese party will be, but for your information -- not yours, but others here -- the Finance Minister of Japan is Mikio Mizuta. The Japanese will have to announce the make-up of their official party. If he is part of the official party, I am sure there would be separate meetings.

Q. Did the President send diplomatic notes to India and Pakistan and the Soviet Union within the last couple of days?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not prepared to talk about what diplomatic exchanges we may have had in relation to the India and Pakistan situation.

Q. Can you rule them out?

MR. ZIEGLER: I won't speak to them. I won't talk to you about diplomatic exchanges.

Q. Are you going to brief tomorrow?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will brief tomorrow at the Surf and Sand at 9:00 A.M.

Q. When is the President going back to Washington?

MR. ZIEGLER: He hasn't decided yet. He will, I am sure, decide that tomorrow and I may be able to tell you then. That is one of the reasons I want you to come together at 9:00 A.M. I will talk to you about that then.

Q. Ron, who is Pollard Simons, the other member of the board?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is a businessman from Dallas, Texas.

Q. Is he involved with the Eisenhower Center?

MR. ZIEGLER: He is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Eisenhower Medical Center.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

END #1258 (AT 2:05 P.M. PST.)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1259

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
(Laguna Beach, California)

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 8:45 A.M. PST

NOVEMBER 28, 1971

SUNDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The following is the text of an announcement which will be made simultaneously in Bonn at 9 a.m. What I am going to read now is embargoed until 9 a.m. You can move it on the wire, embargoed for 9 a.m. Pacific time. I will read the text of the joint announcement.

Prior to his visit to Peking and Moscow, President Nixon has expressed a desire to meet with Chancellor Brandt of the Federal Republic of Germany to review the international situation. Chancellor Brandt has agreed to meet with President Nixon at Key Biscayne, Florida, on December 28th and 29th to discuss the current international issues and matters of bilateral concern to the two countries.

That is the end of the official announcement.

Participating in the meetings with President Nixon will be Secretary of State Rogers, the Secretary of the Treasury Connally, and Dr. Henry Kissinger. Participating in the meetings with Willy Brandt will be Minister Walter Scheel, the Foreign Minister and Finance Minister Karl Schiller.

Willy Brandt was in Washington on June 15th on a private visit and at that time President Nixon held a black tie working dinner for Willy Brandt. The Chancellor paid an official visit to Washington on April 10th and 11th, 1970 and the President also saw Willy Brandt in West Berlin in February, 1969. At that time, Chancellor Brandt was the Vice Chancellor and the Foreign Minister of West Germany.

Those are all the announcements that we have this morning.

Q Ron, is this going to be the last of these series before the Peking announcement, the date of the Peking trip?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, Secretary Rogers will be at the NATO Ministerial Meeting in Brussels on December 8th and 9th, Bob, and he will have the opportunity, at that time, to discuss and consult with our NATO allies prior to President Nixon's visit to Peking and Moscow. We don't have any other information at this time to give you regarding additional meetings.

MORE

#1259

- 4 -

#1259

Q Has the President been informed of the
assassination of the Jordanian Prime Minister?

MR. ZIEGLER: We only have limited information
on that. We have only seen the news as contained in the
reports coming out of that area of the world. So we haven't
had an opportunity to get a complete report on the develop-
ments.

It is however, I should add, very disturbing news --
the reports we have seen.

Q Is the United States preparing to sell
Phantom jets to Israel?

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, President Nixon will
meet with Golda Meir on December 2, and quite obviously they
will be talking about the Middle East situation at that time.
They will be talking about the military balance in the area.

President Nixon has made it clear that it is
the United States policy to maintain a military balance in
the Middle East. However, in response to your specific
question, we have not, and I will not this morning, discuss the
military supply relationship with Israel.

Q When the decision is made, will it be
publicly announced?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe the best way to answer
that question is to say what I have said before. We have
continued and we will continue to assess the military
balance in the Middle East. It is our policy to maintain
that military balance, and that is the process we are going
through. That is really all the comment I have in relation
to that question.

Q Can you say whether a decision has been made?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I would stand on what I have
said.

Q Ron, there is a report that the President,
through diplomatic channels has let President Sadat of Egypt
know if he came to this country on a private visit, he also would
be welcome to see the President. Is that true?

MR. ZIEGLER: I know of no communication with
President Sadat, so it would be difficult for me to answer that
question, other than to say that the other side of it should
not be suggested, that the opposite premise of the question
should not be assumed.

Q That he would not be welcome?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is right.

Q Are you saying, in effect ---

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not saying anything. Now let's
put this in context. A question has been asked, and I said
we have no information about it, we have had no discussion about
it, and I am not going to, off the record, generate a news
story just based on the question.

MORE

#1259

- 5 -

#1259

Q We want an answer. We don't want you to generate anything.

Q Are you saying he would, in fact, be very welcome if he wanted to come here? That is my question.

MR. ZIEGLER: There has been no discussion about it. If you want to ask me that question about any leader in the world, we could have a few lines of copy going out here this morning. You have asked me a question about one leader.

Of course we would consider a visit. We are not considering such a visit. Now, do you want to ask me a question about another leader, and I will give you the same answer.

Q Is the President disturbed about Israeli reports concerning the feeling in Israel that Rogers is anti-Israeli?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have had no comments on that type of report.

Q Can you give us any guidance as to the form of the announcement on the trip to China?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I cannot.

END #1259

(AT 9:25 A.M. PST.)

This Copy For _________

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1262

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

AT 11:29 A.M. EST

NOVEMBER 30, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have several announcements this morning.

As you know, President Nixon met with Bob Finch and Herb Klein this morning to receive from Mr. Finch a preliminary report of his recent trip to Latin America. Counsellor Finch visited six Latin American countries on his visit. We will post those countries for you after the briefing.

He was gone from November 11th through November 25th. Mr. Finch, on the trip, delivered an address as the President's Special Representative to the Pan American Highway Congress on his trip and also Counsellor Finch held some very useful conversations with top leaders of the countries he visited.

In Peru, for example, Counsellor Finch signed a $28 million housing and investment guarantee and a $3 million loan for community development related to the reconstruction of the 1970 earthquake damage.

In Honduras, Counsellor Finch also signed an agreement returning the U.S. owned Swan Islands to Honduras sovereignty. He also discussed U.S. problems with Ecuador and Peru over fishing rights in the ocean.

President Nixon this morning on the occasion of Counsellor Finch's preliminary report expressed his deep gratitude to Mr. Finch for the excellent quality of his representation and his report regarding the trip. The President is expecting to receive from Mr. Finch, in a short time, the full report of his trip to the six Latin American countries.

The President today has sent a letter to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives informing them as required by law that he has signed a determination that it is in the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to guarantee, insure and extend credit and participate in the extension of credit in connection with the purchase or lease of products and services for sale or lease to Romania.

Q Is that a general thing or in terms of a specific transition?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is a general determination so the matters I referred to can proceed. We will have a posting on that.

MORE

#1262

- 6 -

#1262

Q Ron, you used the word "modification" of these amendments. Does this suggest that he is ready to compromise on either of them?

MR. ZIEGLER: I said modification in the amendments relating to the tax portion, not the tax checkoff; and when I say modification, I am referring to drawing closer to, and much closer, to the tax bill that we submitted and the tax bill that came out of the House that does provide tax relief to stimulate the economy. It does provide this tax relief so that we can have more jobs, but it does it in a way that is not and will not be inflationary.

Q You are saying then that he will veto any tax bill that has the tax checkoff in it.

MR. ZIEGLER: Absolutely.

Q The New York Times reports this morning that Ambassador Keating in New Delhi delivered a letter from the President to Indira Gandhi asking for mutual withdrawal of the troops. Has there been any reply to that and are we pleased we seem to be in concert with Peking in making this request?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have any comment in response to your questions.

Q Could we go back to the tax bill again for a second? Is what you said that the President would accept the House bill even though it did have some additional tax reductions in it, but he would accept that? In other words, if it went all the way back to what the House passed, he would accept that?

MR. ZIEGLER: The matter is in conference now and we submitted a tax proposal that called for $27 billion over a period in tax reductions. When I say modify, I am saying modify the Senate bill which has $45 billion in reductions over a three-year period, modifying it into what we consider a reasonable and appropriate way to proceed in this area.

We have not fixed in our minds a fixed amount of dollars. The Administration's position was contained in the legislation.

Q Ron, Senator Mansfield indicated this morning if the President vetoes the tax bill there may not be enough time to get a new tax bill by the end of this year.

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we will have to see what happens here. The fact of the matter is that the Congress, as you know, acting on the President's economic policy up to this point, since he announced it, has, I would use the word, delayed. They have not moved ahead on it and the President feels that the Congress must not adjourn until action is taken.

We have, from the White House, presented a point of view regarding the current tax legislation that is before the Congress and we feel that the public supports an integrated program to deal with the problems that this country has faced in relation to its economy and the President has taken strong steps that will lead to employment and stabilization in the economy.

MORE

#1262

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1263

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:20 A.M. EST

DECEMBER 1, 1971

WEDNESDAY

MR. WARREN: Ron is in a meeting this morning and asked me to give you what we have.

The schedule for today has been posted. The President met with the National Security Council for an hour. That meeting just ended.

The President will depart the South Lawn for Andrews Air Force Base and Chicago at 1:25 this afternoon. You have a schedule for the Chicago trip.

Tomorrow the President will meet with Prime Minister Golda Meir at 3:00 p.m.

You have previously been told that the President will address the White House Conference on Aging at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

Q Where is that, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: The Washington Hilton.

