- 2 -

#1838

Now, I will read the statement by the President and we will have this for you after the briefing.

Statement by the President: "I am sure that all Americans will join me in extending congratulations to Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger upon his richly deserved selection as co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1973. By jointly citing Dr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the Nobel Committee has also given deserved recognition to the art of negotiation itself in the process of ending a war and laying the groundwork for peace, an art that will be more essential than ever as we seek to build and maintain a structure of peace in the world."

"It is my most fervent hope that the era of negotiation of the 1970's and the negotiation this award recognizes will be capped by a just and lasting peace in Southeast Asia, in the Mideast, and throughout the world."

We will have this in printed form for you after the briefing.

The President has asked Dr. Kissinger to come over for a meeting at about 12:45 and we will have a photo of that meeting which I expect to take place in the Oval Office.

Q Jerry, is this the statement that Kissinger read at the State Department?

MR. WARREN: This is a statement by the President.

Q You said Dr. Kissinger would have a statement.

MR. WARREN: That is right, that will be his statement.

Q But on the Nobel Prize?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q When was the Nobel Prize announced?

MR. WARREN: It went on the wires this morning.

Q Doesn't the President have some background of claim for this, because if it wasn't for the President, Dr. Kissinger wouldn't have gone?

MR. WARREN: I have given you the President's statement.

Q What is the 12:45 meeting about?

MR. WARREN: That will be to discuss this. The President wants to congratulate Dr. Kissinger. He did by phone, but would like to see him also.

Q Since the President himself was one of the ten individuals nominated for the prize, is the President disappointed that he himself did not get it?

MORE

#1838

- 3 -

#1838

MR. WARREN: I think the statement would belie that.

Now, let me go ahead with what we have today and
then we will set up for the picture in the President's office.
We have posted today's schedule.

In addition to meeting with Secretary Kissinger
this morning for an hour, the President met with Bryce
Harlow, Ron Ziegler and Al Haig.

At noon he met with Congressman Bob Michel of
Illinois and Mr. Erwin E. Towne of Pekin, Illinois. Mr.
Towne presented the President with a wood carved reproduction
of the painting of "The Spirit of '76."

The President either is meeting or will meet shortly
with the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Donald E.
Johnson and Mr. Alden T. Hood of West Columbia, South
Carolina. Mr. Hood, a Vietnam veteran, recently received
a V.A. home loan which brought the total volume of home
loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration to more
than $100 billion. I believe you have a fact sheet on the
home loan program. We will post biographical information
on Mr. Hood.

I have been asked this morning by a number of you about
a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Algeria, Kuwait,
Morocco and Saudi Arabia. That meeting will be held with
the President and Secretary Kissinger tomorrow. I do not
have a time for you on that.

The four Foreign Ministers asked to see the President
-- we will post the names of the four Ministers after the
briefing -- to discuss the current situation in the Middle
East.

I believe you have some releases which I will go
over briefly.

The President today is announcing he will nominate
two officials of the ACTION agency for new positions in ACTION.
The President will nominate Nicholas W. Craw of the District
of Columbia to be the Associate Director of ACTION for
International Operations. This is a new assignment within
ACTION for Mr. Craw. He now holds the title of Associate
Director for Citizens Placement. In the new position he will
succeed Donald K. Hess, who resigned last month.

The President also will nominate Harry J. Hogan
to be the Assistant Director of ACTION for Policy and
Program Development. Mr. Hogan's title will be Assistant
Director.

MORE

#1838

- 5 -

#1838

Q Do you have any comment on the Agnew speech
last night?

MR. WARREN: The former Vice President had something
that he wished to say to the American people, and he did so.
The President has said previously, as you know, that the
Vice President and his family deserve the understanding and
compassion of the Nation. Beyond that, I would have nothing
to say.

Q Jerry, does the President still oppose public
financing of election campaigns?

MR. WARREN: The President, Adam, as you know, has
asked the Congress to create a bipartisan national commission
to study all aspects of elections, including financing of
elections. He still supports this proposal and believes
that this is a proper way to approach the overall question of
national elections.

Q Jerry, there has been more than a little
discussion of the fact that constitutional prohibition of
a foreign born person running for the Presidency is now some-
what anachronistic. I am wondering what the President's
viewpoints are on that. Would he back a proposal to amend
the Constitution to allow the foreign born to run for the
Presidency?

MR. WARREN: I am sorry, this subject has never
come up in my discussions. I am unable to respond to the
question.

Q Jerry, three questions on the meeting with the
Arab Foreign Ministers tomorrow morning. First, which of the
Foreign Ministers requested it? In other words, was it requested
by one who said, "I want to bring along my three colleagues"?
Second, will the envoy from Saudi Arabia be bringing a personal
message from his King and has the President been in contact
with the King? The third one is was the WSAG meeting today
about the threats to cut off the oil?

MR. WARREN: The WSAG meeting today had to do with
the entire Mideast situation. I believe Ambassador McCloskey
yesterday addressed the latter part of your addendum to your
question as to the oil situation.

Now, as to the meeting tomorrow, I just don't know
if one or all four together requested the meeting, but they
wished to come to Washington to meet with the President. As
you know, the President has asked the Secretary of State to
remain in contact with all parties and major powers and those
in the area, so this meeting is in that context.

Q Jerry, wouldn't it have been more appropriate
if they asked to meet with the Secretary of State since they,
too, are Foreign Ministers?

MORE

#1838

- 6 -

#1838

MR. WARREN: The Secretary of State will be in the meeting and the President will be there.

Q What about the middle part of the question concerning a personal message from the King?

MR. WARREN: I don't know.

Q Has the President exchanged messages with King Faisal?

MR. WARREN: We do not, as a rule, discuss diplomatic contacts from here, so I would not be able to respond to that.

Q President Sadat said that he would be willing or the Arabs would be willing to resume the cease-fire at the pre-1967 lines. Does the President consider this a realistic basis for a cease-fire or at least for negotiating a cease-fire?

MR. WARREN: I am in a position this morning, Ted, to repeat to you again that we are in diplomatic contact with the parties to the conflict in the Mideast and with the major powers. I have nothing new to offer you this morning on this entire situation.

Q Let me ask you a question, if I may, Jerry, that was asked yesterday in one form or another. I would like to ask it again today, going on from Ted's question.

Are the United States and the Soviet Union presently trying to agree on or negotiate a cease-fire in place at the present lines of battle?

MR. WARREN: Jim, I have not discussed the diplomatic contacts from here and will not this morning.

Q Jerry, has there been a decision on whether to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling on the tapes?

MR. WARREN: That decision is still under study by the White House counsel and I have nothing to offer you this morning.

Q Jerry, yesterday you said that the President was not aware that Charles Bebe Rebozo had for some three years $100,000 in earmarked donations to his campaign. Does this hold open the possibility that the President may think Mr. Rebozo had deceived him?

MR. WARREN: No, Helen, the question was asked was he aware that Mr. Rebozo had received this money. I did not have an answer in the briefing. I tried to get back to as many as possible after the briefing to say the President was not aware.

MORE

#1838

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1839

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

AT 12:57 P.M. EDT

OCTOBER 17, 1973

WEDNESDAY

MR. WARREN: We have nothing to add to today's schedule.

The President, as you know, met with the four Foreign Ministers and you have either witnessed or heard the tape of the remarks of the President and of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia following that meeting. I have nothing to add to those remarks.

I believe the President and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia described the meeting adequately. The meeting lasted for about an hour. Prior to that, the four Foreign Ministers met with Secretary Kissinger in his White House office and as the President told you this morning, Secretary Kissinger will continue the discussions with the Foreign Ministers at the State Department.

Q: This afternoon?

MR. WARREN: Yes. They are over there now at this time.

That is all the schedule information we have. We will post at 3:00 this afternoon.

I do have a few announcements to give you this morning.

The President today is announcing that he will nominate four United States Attorneys for reappointment. We will post these. They are for the Middle District of Tennessee, the Western District of Virginia, the Southern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Florida. As I said, we will post the biographical data on these four U.S. Attorneys.

The President is announcing his intention to nominate Donley L. Brady of Arcadia, California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Mr. Brady will succeed Daniel Parker who is now Administrator of the Agency for International Development. Mr. Brady will serve the term expiring December 17, 1975 and we will have details to post on Mr. Brady and on the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

MORE

#1839

- 2 -

#1839

I believe you have the President's Message transmitting to the Congress the 17th Annual Report on the Trade Agreements Program. We have copies of the report available in the Press Office for those who are interested.