Q Will there be an advance text?

MR. WARREN: I do not know yet.

Speaking of advance texts, we are working on an advance for this afternoon's speech. We are trying to work it out so we will have it available for you on the airplane this afternoon, but that is not firm yet.

Q If you do, will you have it on Air Force One, too?

MR. WARREN: Certainly.

Q It will also be available here, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: Yes, if we work it out.

Q You wouldn't expect to have it before 12:30?

MR. WARREN: I just do not know when I will have it, if I have it. We are working on that.

Q What is it on?

MR. WARREN: The President will be speaking on the challenges of young people in society today. As you know, the 4-H movement today spans the entire spectrum of our society.

MORE

#1263

- 4 -

#1263

Q Any successor yet?

MR. WARREN: No. No successor to announce today.

Q What is the position he had at the U.N.?

MR. WARREN: He was an alternate delegate.

Q Doesn't that delegation's term end, in any
event, at the end of the General Assembly?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I believe it does.

Q Why a resignation, then?

MR. WARREN: I believe it is fitting that Arthur
Fletcher, who has had a close association with the Admin-
istration and with the President, announce this to the Presi-
dent in a letter, and that is what has happened.

Q Would he be able, in this new position, to
carry out his announced intention of campaigning for the re-
election of the President?

MR. WARREN: That is a question you should ask him. He will be continuing his work as chairman of the Domestic Council's Committee on Economic Discrimination until the work of that committee has been finished, so he will be maintaining his relationship with the Administration and with the President.

Q Is there a special reason why you can't make
the letters available now?

MR. WARREN: We will make them available as soon as
they are available.

Q Jerry, are you open for other questions now?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I am.

Q There is a radio report from New Delhi that
the President has warned India that all U.S. foreign aid will
be cut off if India continues her present military actions in
East Pakistan. Can you say if that is correct or not?

MR. WARREN: I am not prepared to discuss that report
in any way here. I would urge you, though, to check with the
State Department before you move anything on that report. I
understand State is prepared to address that question at their
noon briefing today.

Q Before we file even your comment? Are you denying it?

MR. WARREN: I am saying I am not prepared here to
discuss it, but I urge you to talk to the State Department
before you file.

Q Do you have anything to say about the House
completing action, subject to conference committee consideration,
on the campaign financing reform?

MORE

#1263

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1264

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

11:55 A.M. EST

DECEMBER 2, 1971

THURSDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: We have several announcements for you.

The President today is announcing the appointment of two persons to be members of the Financial Investment Advisory Panel for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. The two appointments will represent the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Financial Advisory Panel was established by Title V of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which was signed by President Nixon in October of 1970, and consists of 15 members appointed by the President. We will post the details on that for you and we will have Xerox copies of that, also.

The President is also today announcing his intention to nominate Robert Anderson to be Ambassador to the Republic of Dahomey. He will succeed Matthew J. Looram, Jr., who is being reassigned. We announced the other day that President Maga of Dahomey will visit the White House and meet with President Nixon on December 9th.

As you know, the President has been over to speak to the White House Conference on Aging. We have a text of his address available. We will have the as-delivered shortly.

The President will work in his office here the rest of the day. He has a meeting scheduled at 3:00 o'clock today with Prime Minister Meir, who is in the United States on a private visit to speak before the United Jewish Appeal and Israel Bonds gathering in New York on December 11th and 12th. She arrived in Washington on the evening of November 30th and will be departing for New York on the 12th.

We will post a list of those who are accompanying the Prime Minister. She will meet with the President alone this afternoon. We will brief here at 4:00 o'clock following that meeting.

Q Just on that, or on other matters?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have our regular briefing at that time. I expect to have a brief, but limited, report of the session.

President Nixon will be going to Florida later this afternoon to work on the fiscal year '73 budget. He will be working on the budget tomorrow and over most of the weekend. The budget planning for fiscal '73 has been proceeding, as you know. Cap Weinberger, who is the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Budget Director George Shultz, and John Ehrlichman and others have been

MORE

#1264

- 10 -

#1264

Q That is the other part of my question. What sort of a reaction are you getting in the form of letters, telegrams and telephone calls?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have not checked but I would assume that it would not be in support of that.

Q What is the President's position on Section 315 suspension or repeal thereof for Presidential candidates?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have stated our positions on this and quite frankly, I have not had a chance to review the complexities of the campaign reform bill, so I don't want to get into speaking on that this morning.

Q Is Secretary Rogers participating in the Golda Meir talks?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President and the Prime Minister will meet alone.

Q Have you any comment on the current situation in the India-Pakistan fighting and specifically on Mrs. Ghandi's speech in parliament?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I don't. The State Department has been speaking to that and I will leave it there.

Q Can you refresh my recollection? Have there been any other instances in which the President has announced in advance of the fact that he would veto legislation? That is not the usual stance.

MR. ZIEGLER: No. I don't believe there has been. This is an unusual position that the President is taking, and that the Administration is taking. It is pretty clearcut. It is not a matter that could be ironed out in conference. You either do it or you don't. The President doesn't want to do it and he doesn't feel it should be done. That's why he is saying that.

Q But is this the first such instance?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe it is.

Q You may have answered this before, but have the conferees compromised the other part of the tax bill, the actual tax legislation, to the President's satisfaction?

MR. ZIEGLER: They have moved into the ball park, yes.

END

(AT 12:20 P.M. EST)

#1264

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1268

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

12:35 P.M. EST

DECEMBER 4, 1971

SATURDAY

(Key Biscayne, Florida)

MR. ZIEGLER: The President has been following the situation in India-Pakistan over the entire period he has been down here, also, last night and this morning, very extensively.

To bring you up to date as to what is happening, the Washington Special Action Group met last night to review the India-Pakistan situation, and again this morning. President Nixon has been in frequent phone contact, both last night and this morning, with Dr. Kissinger.

This morning the President instructed Dr. Kissinger, in the telephone conversations, and, indeed, instructed the State Department, to proceed to call for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council in relation to the India-Pakistan situation.

Now, that is not a story that is moving from here. That is a story that just moved from Washington and the State Department. I give that to you by way of background. The part that I gave you in terms of the Presidential involvement is new from here.

For background purposes, let me read to you what the State Department announced so that you are up to date. I don't think you have all had a chance to see the wires. The State Department spokesman, Charlie Bray, read the following statement to newsmen. This was the result of the President's instructions this morning to take this action:

"The United States believes that the deteriorating situation in South Asia poses a threat to international peace and security. Hostilities have intensified in East Pakistan and have involved incursions of Indian troops across the borders of East Pakistan. Recent reports indicate that the forces of both countries are now engaged in military action along the frontiers between West Pakistan and India.

"In view of these developments, which the United States views with deep concern, and which, in our judgment, increases the risk of even broader hostilities between India and Pakistan, Ambassador Bush has been instructed, in concert with other Security Council members, to call for an urgent meeting of the Security Council. We hope that the Council can take prompt action on steps which could ameliorate the present threat to international peace and security."

MORE

#1268

- 2 -

#1268

That is the story moving out of Washington now. In terms of putting it into context from here, as I said earlier, the President, of course, is concerned about the deteriorating situation in South Asia. In the telephone conversations which he has had, both yesterday and this morning, with Dr. Kissinger, he instructed him that this action be taken.

The efforts here, of course, are aimed at terminating the military confrontation by reaching an agreement on an immediate cease fire and the immediate withdrawal of forces from foreign territories. Whatever the details are -- and, as you know, many will be discussed -- the United States cannot help but look with anything but dismay on the movement of military forces across borders.

As you know, India has launched an extensive movement of forces into East Pakistan, so this is a matter which, as I said, will be taken before the U.N. Security Council.

Q Did I understand you correctly to say that the President had instructed Dr. Kissinger to convey this information to the State Department to take this action?

MR. ZIEGLER: He has been in touch with Dr. Kissinger on this matter, and he instructed that this action be taken; yes.

Q Through Dr. Kissinger?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.

Q He didn't talk to the Secretary of State, then?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not think so, directly. He has been in close touch with Dr. Kissinger on this matter.

Q Does the President have any plans for other action by the United States, in addition to the call for a Security Council meeting?

MR. ZIEGLER: In addition to this, the President, in the course of his discussions with Dr. Kissinger -- and this, again, has been reported -- instructed the State Department to be in touch, of course, with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and they have been, regarding this situation.

Q Do you mean to urge something?

MR. ZIEGLER: To inform them of our concerns about the situation.

Q You say this has also been announced by the State Department?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, and it is moving on the wire.

Q By Bray at the same time?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sorry, Jim, I do not know if he referred to it in his briefing, but it has taken place.

MORE

#1268

- 3 -

#1268

Q In that Bray statement, there is something about going to the Security Council in concert with other countries. Can you tell us what other countries are involved?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I am not prepared to do that, Bob, but they are other members of the Security Council.

Q At what point today, if today, did the President direct and firmly instruct Kissinger to ask for the Security Council meeting? Was it today?

MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it was this morning; I would say about 10:00 o'clock. That is the approximate time that they talked on the matter. They just recently concluded another telephone conversation in which I participated. But they had talked at about 10:00 o'clock, just prior to the WSAG meeting, that the President issued this instruction.

Q Would you refresh my memory on the membership of the Washington Special Action Group?

MR. ZIEGLER: It is composed of representatives of the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, AID, and is chaired by Dr. Kissinger of the National Security Council.

Q Where did they meet last night?

MR. ZIEGLER: In the situation Room at the White House.

Q What was the meeting about last night?