The President has signed a Proclamation designating the week of October 21 to 27 as Drug Abuse Prevention Week 1973. As the President pointed out in the Proclamation, the theme of Drug Abuse Prevention Week this year is "The American Family, a Response to Drug Abuse. I believe you have that Proclamation.

Those are all the announcements we have this morning, and I will be glad to try to take some of your questions.

Q How long was the morning meeting with Kissinger?

MR. WARREN: Forty-five minutes. The Foreign Ministers arrived at 10:15 and met with Secretary Kissinger until they went into the Oval Office at 11:00.

Q Did the Administration in any way influence the decision on the Rebozo application for a bank by a competitor for a competing bank?

MR. WARREN: I understand that Chairman Wright Patman has said he would look into this matter and if he does so, he will certainly be talking to the appropriate officials within the Administration who made the decisions concerned and those are the officials to whom these questions should be addressed. There was no White House involvement whatsoever.

Q Did the Israeli Ambassador to the United States meet with the President on Friday?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Jerry, does the President share Mr. Laird's view that the American people should buy sweaters?

MR. WARREN: I talked to the President this morning about his meeting with the Foreign Ministers and about some other things, but I didn't discuss that with the President. I don't know in what context --

Q More pointedly, do you expect that there might be a shutoff of the oil supplies from the Middle East as a result of the present conflict?

MR. WARREN: I don't know that former Secretary Laird said that.

In this period in which we -- we being the United States Government -- are undertaking a series of consultations and delicate discussions with various parties to the Middle East conflict and with major powers, I would not respond to a question based on that conversation or expand on any remarks that might have been made by Mr. Laird in that conversation.

MORE

#1839

- 3 -

#1839

[ic]

Q Did the President have a new communication with Secretary Brezhnev in recent days?

MR. WARREN: I don't discuss diplomatic communications from here.

Q Yes, you do, sometimes.

MR. WARREN: Let me rephrase that. As a rule, we do not discuss --

Q Can you make an exception to the rule today as you did last week?

MR. WARREN: No, I have nothing to offer you today.

Q What is the rule? That the American people can know sometimes and other times they can't know?

MR. WARREN: Helen, as I said, we are in the process of very delicate series of negotiations and discussions. The Secretary is in close contact with the major powers and with the parties to the conflict. It would be highly inappropriate for me to discuss this matter from here while we are in this situation.

Q Jerry, nobody asked you to spell out what any messages may have been contained in the Nixon-Brezhnev communications, but whether there have been more.

MR. WARREN: I understood the question.

Q Mr. Warren, in view of the fact that the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister brought a couple of sheets of paper with him, can you tell us whether he made a formal proposal in the direction of some kind of peace settlement?

MR. WARREN: No, I would not be able to expand on what he said and what the President said following the meeting with the Foreign Ministers.

Q Can you say if he brought a message from King Faisal?

MR. WARREN: Again, we do not discuss, as a rule, diplomatic communications from here.

Q Jerry, this morning I checked with the Bureau of Federal Prisons and discovered that in all the whole Federal prison system there are only 78 people serving time for income tax evasion. In view of the President's asking the American people to have compassion and understanding for the former Vice President, I was wondering if the President had ever contemplated giving pardon to these lesser known tax evaders?

MORE

#1839

- 4 -

#1839

MR. WARREN: Who did you talk to this morning?

Q The Bureau of Federal Prisons, IRS and the
Department of Justice.

MR. WARREN: Well, in that same complex you will
find the Pardon Attorney who will, I am sure, explain to
you the procedure for Executive clemency.

Q In other words, the President has never discussed
this or thought about it?

MR. WARREN: As I say, the procedure followed in
this Government and in past Administrations for Executive
clemency is very clear and you could have received that
same information at the Justice Department.

Q Does the White House have any reaction to two
reports, the first is the oil producing countries are going
to hike the oil bill by I believe 17 percent; secondly,
specific reports that Saudi Arabia will refuse to expand
production at the United States request or at least the
request of U.S. refiners?

MR. WARREN: No, I would have no comment based on
my earlier remarks.

Q Jerry, you and later the President told us for
many weeks that no contingency plans were made about a possible
resignation by the Vice President. In view of that, when
Mr. Laird sounded out Jerry Ford in early September about
his availability for the job, was Mr. Laird acting on his own
or were you not telling us the truth?

MR. WARREN: Well, I would not address that question.
I was giving you what was happening at the White House, and
answering questions on behalf of the President at that time,
and I just will not expand on what was said, nor in any way
attempt to interpret it. I think Mr. Laird can speak for
himself.

Q You can tell us, can you not, Jerry, that you
were speaking the truth?

MR. WARREN: Yes, I was.

Q Is it still your view there was no contingency
planning for the replacement of the Vice President?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q Who was Mr. Buzhardt working for when he was
very active in initiating all of the plea bargaining?

MR. WARREN: Helen, we have discussed Mr. Buzhardt's
role from here. The Attorney General has discussed Mr.
Buzhardt's role. I am not going to attempt to go down a
minute by minute or day by day check list on his dealings

MORE

#1839

- 7 -

#1839

Q Mr. Warren, back to the Middle East discussions this morning. Do you know of any precedent for a meeting of the President with four Foreign Ministers and could you characterize this meeting in the scale between routine and remarkable?

MR. WARREN: Well, I would leave the latter part of that to experts in the diplomatic field who report on these matters often.

I know of no precedent for such a meeting in the nearly five years I have been at the White House.

Q Jerry, I note that in the President's Message on the Trade Expansion Act he once again calls for most favored nation tariff treatment for the Soviet Union. May we conclude from this that the detente is in just as fine shape as it was when he last called for this?

MR. WARREN: The matter of most favored nation is still a goal of this Administration in the trade bill. Now, as to your question, I respectfully defer answering that because of the remarks that I have made earlier. We are in, and the State Department, the Secretary of State, is in close consultation with the major powers. I think that your answer really lies in the remarks of Ambassador McCloskey yesterday at the State Department.

The situation is a very sensitive one and I think you can understand why I won't elaborate on many of the questions you are asking me.

Yes, John.

Q Jerry, do you know now -- you said yesterday you didn't know then -- when the President became aware of Mr. Rebozo's return of the $100,000 to Hughes? Was it before or after the return?

MR. WARREN: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday on that.

Q You did say yesterday, Jerry, that the President had discussed the matter of the money earlier this year, I believe with Rebozo.

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q Is the President confident, in light of that discussion, that Mr. Rebozo has not acted improperly in receiving and holding that money?

MR. WARREN: Listen, the information that you have received on this, and that we have received on this, has come from the committee, and it has been published and made known. Mr. Rebozo's part of this has been made known from the remarks he made to the committee by the committee. Now, I have nothing to add to those. This is a story that has gone on too long, as far as I am concerned.

MORE

#1839

- 12 -

#1839

Q If it was, why wasn't it used for campaign purposes? The President ran for office last year.

MR. WARREN: I think that is explained by Mr. Rebozo.

Q What is his explanation, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: Listen, you have better sources with the committee than I do.

Q Jerry, in the answer you gave yesterday you said that he did inform the President earlier this year on that, and I gather from that that he did not tell the President previously in the many long weekends they had spent together. This was the first the President knew about it?

MR. WARREN: That is accurate.

Q Jerry, could you just simply give us a -- let me ask it this way: What is the President's relationship with Howard Hughes, now and in the past?

MR. WARREN: I am not going to go into any more discussion on this matter. This has been a running story that has been brought up from time to time and dates back for years, and there have been answers given dating back over the years, and I think you are all aware of those. I am just not going to do it, Don.

Q The President said for the record that there were some ends and goals in the Middle East on which he and his four guests differed this morning. Having said that, can you go on and particularize what those differences are?

MR. WARREN: No, I would not do that. I talked with the President and the Secretary of State following the meeting and I have given you the response I am prepared to give you.

Q Will anything more be said at the State Department this afternoon?

MR. WARREN: I don't know.

Q Do all your references to the discussion with the committee this morning mean the committee staff?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q I wonder if I could ask you, since you have said that the questions of money and Mr. Hughes go back many, many years, something else that goes back a good many years are the President's very frequent trips to Key Biscayne on virtually every one of which he has spent a great deal of time with Mr. Rebozo, on Mr. Rebozo's boat and in other contacts.