MR. ZIEGLER: Really, last night they were assessing the situation. They met again this morning for final assessment, and the assessments were conveyed to the President by Dr. Kissinger. The President then instructed that we proceed this way.

Q Did they make any recommendations to the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: Primarily, their objective is to assess; to present various options to the President.

Q My memory is not clear on this, but about a week ago, in California, you indicated that the United States was then considering the possibility of going to the Security Council with this issue. Why did it take until now to make that decision?

MR. ZIEGLER: As I said at that time, it is not a matter of why did it take until now, as your questions suggests. What I said in California, when asked about this, was that that is one of the things that was under consideration, and that we would continue to assess the situation as it unfolded.

Now we face a situation, as I stated, of what appears to be, on the East Pakistan border, massive movement of Indian forces into East Pakistan. With that development included in the overall assessment, we face the situation we do today.

MORE

#1268

- 4 -

#1268

Q Were you able to confirm, Ron, whether or not the Pakistanis bombed the airfield in Srinagar before the Indian incursion?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not in a position to confirm that type of information here. However, I think there is no question about the fact that there is a full-scale effort on the part of the Indians in East Pakistan.

Q What do our treaty commitments to East Pakistan require of us in conjunction with forces moving across their border?

MR. ZIEGLER: I believe that is something that the State Department should deal with, and not me.

Q Have we had indications in the United Nations or anywhere else as to the position of Mainland China on our call for placing this before the Security Council?

MR. ZIEGLER: I cannot speak to that, Bill, but there is a lot moving on the wire on this whole matter. We will post the various wire stories for you.

Q Do you have any idea when the Security Council is going to meet?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I do not.

Q Do you think it would be today?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not know, but I would assume they will be moving in a relatively short time on this. I do not want to say from here, however, when the Security Council will meet. That is a matter that would come from the United Nations.

Q A few weeks ago there were reports that the President had sent personal messages to Mrs. Ghandi and President Khan. I believe at that time you refused to confirm those reports, if my memory is correct. Now, in the light of these new developments, can you tell us (1) did he send those personal messages; and (2) if he did, has he had a response?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have already confirmed that in Washington.

Q Now, on the second part, did you get an answer from either Mrs. Ghandi or President Khan?

MR. ZIEGLER: We have been in diplomatic contact with both India and Pakistan in Washington. I am not prepared to talk about the details of those exchanges.

Q You will not make the replies public?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Ron, has the United States contacted the Soviet Union, either last night or this morning, on this situation?

MORE

#1268

- 5 -

#1268

MR. ZIEGLER: Needless to say, when there is concern about a matter such as this, there is a good deal of contact from the diplomatic standpoint; but I am not prepared to give a catalogue or a rundown of those diplomatic contacts.

I would say to you that you should expect that there have been extensive diplomatic exchanges. The fact of the matter is, as you well know, the United States has contributed substantial amounts of money to the entire effort to ease the human aspects and human suffering that is occurring in South Asia. We feel very strongly that by easing the suffering in the area, and by stabilizing the situation, which you can only do when military confrontation is not occurring, that the economic and social problems can be solved. It is by these efforts that peace can be assured.

We spoke to this before in California, and since that time. We have said that when you take into account the human problems that exist in the area, it would be difficult for the American people to understand the resort to military force. I said this morning that the United States cannot look with anything but dismay on the movement of forces across the border.

Now we have situation where there is a massive movement of Indian forces into East Pakistan. So it is our hope in the United Nations, and in relation to this situation, that a cease fire can be immediately established, and that there can be an immediate withdrawal of forces from foreign territories, so that stability can come in the area, and the problems can be worked out.

Q Do you expect Dr. Kissinger to come down here today or tomorrow, or Mr. Rogers?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, I really do not. I believe the contact that is going on now by telephone with the President is more than adequate. They have been on the telephone frequently.

Q Ron, a couple of times you have talked about withdrawal of foreign forces. The Indians and some East Pakistanis claim that the West Pakistan army is foreign forces in East Pakistan. Would they count as foreign forces?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to even begin to handle that question. You know the political breakout of the area. That is self-evident. I am not going to make a judgment on that type of question from here.

Q Ron, you have leaned pretty heavily on the Indians in this, and it seems to me it may jeopardize our so-called neutrality, and you seem to avoid any comment on the fact that Pakistani planes bombed at least four places in India. Does that not concern the U.S. Government?

MR. ZIEGLER: We are concerned about the entire situation, Bob. I do not want to leave a counter-impression. As you know, the situation and the reports coming out of the area are confused. I can refer to the Indian action in relation to East Pakistan both by the events and by the statements of the Indian Government, so I have referred to that.

MORE

#1268

- 6 -

#1268

Q The Indians have been claiming throughout that they are acting in self-defense; and the Indian forces are reacting to fire of Pakistan forces over the border, and air raids. Can you distinguish between that and our position in Cambodia?

MR. ZIEGLER: Because of the fact that this is a matter that is going to be taken before the Security Council, I do not believe I will be responsive to a series of questions on the matter.

Q We still have a SEATO involvement with Pakistan. Has the Pakistani Government asked that our SEATO responsibilities be invoked in this situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: Bob, here, again, I am not prepared to get into those types of questions here. I believe the State Department would be the place to address that. As I said, the U.N. Security Council is going to undertake a debate on this, so I have given you about as much as I can on this.

What I wanted to do was put into perspective the President's involvement from here on this matter, and bring to your attention what is taking place.

Q Have we now fully cut off all military assistance and supporting assistance to Pakistan and India?

MR. ZIEGLER: Of course, the Pakistan part has been in effect for some time. The State Department announced on two subsequent days the stopping of assistance to India on military licenses.

Q Are we considering any other foreign aid steps to exert pressure?

MR. ZIEGLER: I could not say.

Q To India or Pakistan?

MR. ZIEGLER: To India. The Pakistan flow, which was very limited, had already been cut off.

Q What else is the President doing? What are his other activities today?

MR. ZIEGLER: This has consumed his morning, and much of his evening yesterday. The rest of the day the President will continue to follow this, and will continue to be in touch with Henry Kissinger by telephone.

John Ehrlichman is due back at 5:00. I do not know if they will get together tonight or not. They had some other matters to get together on on the budget, which they will do sometime tonight, or perhaps on the plane.

Q Can you tell us the President's view of the upcoming week in regard to the situation with the dollar on European markets in the light of the purchases and transactions at the end of last week? Does he regard it as a healthy sign?

MORE

#1268

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1269

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:40 A.M. EST

DECEMBER 6, 1971

MONDAY

MR. WARREN: Ron is in a meeting this morning, and he asked me to cover with you some of the items that we have.

The schedule for today has been posted. There is one addition to that schedule. The President attended the first 30 minutes of the Domestic Council meeting this morning. The Domestic Council was meeting in the Cabinet Room with six Executive Directors of various city, county and State organizations. I believe the list of names has been posted for you.

These organizations include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National City Managers Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Governors Conference and the Council of State Governments.

The Domestic Council is meeting with these individuals to discuss revenue sharing, and to re-emphasize the President's concern that State and local governments be drawn into policy development and planning at the earliest moment. The Vice President also attended. As you know, he has the direct responsibility of liaison with State and local governments.

Q Was the Domestic Council meeting on revenue sharing? Was that the topic of the meeting?

MR. WARREN: Yes, revenue sharing, and also the coordination of the Federal Government with the State and local governments.

The diplomatic credentials were covered by many of you over in the State Dining Room this morning.

The Quadriad is meeting now. You will note that Donald Rumsfeld is in the Quadriad meeting. He is not a member, but he is there to brief the Quadriad on the economic stabilization program.

Tomorrow's schedule:

10:30 - President Medici of Brazil will arrive and there will be an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn.

11:00 - There will be a private meeting in the President's office following the arrival ceremony.

MORE

#1269

- 3 -

#1269

Q One member's term expired, and instead of his being appointed to a new term, he is appointed to a shorter term. Can you explain that?

MR. WARREN: I really cannot, except that this provides the President the opportunity to name more people. I do not have any explanation beyond that.

You also have a transcript of remarks of the President which he audio-taped for presentation at the National Conference on Corrections in Williamsburg, Virginia. This audio tape was played this morning. We have a copy of the tape for any radio men here who are interested. The conference opened in Williamsburg this morning. Attorney General Mitchell was the keynoter.

Those are all the announcements we have this morning.

Q Haven't you left something out on today's schedule? A bipartisan meeting?

MR. WARREN: Yes, we did announce that and put it on the schedule. Thank you, Helen.

There was a breakfast meeting this morning with Senator Mansfield, Senator Scott, Speaker Albert, Congressman Boggs and Congressman Ford. It gave the President the opportunity to discuss legislative schedules between now and the expected adjournment of the Congress.

Following that breakfast, by the way, Speaker Albert and Congressman Boggs departed by helicopter with the First Lady for Andrews Air Force Base and the flight to Boston, where they attended the funeral of Mrs. McCormack this morning at 11:00 o'clock.

Q Jerry, did the discussion with the Congressional Leaders touch on the India-Pakistan situation, or was it strictly on Congressional matters?

MR. WARREN: I was not in the breakfast meeting, but the meeting was designed to discuss the legislative matters still before the Congress in this session, and those which the Congress is expected to take up after the recess.

Q Do you know when the last time the President met in this fashion with Mr. Mansfield and Speaker Albert was?

MR. WARREN: No, I do not, Jerry.

Q Did they talk about the tax bill?

MR. WARREN: I am sure it came up. It is one of the matters pending before the Congress.

Q Were Speaker Albert and Mr. Boggs the only two who went with the First Lady?

MR. WARREN: They were the only two that went with the First Lady from here; but there are about 60 Members who went from Andrews.

MORE

#1269

- 4 -

#1269

Q On Pakistan and India, can you tell us who the President has seen today and who he has talked with on this?

MR. WARREN: He has seen Dr. Kissinger this morning, and he has talked by telephone with Secretary Rogers.

Q Do you know if there will be any speeches at tonight's stag dinner with Prime Minister Trudeau?

MR. WARREN: I will have to check on whether or not there will be toasts.

Q Is there going to be any coverage of that dinner.

MR. WARREN: That, again, I will have to check on.

Q Will you have a guest list?

MR. WARREN: Perhaps. I just do not know.

Q What did they talk about? Does the White House have any comment on the Bangla Desh recognition, or anything that is happening in Korea, or India or Pakistan?

MR. WARREN: Do you want to take them one at a time?

Q Yes.

MR. WARREN: You asked if the White House has any comment on Bengla Desh. I assume you mean the recognition by India of the Bengla Desh. I have no direct comment on that. I believe the State Department would be the place for you to address that question. I have no report to give you on this situation this morning. Our position is quite clear and has been stated by the State Department, by Ron, and at the United Nations, so I have no additional report to give you from here today.

MORE

#1269

[1C]

- 5 -

#1269

Q Did Scott have a new recess date? He told us
before it was December 1.

MR. WARREN: I don't know that it is up to Senator
Scott to set the date.

Q But he predicted it.

MR. WARREN: I am sure they discussed it. I don't
know exactly what they are shooting for now.

Q Can you find that out for us, please?

MR. WARREN: I think the best place to find it
out would be on Capitol Hill.

Q I would like to know what they told the President
and what the President said he expected of them.

MR. WARREN: The President, of course, expects action
on the appropriations bills and the other important matters
that are pending before this Session of the Congress. So, all
of those things were discussed.

Q Is he dissatisfied and disappointed with the way
they are putting off so many things until next year?

MR. WARREN: I have no characterization to give you
on that. He undoubtedly reiterated his desire for prompt
action next session on welfare reform and revenue sharing, the
health bills, the environmental bills and things like that.

Q Do you have any updated comments on the tax
bill and the President's attitude towards it?

MR. WARREN: No. I think our position has been
rather well stated on that and I have nothing to add today.

Q Jerry, on the Domestic Council meeting, with
the representatives of the State, city and county organiza-
tions, you said one of the purposes of this was to re-emphasize
the President's concern that State and local governments be
brought into policy formulation at the earliest possible
moment. That implies that there is some policy being formed
regarding revenue sharing, which you said was the topic, at
this time. Is there a change, a shift, a new policy? Is there
a formulation of policy at this stage?

MR. WARREN: No, Ted. Those were two different
matters for discussion this morning. These gentlemen all
represent organizations which are vitally concerned with
revenue sharing and vitally interested in the passage of
revenue sharing. So, that was discussed this morning.

Also discussed was the need for coordination
between the Federal Government and State and local govern-
ments and the Vice President's role in that. The Vice
President discussed that. There was no new policy discussion
on revenue sharing.

Q The Washington Special Action Group met last night
on the India-Pakistan situation. Have they met since?

MR. WARREN: I don't know whether they have or not.
To my knowledge, they have not, Jim.

#1269

- 6 -

#1269

Q Has the President been in direct contact with either the President of Pakistan or Mrs. Ghandi at all since the fighting intensified?

MR. WARREN: The President has been in contact with Henry Kissinger, as we told you in Florida, and here again this morning, and has been in contact with the Secretary of State. I know of no personal contact with the leaders in this matter.

Q Would it be safe to assume that he discussed the situation with the Pakistani Ambassador?

MR. WARREN: As is normal, the President had a brief period to talk privately with the new Ambassador from Pakistan. That is the normal procedure at presentations of diplomatic credentials. I have no report on what they discussed.

Q What is the topic for the Quadriad meeting today?

MR. WARREN: They are discussing the general economic situation and, as I told you, receiving a report from Don Rumsfeld on the Economic Stabilization Program, otherwise known as Phase II.

Q Do you know if the Rome meeting was due to come up?

MR. WARREN: I am quite sure that Secretary Connally would discuss the Rome meeting.

Q Is that meeting still going on of the Quadriad?

MR. WARREN: As far as I know it is.

Q Do you have any plans to announce this week anything about the 1972 campaign, especially as regards the Young Republicans?

MR. WARREN: No, we have no plans to announce anything.

Q Is the President having any meeting this week with Senator Brock?

MR. WARREN: Not to my knowledge.

Q What are the plans for the afternoon and Trudeau briefing or briefings?

MR. WARREN: I will be here at 4:00 o'clock. I don't expect to have very much. I will just be here with whatever information there is. Ron will be able to fill you in on parts of the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister following that meeting. I would not expect that before 6:00 o'clock.

Q Is the President going to have any conversation with Ambassador Keating today?

MR. WARREN: Not to my knowledge. I don't know of any scheduled discussion between them.

MORE

#1269

- 7 -

#1269

Q Wouldn't the Ambassador report to him after he has his talks with the Indian officials?

MR. WARREN: The Ambassador certainly will report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State and the President will be in discussion.

Q Could you describe for us how the President is being kept informed throughout this day on the events and fighting over there?"

MR. WARREN: He is being kept informed in the normal way, Jim, as he is kept informed of foreign policy developments: by Dr. Kissinger and in phone conversations with the Secretary to State.

Q Has he had any talks with the Korean Ambassador?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q How would you describe his attitude? Is he deeply concerned?

MR. WARREN: Of course he is concerned. I think that has been described by Ron in the past, down in Florida. He is keeping abreast of the situation. Our position has been stated by the Secretary of State, by Ron, and by Ambassador Bush at the United Nations.

Q Has the fighting or the situation over there significantly altered the agenda for the Trudeau meeting? How does this impinge on the Trudeau meeting?

MR. WARREN: The Trudeau meeting will take place as scheduled.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 11:57 A.M. EST)

#1269

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1271

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

6:32 P.M. EST

DECEMBER 6, 1971

MONDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The meeting between the President and the Prime Minister lasted two hours and 10 minutes. They had a very full and cordial discussion, and overall, I believe the President, after talking to him, was very pleased with the meeting and is delighted that Prime Minister Trudeau was able to come to Washington.

As you know, the President will see the Prime Minister again tonight at a dinner which is being hosted here at the White House.

I understand that Prime Minister Trudeau will have a press conference tomorrow at 9:30.

I will give you a general rundown, an overview, of the meeting as I received it from the President following the meeting.

They spent a good deal of time talking about the general international situation, particularly East-West relations and the President's two forthcoming trips, one to Peking and one to Moscow.

The President, of course, was most interested to hear the Prime Minister's comments on his recent talks with Chairman Kosygin which were held in Ottawa, an account, incidentally, which President Nixon had previously received in writing from the Prime Minister, but they were able to talk about those conversations that the Prime Minister and the Chairman had in Ottawa in more detail today.

They also spent some time talking about the NATO ministerial meeting which will be held later this week and which will be considering the status of the various proposed East-West negotiations -- the European Conference on Security and the mutual balanced force reduction matters.

As I said earlier, the President outlined his plans for his trip to Peking and was, in that regard, interested to hear the Prime Minister's views regarding China.

Naturally, they talked about our bilateral relations, which both countries consider of key importance, and the President stressed his interest in working closely with our Canadian neighbors to our mutual benefit.

They talked about, as you would suspect, our economic relationship, not only as it relates to the present, but also long-range economic relationship. They did not focus their

MORE

#1271

- 2 -

#1271

discussions in this area only on the monetary situation; but also on trade and other matters that would fall into that area. They did not get into the specifics of these matters. As you know, these specific discussions are being handled at the working level. Simultaneously, there was a meeting being held between the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and their Canadian counterparts. Minister Benson and others participated in the meeting which was held at the same time the meeting was held between the President and the Prime Minister.

Also, there was discussion about the South Asian situation, the dangerous situation in South Asia which all of you are familiar with. The President repeated his view to the Prime Minister about the situation. We have made that view known both in statements made here and in the United Nations, and also at the State Department.

The President again pointed out to the Prime Minister, as we have said before, that we feel that it is very unfortunate and quite contrary to recent favorable international trends for India to be using armed force against a sovereign country, against a neighbor, such as they are in the case of Pakistan.

So, just to recap, they talked about, and the President consulted with the Prime Minister regarding his upcoming trips, European matters, the upcoming ministerial meeting, and in that context the various East-West negotiations. They talked about the economic relations between the United States and Canada, and about the South Asian situation.

Q Ron, you talked about a communication between the Prime Minister and the President on the Kosygin visit. I thought I heard you say that, but I may have heard wrong. Would you explain what you mean? Did he write a letter to the President about the Kosygin visit?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President received from Prime Minister Trudeau previously a letter in which he discussed his meeting with Chairman Kosygin which was held in Ottawa. The point I made was that they were able to expand on the Prime Minister's comments which he made in the letter in more detail today in their discussions in the context of the President's forthcoming trip to Moscow.

Q Can you give us an idea of what proportion of the time was spent talking about economic bilateral relationships?

MR. ZIEGLER: I would say the major portion of the talks today were predominantly international in context, although, as I mentioned, they did, of course, discuss the bilateral issues.