MORE

#1838

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 17, 1973

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

EXCHANGE OF REMARKS BETWEEN
THE PRESIDENT
AND
UMAR AL-SAQQAF
MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SAUDI ARABIA

IN THE ROSE GARGEN

THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Ministers and I have had a very good talk discussing all of the aspects of the current situation in the Mideast. I will not go further than that except to say the conversations will continue over at the State Department with Dr. Kissinger, and any statement with regard to the nature of the conversation will be made from Dr. Kissinger.

Q Will he tell us what was discussed?

THE PRESIDENT: I doubt if there will be a statement, but what I mean is if you have any further questions, you should address them to him.

Q Will you tell us what general areas were covered?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-SAQQAF: If I have to say something, we four Foreign Ministers from the Arab world, representing 18 Arab countries, have been received well and we had a very good exchange of views and discussions with His Excellency, Mr. President Nixon. The meeting and discussions were fruitful and we think the man who could solve the Vietnam war, the man who could have settled the peace all over the world, can easily play a good role in settling and having peace in our area of the Middle East.

Q Did you discuss oil, Mr. Minister?

THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn't be fair to ask him questions because he speaks for 18 and I will simply say this in conclusion, that His Excellency, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, has been very generous in his comments with regard to our peace mission. I explained to the Foreign Ministers in our first four years we had the opening to China, we had a new relationship with the Soviet Union, and of course, we brought an end to the war in Vietnam.

I told them that a major goal, and an urgent goal at this time which we believe can, will and must be achieved is a fair and just and peaceful settlement in the Mideast and we are all dedicated to that goal. Whatever differences we have are with regard to the means, with regard to, of course, certain ends as well, but the goal of a fair and just and equitable peace we all are dedicated to.

Thank you.

END

RECEIVED
NSC

Oct 17 | 33 PM '73

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DPC 184

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS BRIEFING

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1973, 12:45 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. McCLOSKEY: Simone Poulain assumes the
duty for the Office of News as of today. Telephone
number -- 293-7840.

We have in our office copies of an address by
Under Secretary William J. Casey. This is before the
Industrial Research Institute in Chicago, today's
date -- subject: "Science, Technology and World Economic
Affairs".

The Secretary will receive the Marshall
Medal this evening at a dinner in the Sheraton Park Hotel.
The dinner is at eight p.m.; presentation at approximately
9:30. Dr. Elvis Stahr, Chairman of the Association
of United States Army Council of Trustees, will present
the award.

Now, the Secretary will have remarks. They
will be extemporaneous. We will not have a text.

The Marshall Award was established to provide
recognition for "selfless and outstanding service to the

2

United States of America".

The medal has been awarded to thirteen Americans
since its inception in 1960; among others, Presidents
Truman and Eisenhower.

Press arrangements -- Colonel John Close,
using a telephone number in the Senate Room of the hotel,
483-0070.

Q Excuse me, Bob. Is it his intention to
use the extemporaneous remarks for current events, can
you say?

A I can't rule that out. But I would not
expect in the brief time that he is expected to speak,
that is something like five minutes, that it would be of
major news significance. But I can't rule out that it would
be newsworthy in some respect.

I have nothing of material substance to add
to the general Mideast situation from where we were
yesterday. I can tell you a little bit ON BACKGROUND
about the on-the-ground situation, that is in summary
form.

The fighting increased on both fronts yesterday.
As best I can judge it, there are conflicting claims

3

from all quarters.

On the Syrian front, air activity would appear
to have been greater than ground activity, although it
wasn't without ground activity; and just the reverse
on the Egyptian front, more ground activity involving
tank and infantry.

Overnight both fronts were relatively quiet,
but fighting resumed at dawn today.

At least based on the information available
to us, I would have to say that it does not appear to
be highly decisive in any way.

There was a question here yesterday involving
American tourists in Egypt. And I have had a little update
on the subject.

Q You are ON THE RECORD, now, aren't you, Bob?

A Yes. The Government of Egypt has given
approval for a vessel, S.S. KNOSSOS, to arrive and depart
October 18. Now --

Q Alexandria?