Q Under the heading of long-term economic relations, does that include American investment in Canada, and also the protectionist measures being attached to the tax bill which is coming to the President quite soon?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am not prepared to get into the details. My reference there went to a discussion not only of the temporary situation we now face, but also long-range relations in that area. I am not prepared to catalogue for you or give you a listing as to specific topics they discussed.

MORE

#1271

- 3 -

#1271

Q Were the President and the Prime Minister alone through the whole meeting, or were they joined at any time by aides?

MR. ZIEGLER: They were joined by aides.

Q Referring to the Group of 10 meeting in Rome and the apparent movement there on devaluing the dollar, and possibly a breakthrough on the surcharge, did the President give him any indication as to when the surcharge would be lifted?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I mentioned earlier that at the same time the President was meeting with the Prime Minister, Secretary Connally was meeting with Minister Benson. I believe our Canadian neighbors are well aware of the fact that the President has said that the surcharge is a temporary measure which has been applied overall.

I believe I also said in response to your question that the Prime Minister and the President did not get into those specifics in their talks, but talked more in terms of our overall, general economic relations between our two countries; at least that is the impression that I got in the brief readout I got from the President.

Q In discussing long-term economic relations, did they discuss the balance of trade between the two countries and whether it has to be in balance, or did they discuss this at all?

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sorry, but I am just not prepared, 15 minutes after a meeting, after one talk with the President, to come out and give you specific details.

Q Did the President ask for any specific support from the Canadian Government regarding the Pakistan-India situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: I said they did talk about South Asia. I do not quite know what you mean by "Did the President ask for any support from the Canadians in terms of the South Asian situation." I believe I would want the Prime Minister, in his press conference tomorrow, to respond to a question on the Canadian attitude about South Asia. We have stated our views.

Q When you said that the President and Mr. Trudeau did not get into specifics on these economic matters, do you mean to suggest that the specific points that have been of some concern to the Canadian Government -- the surcharge and other proposed or actual steps taken by this Government -- were not even mentioned in the context of this meeting; that Mr. Trudeau did not explain to the President what the Canadian concern is and what the impact is on the Canadian economy?

MR. ZIEGLER: I do not think I suggested that, did I?
(Laughter)

Q You got close to it.

MR. ZIEGLER: Let's not allow that point of view to set in, particularly with the Canadian reporters here. I believe you are well aware of the fact, as I said before, that

MORE

#1271

- 4 -

#1271

Secretary Connally and Minister Benson spent about two hours together, I believe. Now, obviously they got into a lot of detail on our economic relations. I am not prepared to report to you on that meeting. I think you should put that fact into your thinking when you judge my remarks about what the Prime Minister and the President talked about. Obviously they were aware that Secretary Connally and Minister Benson were meeting at the same time in the Roosevelt Room, so they did not get into specific details.

I do not know to what degree the President and the Prime Minister talked about specifics. I believe, as in the case when the Prime Minister and the President met together, they talked more in the context of the general economic trends and general positions that the Governments hold, and allowed the working level then to get into specific discussions.

Q Ron, did Secretary Connally and Mr. Benson come back in and join the President and Mr. Trudeau?

MR. ZIEGLER: No, they did not.

Q Who was with the President?

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger and his counterpart, Mr. Head, sat in a portion of the meeting.

Q How much?

MR. ZIEGLER: A good portion of it.

MORE

#1271

- 5 -

#1271

[Lc]

Q Was there an indication of why Mr. Trudeau sought this meeting in the first place?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think there would be any indication in the meeting regarding that. The President welcomes the opportunity to consult with Prime Minister Trudeau. I think the President has made the point, and if not, I will make it again, consultations between Canada and the United States are valued by the President.

I think this is marked not only by this meeting, but the fact that the President plans to visit Canada sometime this Spring. So, you would have to characterize the purpose of the meeting as one of consultation. As you know, since the President last consulted and talked with the Prime Minister, he has undertaken a number of steps and initiatives which the two leaders have not had an opportunity to talk about directly. It so happens that the Prime Minister has been involved in meetings with Chairman Kosygin and has views that the President welcomed. That was the purpose of the meeting.

Q In mentioning long term economic relations, would you include in that relations dealing with the transfer of energy materials between the two countries?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is a matter of interest to this government, as you know, but I doubt that the President and the Prime Minister got into those type of specifics. That is what I intended to convey to you earlier.

Q Ron, the overall meeting, that is to say, the President's meeting and the lower level meetings, how does that fit into the overall context or, hopefully, movement toward a settlement of the monetary situation? Would you characterize it as fitting into that general movement?

MR. ZIEGLER: Their discussions?

Q The discussions at both levels. We have had a fairly heavy economic discussion at the lower level, which you are associating with the higher level meeting. Would you characterize that as fitting into the general movement toward a settlement of the financial crisis?

MR. ZIEGLER: This government has staken certain steps to deal with what we consider problems in the international economic area. We have focused on those matters, particularly the monetary situation, in the meeting of the Group of Ten, which was held recently in Rome. I think any discussions that were held today would fall into the context of the explanation of our policies and our desire to have these matters worked out as we have expressed them before.

Q As a result of these talks, would you anticipate any early change in the trade agreements or pacts between Canada and the United States?

MR. ZIEGLER: That is an area that I am not prepared to discuss with you or give you any projections on.

Q A few weeks or few months ago it looked like things were deteriorating between the United States and Canada. Now how would you describe them?

MORE

#1271

- 6 -

#1271

MR. ZIEGLER: It depends on whose eyes were looking at the situation as to whether or not they were deteriorating or not. We have good relations with Canada. They are our neighbor and we are on very friendly terms with Canada. The President welcomes the opportunity to consult with Prime Minister Trudeau.

As I said at the outset, the President was very pleased with the meetings and values the opportunity to consult with the Prime Minister. I would say our relations are very good.

Q Will you brief after the meeting tonight; the dinner tonight?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Ron, what does the President think this government gains from these repeated allegations of India's responsibility for the Indio-Pakistan War? There have been many of them now, officially.

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't think it is a matter of this government gaining something from a statement which we make. We are reflecting our view about the situation, John, in statements we have made. I don't think anyone has questioned the fact that the Indian Government, in relation to the matter in South Asia, does have some grievances. I think what we have said all along, and the point we have made in the United Nations and the point I have made and the point that the State Department has made, and we said this before the situation got to the point that it is now, is that it is difficult for us to understand the recourse to military confrontation, to military force, to deal with the situation.

As I said in my earlier remarks, it is very unfortunate that this has taken place and we think it is quite contrary to the recent international trends where many governments find that the best way to work problems out is to sit down and talk about them.

That is why, as you know, we have taken the position in the United Nations Security Council, a position which calls for a cease fire and withdrawal of foreign forces from other territories.

Q On that point, Ron, would you say the U. S. position is one of studied neutrality? I use that expression because a couple of Senators who spoke to the President this morning used it on the Hill.

MR. ZIEGLER: I think you are well aware, Pete, that we are not involved from a physical or military standpoint in the South Asian situation, but we do have views about the situation and we are stating those views, both here and in the United Nations.

I think it goes without question that the President, as I think Neal Ball told you earlier today, is concerned with the situation in South Asia. He met for about an hour and 15 minutes today in his EOB office, as I think Neal told you, with Secretary Rogers and with David Packard, since the Secretary of Defense is out of town, and Dr. Kissinger and General Westmoreland, who is Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Director Helms of the CIA to talk about the situation in South

MORE

#1271

- 7 -

#1271

Asia. So, the matter does concern us.

Q Is there anything the United States can do besides what it is already doing?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we have dealt with the matter from the diplomatic standpoint and in the diplomatic context, and we are, as you know, stating our views in the United Nations. You are aware of those views. There is no need for me to repeat them for you.

Q You have said several times in the last few days that it is difficult for the American people to understand the resort to military force. I am unclear as to what our alternative was that we were urging on both sides prior to the outbreak of fighting. What specifically did we have in mind as an alternative?

MR. ZIEGLER: First of all, we have referred to over and over again the fact that you have very severe humanitarian problems in the area. These human problems, we feel, and we have spent a good deal of our dollars to assist with that problem, we feel that the process of solving those problems would lead to stability in the area and assist in leading to stability in the area. So that the stability in South Asia could come about not by war, but by people sitting down and talking out their problems.

Q Does the President feel that he will have the Prime Minister's cooperation in developing a monetary settlement as rapidly as possible as a result of these meetings?

MR. ZIEGLER: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is going to have a press conference tomorrow, instead of my attempting to give you the Prime Minister's answers, you should ask him.

Q I was asking what the President thought.

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I earlier characterized the discussions on our economic relations for you and I don't intend to amplify on them.

Q Could you give a little more indication of the contents, or if not the contents, the import of the letter Mr. Trudeau initially sent regarding his talks with Chairman Kosygin or what he said today in the same regard?

MR. ZIEGLER: The President was interested, of course, in the Prime Minister's views about East-West matters, and about his discussions with Chairman Kosygin about those matters.

Q I was thinking in terms of the SALT talks and whether there was any comment on that in the Prime Minister's letter or the conversation today.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am sure strategic arms limitations were discussed.

Q In view of the Indian attack and warning for all ships to stay away from Pakistani ports, are we going to warn all U. S. vessels to stay away from these war-torn waters?

MR. ZIEGLER: The State Department has addressed that.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Ron.

#1271

END

(AT 6:56 P.M. EST)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1272

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH RON ZIEGLER

1:02 P.M. EST

DECEMBER 7, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: The President met with President Medici from approximately 11:15 to 12:40. A more detailed statement on the meetings between the two Presidents will be given to you on Thursday when the two Presidents will meet again for the final meeting. As you know, they meet at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, so I only have a general rundown on today's talks to give you.

First I should say that it was a very cordial meeting. They talked about a broad range of questions of mutual interest, both global and hemispheric.

The President said this morning they focused primarily on international matters, with the President outlining his plans and giving background to President Medici on his upcoming visits to Peking and Moscow, as he will do, as you know, with other major allied leaders in the coming weeks.

I think the President feels that the talks he held this morning with President Medici were very useful, and he was pleased to have an opportunity to get acquainted with President Medici. They had not met before, so on this occasion they had an opportunity to get to know one another and to exchange views on the general subjects which I conveyed to you. President Nixon looks forward to their talks on Thursday.

As I said, we will have a detailed rundown for you on the talks, both today's discussions and Thursday's discussions, on Thursday.

Q Will there be a joint communique?

MR. ZIEGLER: There will be an agreed upon statement which we will provide to you on Thursday.

Q Did the subject of the import surcharge come up?

MR. ZIEGLER: Of course, matters of economic interest came up, not in great detail, today. I think they will get into that more on Thursday. Those subjects were talked about, but I am not prepared to get into a rundown of those subjects today, as I said earlier in the briefing, because we will have that detailed statement for you on Thursday.

Q In the same spirit, can you tell us in a general way, was the subject of the suspension of democratic processes in certain areas of Brazil raised?

MORE

#1272

#1272

Q Is the President encouraged by Yahya Khan's call for a coalition government with an East Pakistani representative?

MR. ZIEGLER: We don't have details on the news stories that have run this morning in regard to that, so I cannot have a comment for you.

Q Does that indicate, then, that this comes as a surprise and it was unexpected here?

MR. ZIEGLER: Well, we don't have any details on it beyond what the news reports have said.

Q Can you say what the President is doing to try to halt the hostilities.

MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, it is a matter that is before the United Nations. Our position has been well stated in the United Nations. We think there should be a cease-fire and immediate withdrawal of forces from foreign territories so that the problems in the area can be talked about and that the killing can stop and the human problems can be dealt with. That has been our effort from the very outset.

Q Has the United States made any effort to talk directly to the Russians about this other than in the U. N. forum?

MR. ZIEGLER: I have said before that we have had extensive diplomatic contacts on this matter. I am not prepared to give you a rundown of those contacts. But we have, for some weeks, been involved diplomatically in contacts in relation to the problems in South Asia.

Q Has the Hot Line been used?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Has either Mr. Beam gone in to see the Russians or has Mr. Dobrynin been in here to discuss this matter?

MR. ZIEGLER: I cannot be more specific about our diplomatic contacts.

Q Have you had contacts with China on the subject?

MR. ZIEGLER: I think I said before that I am not prepared to give a rundown of those contacts.

Q When will the President leave for the Azores?

MR. ZIEGLER: We will have that information for you later this week.

Q Has the President been involved today in anything besides the Medici thing, involving the South Asian situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: He has talked to Secretary Rogers and Dr. Kissinger about the developments in the United Nations. As you know, he is concerned about the fighting in the area. He is following the situation with interest and is directing our action and efforts in the United Nations to bring about a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces from foreign territories so that the situation can be dealt with the way we feel it should be, and that is not by the fighting that is taking place.

MORE

#1272

- 6 -

#1272

Q Is there any chance that the President might have something to say personally about this situation later in the day?

MR. ZIEGLER: No.

Q Has the President talked with anyone else on this matter other than Dr. Kissinger and the Secretary of State?

MR. ZIEGLER: I don't believe so this morning. He has been in a meeting, as you know, with President Medici.

Q In the discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau, did he go into any length on the India-Pakistan situation?

MR. ZIEGLER: I reported to the group yesterday.

Q Trudeau said this morning that the Canadians have not taken a position yet. I wonder if there is any expectation that they will.

MR. ZIEGLER: You will have to get that from the Canadian Government. The Prime Minister and the President did discuss South Asia yesterday as I conveyed to you.

Q Is the Special Action Group continuing to meet on this? Have they held any meetings recently?

MR. ZIEGLER: There was not a Special Action Group meeting this morning; none was required. There was one yesterday.

Q Is that the second?

MR. ZIEGLER: No. It is about the third or fourth time they have met.

We will post the fact that the President is transmitting to the Congress a request for supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1972 in the amount of $4,051,095 for the legislative branch. The details will be posted.

END (AT 1:17 P.M. EST)

#1272

This Copy For He loose

BACKGROUND BRIEFING
(India-Pakistan)

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH HENRY A. KISSINGER, ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY AFFAIRS,

4:40 P.M. EST

DECEMBER 7, 1971

TUESDAY

MR. ZIEGLER: Dr. Kissinger is here with us this afternoon. What he says to you will be background. You can attribute it to White House officials, but no direct quotations.

We have, of course, had a number of inquiries and questions about the situation in South Asia. What I am saying to you now is, of course, on BACKGROUND because it relates to this. We thought it might be worthwhile for Henry to come out this afternoon to discuss our views on a BACKGROUND basis with you to put the matter into further perspective for you.

Q Ron, is there any necessity for no direct quotation? Could you explain why that is?

MR. ZIEGLER: The purpose of this session is more putting our view and our position into perspective, and we would just prefer no direct quotation. I think it would be more productive for you.

DR. KISSINGER: I thought I would talk to you about how we have approached the problem in South Asia: what we have done and what has led to the number of pronouncements that have been made by official spokesmen at the U.N. in recent days.

I do not have any organized notes, so I am going to speak to you extemporaneously, and I may refer to an occasional paper just for accuracy in the question period.

First of all, let us get a number of things straight. There have been some comments that the Administration is anti-Indian. This is totally inaccurate. India is a great country. It is the most populous free country. It is governed by democratic procedures.

Americans through all Administrations in the postwar period have felt a commitment to the progress and development of India, and the American people have contributed to this to the extent of $10 billion. Last year, in this Administration, India received from all sources $1.2 billion for development assistance, economic assistance, of which $700 million came from the United States in various forms. Therefore, we have a commitment to the progress and to the future of India, and we have always recognized that the success of India, and the Indian democratic experiment, would be of profound significance to many of the countries in the underdeveloped world.

MORE

- 2 -

Therefore, when we have differed with India, as we
have in recent weeks, we do so with great sadness and with
great disappointment.

Now let me describe the situation as we saw it
going back to March 25th. March 25th is, of course, the day
when the central government of Pakistan decided to establish
military rule in East Bengal and started the process which has
led to the present situation.

The United States has never supported the "particular
action" that led to this tragic series of events, and the
United States has always recognized that this action had
consequences which had a considerable impact on India. We have
always recognized that the influx of refugees into India pro-
duced the danger of communal strife in a country always pre-
cariously poised on the edge of communal strife. We have
known that it is a strain on the already scarce economic
resources of a country in the process of development.

Therefore, from the beginning, the United States has
played a very active role in attempting to ease the suffering
of the refugees and the impact on India of this large influx
of unexpected people. The United States position has been to
attempt two efforts simultaneously: One, to ease the human
suffering and to bring about the return of the refugees; and
secondly, we have attempted to bring about a political resolu-
tion of the conflict which generated the refugees in the first
place.

One of the difficulties has been that the time re-
quired to bring about a political evolution is somewhat longer
than what needed to be done immediately to bring about an
easing of human suffering.

Now, you have been given by Ron the figures of what
we have contributed, but let me summarize them and let me
refer here, because I do not have them all in my head.

There were two aspects to the refugee problem: One,
taking care of the refugees that were inside India; and secondly,
to avert conditions inside East Pakistan that would generate
more refugees, particularly to ease famine conditions. We com-
mitted $90 million for the support of the refugees in India
and $155 million to avert famine in East Pakistan, which is
more than the rest of the world has done combined.

I might add that the sums that have been devoted to
averting famine in East Pakistan have been contributed at the
specific request of the Indian Government, which was concerned
that there would be another major outflow of refugees which
would make their problem totally unmanageable.

The President has requested Congress, in the present
AID appropriation, for an additional $250 million to continue
this work, and this is in addition to food shipments which we
were prepared to make. In other words, the United States has
contributed $500 million for the relief of refugees and to ease
suffering in India, and to prevent more refugees from coming
into India.

MORE

[L]

The United States also financed the chartering of 26 vessels to increase their capacity to transport grain from ocean ports into the interior of East Pakistan. We will give you a breakdown of all of these figures, but we wanted to give you a flavor of what was done.

Now, the United States did not condone what happened in March 1971; on the contrary, the United States has made no new development loans to Pakistan since March 1971.

Secondly, there has been a great deal of talk about military supplies to Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that immediately after the actions in East Pakistan at the end of March of this past year, the United States suspended any new licenses. It stopped the shipment of all military supplies out of American depots or that were under American governmental control. The only arms that were continued to be shipped to Pakistan were arms on old licenses in commercial channels, and those were spare parts. There were no lethal end-items involved.

To give you a sense of the magnitude, the United States cut off $35 million worth of arms at the end of March of this year, or early April of this year, immediately after the actions in East Bengal, and continued to ship something less than $5 million worth; whereupon, all the remainder of the pipeline was cut off. In other words, when one is reading some of the commentaries, the impression is created that we were equipping four armored divisions. The fact of the matter is that $35 million worth of arms were cut off immediately, and the only thing that was continued to be shipped was something less than $5 million -- I don't have the precise figure; I think it is between $4 million and $5 million -- of spare parts that were in commercial channels under existing licenses.