A In Alexandria. There are, as we understand
it, about four hundred people who this effort is designed
to assist in leaving. That would include some Americans.
We don't have a breakdown. And arrangements are being

[10]

4

made for those outside -- presently outside Alexandria
to be taken to Alexandria by bus.

That is everything that I have.

Q Bob, just a little while ago, in the Rose
Garden, the President spoke, and so did Foreign Minister
Al-Saqqaf. And the President referred -- well, what he
said -- he said that Al-Saqqaf had been very generous
in his comments about our peace initiatives. The President
also suggested further inquiry should be addressed to the
State Department. Can you tell us anything in a concrete
way about peace initiatives, or would you suppose he was
speaking in general terms?

A There is nothing that I could tell you in
any specific way about specific initiatives, other than
to say that we are maintaining close contact with the
parties in the area and the other powers interested in
the conflict and its eventual outcome.

5

Q Bob, on the diplomatic side of this none-
theless, yesterday you said the efforts was -- in our
contacts was serious and continuing. Can you say whether
any progress has been made, whether we believe any progress
is being made towards achieving a diplomatic solution
of this crisis.

A I couldn't say that with total confidence
that would imply that we could see the outcome. But I
would repeat again today, there is continuing and serious
communication, that that could be measured as progress
in the sense -- or as opposed to having contact break down.
And that hasn't occurred.

Q Bob, when you say serious and continuing
communication, you are not putting more emphasis on that
contact with the Soviet Union than you are with the Arabs
and Israelis, are you? I mean all three equally or --

A I would have to put all of the nations
together under that general remark I made.

Q Bob, has the United States sought to get

6

the Soviet Union, as Mr. Mansfield said yesterday, to
not ship war materiel before the escalation of shipments
began?

Q What was that question?

Q A no-delivery pact or something like that,
was what Mr. Mansfield said.

A I just wouldn't be at liberty to get into
the nature of the communication and discussions with the
Soviet Union.

Q Bob, has the United States received a
protest from any other country about our planes involved
in the resupply effort, either traversing the air space
of another country or using other countries' air fields on
their way to the Middle East?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Bob, for the sake of us who were not at the
White House, could you give us a read-out on the meeting
this morning which the Secretary also attended?

A I can't because, first, the Ministers
are back here at the State Department and meeting with the
Secretary now. So what I would have to do is wait until
that meeting is concluded and see if there is anything that

7

I can tell you that would add to what the President said at the White House.

Q Is that a luncheon meeting?

A No.

Q Is Mr. Sisco attending?

A Yes.

Q A clarification of a question. Bob, you said when you were asked if any countries had notified the United States that the United States could not use its bases in those countries to transit equipment to Israel - was that the question?

A The question was have we received protests from other countries about using air space, and I said I did not understand that to be the case.

Q Bob, was the meeting with the Ambassadors of the four Arab countries this afternoon scheduled before today?

A No, it was not. That was added on as a result of the conversations in the White House this morning.

Q Can you tell us any more about why it was added on?

A No. I frankly don't know. I had the

8

barest couple of minutes to spend with the Secretary,
because he was late getting back. The Ministers were
already here waiting on him. If there is anything I can
tell you about the meeting afterwards, I will do that.

Q To refer to that earlier question, is it correct that Spain, Italy, France and Britain have denied landing facilities to the United States in connection with the airlift?

A FOR YOUR BACKGROUND, and without commenting on the attitudes of those governments, it is not correct that there was a denial to the United States.

Q Have we asked them?

A No comment.

Q Bob, you had a note from Spain. Can you tell us what was in that note -- on the Middle East -- two days ago.

A Endre, I frankly was not aware of that,
and if you are correct that we have had one, I, as of
now, do not know the contents of it. I will take the
question and see if I can help with it.

Q Bob, I didn't quite understand, when you
answered the question as to whether this meeting was a

[c]

9

luncheon session or just a meeting.

A It was just a meeting -- not a luncheon.

Q Bob, are there countries that are denying the United States permission to fly the equipment into Israel? If there are, could you tell us which ones.

A No. The answer is no on both counts.

Q Bob, when you describe the fighting in the Sinai --

Q The answer is no on both counts?

Q There are no countries denying?

Q The answer is no?

A The question again?