So I believe it is correct to say that the United States, by its actions, took a stand, starting in March of this year; and that the United States did indicate, through its performance, what evolution it wanted to take, and that the United States has made a greater contribution than the rest of the world combined to ease the suffering in India and Pakistan, but especially the suffering generated by the actions of the end of March.

Now, then, we come to the problem of political evolution. What has the United States done in this respect?

It is true the United States did not make any public declarations on its views of the evolution, because the United States wanted to use its influence with both Delhi and Islamabad to bring about a political settlement that would enable the refugees to return. At the request of the President, this was explained by me to the Indian Foreign Minister and to the Indian Prime Minister when I was in New Delhi in early July, and both indicated that they understood our decision in this respect and made no criticism of our decision.

They did make a criticism of the arms shipments. Secondly, we consistently used our influence that we gained in this manner to urge the Government of Pakistan in the direction of a political evolution. We urged the Government of Pakistan and they agreed that relief supplies be distributed by international agencies, in order to take away the criticism in East

MORE

[Lc]

- 5 -

We told the Pakistan Foreign Secretary when he was here that it was desirable on November 15th, that we thought it was time for Pakistan to develop a maximum program. He said he could not give us an answer until the week of November 22nd when he would return to his country. He also pointed out to us that there would be a return to civilian rule at the end of December, at which time it might be easier to bring about such matters as the release of Mujibur, whose imprisonment had occurred under military rule.

This information was transmitted, and military action, nevertheless, started during the week of November 22nd. So when we say that there was no need for military action, we do not say that India did not suffer. We do not say that we are unsympathetic to India's problems or that we do not value India.

This country, which in many respects has had a love affair with India, can only, with enormous pain, accept the fact that military action was taken in our view without adequate cause, and if we express this opinion in the United Nations, we do not do so because we want to support one particular point of view on the subcontinent, or because we want to forego our friendship with what will always be one of the great countries in the world; but because we believe that if, as some of the phrases go, the right of military attack is determined by arithmetic, if political wisdom consists of saying the attacker has 500 million and the defender has 100 million, and, therefore, the United States must always be on the side of the numerically stronger, then we are creating a situation where, in the foreseeable future, we will have international anarchy, and where the period of peace, which is the greatest desire for the President to establish, will be jeopardized; not at first for Americans, necessarily, but for peoples all over the world.

I have taken the liberty of coming in here to explain our point of view. You can see the necessity for a background basis, because there have been misconceptions of what we have done and of our motives. I have given you extemporaneously this brief sketch, and now I will be glad to answer any questions, or to go into more detail.

Q Why was the first semi-public explanation of the American position one of condemning India, and why this belated explanation that you are now giving? The perception of the world is that the United States regards India as an aggressor; that it is anti-India, and you make a fairly persuasive case here that that is not the case. So why this late date?

DR. KISSINGER: This is the highest praise I have ever had from Peter Lisagor. (Laughter)

We were reluctant to believe for a long time that the matter had come down to a naked recourse to force, and we were attempting for the first two weeks of the military operations to see what could be done to quiet it through personal diplomacy conducted by the Department of State.

We made two appeals to the Indian Prime Minister. We appealed also to the Pakistan President, and we appealed also to the Soviet Union.

MORE

[c]

Now, then, on Friday the situation burst into full-blown war and it was decided to put the facts before the public. Now, I cannot, of course, accept the characterization that you made of the way these facts were put forward; that they were put forward as anti-Indian.

Q I said the perception of the world public was that the United States was anti-Indian because of the nature of that first background briefing at the State Department on Friday.

DR. KISSINGER: We are opposed to the use of military force in this crisis, and we do not believe that it was necessary to engage in military action. We believe that what started as a tragedy in East Bengal is now becoming an attempt to dismember a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations.

So the view that was expressed on Saturday is not inconsistent with the view that is expressed today. What was done today is an explanation of the background that led to the statement on Saturday, and it might have been better if we had put the whole case forward.

Q If I understand what you said, you said prior to the outbreak of full-scale hostilities between India and Pakistan that the Pakistani Government had assured the United States that it was going to take a number of steps, including return to civilian rule by the end of this month, to enter into negotiations with the Bangla Desh representatives operating in Calcutta, to withdraw its troops from the borders unilaterally. Do you know at this point whether any of those commitments by the Pakistani Government still stand? If the war can be stopped some way, are they still willing to do all those things?

DR. KISSINGER: In fairness, let me put these into perspective, these various things.

The unilateral withdrawal, that was without any qualifications. The willingness to talk to the Bangla Desh people involved a disagreement between the Indians and the Bangla Desh on the one side, and the Pakistanis on the other. The Indians took the view that the negotiations had to begin with Mujibur, who was in prison.

What we attested to promote was a negotiation with Bangla Desh people who were not in prison, and who were in Calcutta. The Pakistanis said they would talk only to those Bangla Desh people who were not charged with any particular crime in Pakistan, and I don't know whom that would have excluded.

But I think that part of it was not the breakdown. What created the major difference between us -- not us so much, because we were not a party; we were just transmitting information -- between those who wanted to get negotiations started and the Indian side, was that the Indians took the view that the negotiations had to begin with Mujibur.

MORE

[L.C.]

Let me go <u>OFF THE RECORD</u> here for a minute.

We took the view that once negotiations started, the release of Mujibur would be an inevitable consequence after some period of time, and, therefore, we felt that the most important thing was to get the negotiations started.

This part I consider <u>OFF THE RECORD</u>. It is simply for your understanding. I think it is safe to say the Indian side wanted a maximum of rapidity, and perhaps more speed than the Pakistan political process would stand. We were urging movement at the greatest speed that the Pakistan political process could stand. We felt that one way to resolve this would be for the Indians to give us a timetable of what they would consider a reasonable timetable, and this was raised first when I was there in the summer, and received no clear reply. It was raised again with the Indian Ambassador just before he left, and it was not answered.

So we never got a concrete expression of what the difference in time was. They knew that we believed that political autonomy was the logical outcome of a negotiation. Do these offers still stand? I don't know. [END <u>OFF THE RECORD</u>]

We would be prepared, certainly from our side, if the fighting stopped and there were a withdrawal of forces, if anything, to redouble our efforts to move matters in the direction in which I have indicated.

Q Is it a fact that two other factors that you did not deal with in your opening remarks here were also major causes in your and the President accepting India as an aggressor -- that is, accusing India as an aggressor -- the fact that (1) to do otherwise might lead to a collapse of the President's trip to China and the often stated in print personal preference of the President and you for General Khan over what were considered to be the unrealistic leaders in New Delhi?

DR. KISSINGER: With respect to the first question, we do not have the impression that the Peoples Republic of China considers agreement with us a prerequisite for a successful visit on other issues in the United Nations, and, therefore, we do not consider that the Peoples Republic of China has a veto over our policies.

In short, our policy has been consistent. We have told the Indian Government all summer long that we want or favored political evolution leading toward autonomy; and secondly, that we were opposed to the use of military force, and we did this quite independent of what the Chinese views might be. We had no advance information of what position the Chinese would take at the United Nations, and we operated quite independently.

Secondly, speaking first about myself, the first time I visited the Indian subcontinent I was the subject, in 1962, as can easily be checked in newspaper files, to the most violent newspaper criticisms in Pakistan for my allegedly Harvard-produced preference for Indians, and so much so that I even suggested that I might cancel my visit to Pakistan.

MORE

[L.C.]

- 8 -

There is no personal preference on my part for Pakistan, and the views that I expressed at the beginning, of the American position -- that is, about the crucial importance of India as a country in the world and in the sub-continent -- have always been strongly held by me, and I, therefore, enthusiastically support those as an expression of bipartisan American policy in the postwar period.

As for the President, I was not aware of his preference for Pakistan leaders over Indian leaders, and I, therefore, asked him this morning what this might be based on. He pointed out--as you know, I was not acquainted with the President before his present position -- but he pointed out to me that on his trip in 1967, he was received very warmly by the Prime Minister and by the President of India; that the reports that he was snubbed at any point are without any foundation, and that in any event, the warmth of the reception that we extended to the Indian Prime Minister two weeks before the attacks on Pakistan started should make clear what enormous value we attach to Indian friendship.

While I can understand that there can be sincere differences of opinion about the wise course to take, I do not think we do ourselves any justice if we ascribe policies to the personal pique of individuals. Besides, the charge of aggression was not made in this building in the first place.

Q Was there a failure of understanding between the President and the Prime Minister when she was here last month; a failure of understanding of what this country wanted and what she was planning to do?

DR. KISSINGER: We explained to the Indian leaders, the President did and so did the Secretary of State, exactly what our position was. We pointed out the offers that had been made. We were not given any reply to the offers, and we were not given the slightest inkling that such a military operation was in any way imminent; indeed, in the interval between her departure and the beginning of military operations, we did three things:

One, we attempted to promote these negotiations between the government in Islamabad and Bangla Desh representatives approved by Mujibur. We did not get the agreement of the government in Islamabad, at the time the war had broken out, to that procedure. I am just saying what we were trying to do.

Secondly, we urged very strenuously on the Pakistan Foreign Secretary when he was here that the greatest possible number of concessions that could be made were urgently required and we were promised an answer, as it turned out, for the week that the military attacks took place.

Thirdly, and I did not mention this before, we had the approval of the Government of Pakistan to establish contact with Mujibur through his defense lawyer. All of these facts were communicated to the Indian Government, and nevertheless, military attacks took place.

MORE

[tc]

- 10 -

Q Does this carry the implication that you are putting the responsibility for that original charge of aggression on the State Department? That is my first question.

DR. KISSINGER: No. There is a united governmental view on it.

Q Secondly, I am still trying to clarify the question in Mr. Lisagor's mind and others, Mr. Ziegler did say in Florida on Saturday that India had engaged in a massive military action and he used the word "massive" which sounds like this building to us.

DR. KISSINGER: Sounds like a what?

Q Like a charge of aggression from this building, to me, at least.

DR. KISSINGER: We don't disagree with it. I was trying to explain that this was not a personal idiosyncrasy. The phrase "massive military action" that Ron Ziegler used was a quote from an official Indian statement saying that massive military operations have begun in East Pakistan and Ron was simply referring to the quote from the Indian officials' statement.

Q Dr. Kissinger, would you clarify the situation on the negotiations between the Islamabad Government and Bangla Desh? How much did they agree to do? I seem to be totally confused on what you said. Did the Government agree to negotiate with Bangla Desh representatives approved by Mujibur?

DR. KISSINGER: No. That was a point which we were still trying to get accomplished. They had said they would consider it. They had agreed to talk to Bangla Desh representatives.

Q Why, then, were you so certain that the results of these negotiations for which apparently you had no assurances would end in autonomy?

DR. KISSINGER: Wait a minute. We had assurances for negotiations between the Bangla Desh people and Islamabad. We did not have assurances yet that Mujibur would select the negotiator.

Q What, then, was the basis of your belief that the result of these negotiations would in fact be autonomy for East Pakistan?

DR. KISSINGER: I didn't say that this would in fact be the case. I said that we had said we would support this, that we would use our influence in Pakistan to help bring this about and that we were willing to listen to a specific time-table.

Q I thought you said that ---

DR. KISSINGER: I said it was our personal judgment; that could not be proved, and it was OFF THE RECORD, that it was likely that once negotiations started and were showing some progress that it would lead to the release of Mujibur, but we don't insist on this.

MORE

[c]

- 11 -

Q I thought you said it was inevitable.

DR. KISSINGER: I said OFF THE RECORD, that it was our judgment that the inevitable outcome would be political autonomy for East Pakistan and we had talked in this sense to the Government of Pakistan and they had in fact proclaimed that they were prepared to grant political autonomy for everything but foreign policy, defense, and currency, I believe.

Q We have been very much involved in the negotiations, from what you say.

DR. KISSINGER: Not on substance.

Q Not on substance? Autonomy for East Pakistan, et cetera?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, the negotiations had never, in fact, started.

Q Well, in arranging them. The question I really have is: Today there is a report that Yahya Khan has called for assistance from East Pakistan in forming a coalition government. Is this in accordance with the path we were following and our goals? Did we approve this and is it encouraging in any way?

DR. KISSINGER: We cannot accept the position that we are responsible for every detail of this negotiation. We, in general, have encouraged the return to civilian government. I do not want to go into the details of the political moves that are now being made. We were not in the position where we were taking responsibility, as a country, for every move in this negotiation. I was simply trying to explain, one, that we did show humanitarian concern, two, that we did take action at the end of March with respect to the East Bengal situation, three, that we did try to bring about the political conditions in East Pakistan that would make it possible for refugees to return.

The details of the negotiations would have had to be between Islamabad and the Bangla Desh and whether one particular government or another is the right mix is a detail into which we cannot go, particularly since I have not studied this now.

Q May I follow that up? Were we then actually attempting to play the same role in South Asia as we have attempted to play in the Middle East, that of an honest broker? Is that what you are telling us?

DR. KISSINGER: We were attempting to promote a political evolution which would make recourse to war unnecessary. We recognized that India had a major problem. We recognized that the conditions in East Bengal made it difficult for the refugees to return and we tried for humanitarian and other reasons and in order to preserve the peace, to bring about a humane and peaceful solution.

What we are saying now and what we said on Saturday was that the peaceful means had not been exhausted and that in the circumstances that existed on November 22 and November 29, the use of military force was not justified. That is the basis for our position and that has nothing to do with any preference for one country or another. It has to do with the impact on the peace of the world of such matters.

MORE

[L.C.]

- 12 -

Q Is it your judgment that the Indians were never interested solely in political autonomy for Bangla Desh, but wanted this ---

DR. KISSINGER: I cannot speculate on this. We have certainly told them from the beginning what we were willing to do and I don't want to speculate on that.

Q Regardless of who was to blame for the breakdown in the negotiations you referred to, do you and the President feel personally that India is the sole aggressor in the current outbreak of hostilities?

DR. KISSINGER: I can only repeat--I don't want to use emotionally-charged words--we are saying that military action was not justified. We are saying that there should be a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces, after which the political evolution which we have described should be addressed with even greater vigor than before.

Q Henry, what explanation, if any, have we received in the United States from India as to why it did resort to military action?

DR. KISSINGER: We have received no explanation.

Q Henry, in the beginning you talked about using our political influence with the Pakistanis as one of the reasons why we did not do anything in public; we were working privately. Can you give us any concrete illustration of where that private political influence was successful, other than promises which were either not kept or impossible to keep because of the problems that occurred subsequently?

DR. KISSINGER: Now, wait a minute, we are not talking about promises that were not kept. Let me mention a few of the things that had been accomplished since May 1: The fact that all of the relief supplies, the relief supplies in East Pakistan, were distributed through international agencies; the announcement of a timetable for the return to civilian rule; the replacement of the military governor who had been in charge at the time that the Pakistan Army moved in at the end of March; the replacement of that military governor in East Pakistan and the establishment of a civilian governor; the declaration of amnesty; the willingness to talk to Bangla Desh representatives, even if there might have been some dispute about who they were, it never even reached that point because the thing aborted before candidates for the negotiations were ever presented by the Bangla Desh people or rejected by the Pakistanis. They never rejected anybody. The willingness to let us establish contact with Mujibur by talking to his defense attorney; the indication that substantial political autonomy would be granted to East Pakistan -- all of these, I am not saying they did them only because we urged them, but it is true that they were always done after we urged them.

But I don't want to speak for the Pakistani Government and claim that everything they did was as a result of our urging, but all of these actions I have mentioned occurred after we recommended them.

Q Do you feel that Madam Gandhi betrayed us?

DR. KISSINGER: I would not use such words.

MORE

[L.C.]

Q Did she give any indication that she would seek a peaceful solution and instead do something else?

DR. KISSINGER: All I can say is we had no reason to believe that military action was that imminent and that we did not have some time to begin to work on a peaceful resolution.

Let me make it clear, we recognize that there was not an unlimited period of time, but it seemed to us that either they could have given us a timetable or one could have waited for the return to civilian rule which was only three weeks away, to see whether that would bring about a change in the situation by bringing to the forefront individuals less intimately connected with the events that brought about the difficulties.

Q Henry, you said earlier that we have had contact with the Soviet Union, consultations with them on the problems there. Were they aware of our actions and the progress and the hopeful circumstances as time went along, from March up until the shooting started Friday?

DR. KISSINGER: I think they were generally aware.

Q Were they kept aware?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, maybe not of every last move, but I think they were aware of our general approach.

Q What was their attitude as far as it was given to us, can you tell us?

DR. KISSINGER: They took a formal "hands-off" attitude which may or may not have had the practical consequence of at least not discouraging what happened.

Q What impact do you think the crisis will have on our relations with the Soviet Union now? Do you think it might have an impact on the President's trip to Moscow, for example?

DR. KISSINGER: We believe that the basis of a peaceful evolution with the Soviet Union requires that both countries exercise great restraint in the many crisis areas around the world and that they both subordinate short-term advantages to the long-term interests of peace,

We certainly are making a great effort. We may not always succeed, but we are making an effort to approach problems everywhere, including in South Asia, with this attitude. As I have pointed out in innumerable backgrounders, the attempt to achieve unilateral advantage sooner or later will lead to an escalation of tensions which must jeopardize the prospects of relaxation. We hope that the Soviet Union will use its undoubted influence to approach problems in the subcontinent in the same spirit and not to jeopardize the very hopeful evolution that has started by a short-term approach, but we are still waiting to see. We have no judgment yet.

Q Is it a proper role for a great nation which has maintained a posture of impartiality in South Asia for about 25 years now to take a side or to appear to take a side in this present crisis?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, we have attempted to alleviate the suffering and we have attempted to be true to our principles of giving people an opportunity to determine their political

MORE

- 14 -

future, but we have not done it in a pressing way. We have
done it in an attempt to preserve the peace with the approval
of both sides. With respect to the immediate issue which is
before the United Nations, we have an obligation to make clear
for the sake of peace that we do not favor recourse to military
forces as a member of the United Nations, and as one of the
principal countries in the world.

So, you have to separate, Peter, our attitude towards
the overall problem from our attitude towards the immediate
problem. On the immediate problem the facts are that, one,
the vote in the Security Council has been 11 to 2. There were
only two countries against our position -- the Soviet Union and
Poland. Eleven other countries supported our position. It is
not our position. It is not a quarrel between us and India. It is
our attempt to make clear to the world community that we do stand
for a peaceful resolution of disputes, and it would be wrong
to say one side has 600 million, and whoever has the power
to settle disputes by force should do it. That would lead to
international anarchy.

So what was said on Saturday refers to the military actions that are now taking place; and what was said today was to put our overall attitude in its right perspective.

Q Why didn't you do that Saturday? You said a while ago it might have been better if you had.

DR. KISSINGER: Because we thought that what was
done on Saturday would take care of the then existing prob-
lem. There was no profound reason.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END

(AT 5:34 P.M. EST)