(Take B follows)

B 1

Q Are there countries that are denying the United States permission to land as part of the airlift of supplies to Israel?

A The precise answer to that would be: No.

Q What about overflights?

A The answer to that would be: No.

Q Bob, to clarify that, when you say, "Are they denying" obviously, if we didn't ask, there would be nothing to deny.

Did we just work on certain assumptions that we could only use certain areas for landing?

A No comment.

Q Bob, is all of that on background?

A [Shakes head in negative.]

Q Bob, when you referred to the fighting in Sinai and said it doesn't appear to be highly decisive in any way -- does that mean it's relatively easy -- or that it is not of a scale to be decisive, no matter which side wins the particular battle?

A No, you would have had to have been here over the last several days, because we have been talking over the last several days from positions that were achieved four or five days ago -- which haven't materially

B 2

changed, so far as new territory is concerned.

Now I would have to say that with a certain
amount of slippage, because there could be forward movement
on one day of a couple of miles, and maybe back -- this has
been more peculiar to the Syrian front than on the Egyptian
front.

The nondecisive remark that I made, is that it
would appear to me that over the last several days, despite
sometimes very high level of fighting, there doesn't seem
to have been a decisive turn in the battle on either front.

Q Bob, in connection with that -- you opened
the press briefing by saying that on the Syrian front
air activity was greater than ground activity -- with
relation to one side or the other -- and if so, which side?

A I would have to say both. All of my
remarks direct, involving the on-ground situation, I
want to keep ON BACKGROUND.

Q Can there be meaningful negotiations before
we reach decisive point in the field?

A Well certainly, that can't be ruled out.

Q But it's not the situation now or in the
immediate future?

B 3

A I have said, "It can't be ruled out."

Q Bob, could you give us your reading of the
situation in the Security Council?

A Well, only to say, Darius that there is no
meeting scheduled today, again, and at this distance --
and speaking for myself, individually -- I can't say any
more than that.

Obviously, there is a lot of palaver that goes on
in the corridors and in the respective missions, but
nothing has congealed in a way that is going to call for
a meeting of the Security Council today.

Ambassador Scali, the U.S. Representative, is
in Washington today.

Q Can I follow that up, Bob?

There is a report from New York this morning,
that the United States has suggested to some of the
delegations concerned, a cease-fire resolution. Is this
report correct?

A "Some of the Delegations?"

Q The United States has proposed to some
delegations a cease-fire resolution -- just a plain cease-
fire resolution. Is this report correct?

B 4

A I think the answer is: No. I'm
pretty sure.

Q Bob, what is our position now, toward a cease-
fire in place?

A No comment.

Q Bob, does the United States plan, in trying
to work out a negotiation on the immediate fighting,
to also set in train an overall settlement linked to that
ending of the immediate fighting?

A Our -- as I have said here a number of times
-- preferred course was that that was stated in the first
statement made in the Security Council by Ambassador Scalli
on Monday -- Monday a week ago.

I have said over and over again, we are open to
the views of others. Some views have been expressed to us
in our bilateral contacts, and there is no one who could
tell you at this time, the form of a resolution around which
a consensus may develop.

It is a typical diplomatic situation where a
great amount of communication goes back and forth before
a course of action can be agreed upon, and one that is
not going to encounter vetoes in the Security Council.

B 5

Q Bob, is that to say that the specific
proposals are now being discussed, but there is, as yet,
no consensus on any one proposal?

A In general, that would be correct.

Q Bob, do you have anything to refute or
confirm the press -- the wire service report that Alexi
Kosygin is in Egypt?

A We could not confirm that.

Q And another question: According to a
U.S. official at the Pentagon this morning, the Soviet
airlift is now in its eighth day -- apparently at not
only an undiminished rate, but at an increased rate.

Does this simple continuation of something
that seemed to have disturbed you several days ago --
does this continuation change our attitude since you
expressed it several days ago?

A No.

Q There's a report, Robert, that General Dayan
is in Washington. Are you in position to confirm or
deny that?

A If he is in Washington, he hasn't been here
to the State Department, and to the best of my knowledge

B 6

no U.S. Government official has had any direct contact
from him here.

Q That's from one of the foreign wire services.

A Yes.

B Bob, while we're mopping up, a couple of
days ago, you said you would look into whether we knew
Saudi Arabian troops are in the battle -- or at least on
been sent to Syria -- do we have knowledge of that yet?

A FOR BACKGROUND, it would appear that there
were some Saudi forces that entered Syria. Whether they
in fact have been participating in the fighting, I must
say, is unclear to me.

Q Bob, with regard to the airlift and the
questions about landing rights for Americans -- Are you
ruling out landings by American aircraft at bases that we
have in conjunction with NATO?

A I'm not ruling anything in, or anything out.

We have established a means that permit certain
deliveries by aircraft. For obvious reasons, I'm not
going to outline precisely where that is. It's working.
We are satisfied.

Q Bob, is it true, though, that because of the

B 7

shortage of places to land, the United States can carry
less equipment and must carry more gasoline -- as has been
reported?

A No.

Q According to Senator Jackson, he said
publicly this morning at a press conference, that the planes
are landing in the Azores.

A No comment.

Q Bob, if I could ask you another topic --
has Mr. Stoessel left for Copenhagen?

Who is with him, and?

When is he expected to return?

A Well he was to leave either today or
tomorrow -- and I'm frank to tell you I don't know who is
with him. I'll find out.

Q Is it conceivable that the opportunity
could be used to try to coordinate Western policy as
far as the Middle East is concerned -- despite the fact
that the Copenhagen Conference is about something very
different?

A Not in that forum. We have had discussions
on our Middle East policy in NATO over the last several days.

B 8

Q Bob, is the United States, in its continuing diplomatic contact with the parties involved, on the Middle East question, had any diplomatic contact with the Chinese?

A We have had contacts with the Chinese on several occasions in Washington, yes.

I have a problem here on those meetings:
FOR BACKGROUND you can assume that the subject came up although it would not have been the single topic of conversation.

Q Were these contacts that involved the Secretary?

A Yes.

Q Bob, did the Secretary see the head of the Chinese Liaison Office last night?

I have heard reports that he might have been in the building.

A He has seen the head of the Chinese Liaison Office on a couple of occasions since the outbreak of the fighting -- but be guided by what I said in response to this [previous] question -- and I'll have to check to see whether

[10]

B 9

in fact, he saw him yesterday.

But I wouldn't be surprised.

Q Is it fair to say that the Chinese are participating in the multilateral effort to achieve consensus?

A Well you know, I have said many times here that we have been in contact with the Permanent Members of the Security Council. I've said that over, and over again -- and I include all of the Permanent Members.

So again, be guided by my response to your earlier question.

Q Can you include among non-Permanent Members, specifically, India?

A I think the Secretary is going to be seeing the Indian Ambassador either later today or tomorrow. Now, whether before this we have had direct contact in Washington, I'm frank to say I don't know.

He gave lunch for the Foreign Minister here, but that was before the outbreak of fighting in the Middle East.

Now certainly, out in New Delhi we have had contact with the Indian Government on the Middle East.

B 10

Q Bob, is Senator Mansfield's proposal
being given any serious consideration by the Administration?

A I'll have to look into that. I've
simply not had an opportunity to discuss this with the
Secretary. I became aware of the speech only late
yesterday afternoon, and this morning I just didn't have
a chance to discuss it.

Q Bob, what is the specific nature of the
Soviet airlift? What kind of equipment are they
delivering?

A I don't know completely, and I --
inasmuch as I'm not at liberty or prepared to discuss
the items in our own airlift, I would just as soon not
discuss the items in their airlift, other than to say
it's continuing, it's been roughly the same rate in
numbers of flights over the last few days --
and a complementary, in parallel, increase in the
tonnage of equipment.

Q Where does that stand, then? Can you ex-
pand on that? What is the tonnage, then, at the present
time, and the number of flights?

B 11

A I don't have the figures in front of me.
I will look into it for you.

Q Bob, is there anything on the Soviet advisors
and technicians taking part in the battle field action?

A I have seen no information to that effect, or
confirmation of any report to that effect.

Q Bob, could you tell us if Mr. Kittikachorn
has asked for asylum in the United States and what are
the circumstances for his arrival here?

A He is traveling to the United States, and
expected to arrive in Boston later today, accompanied by
his wife, daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren.
Visas were issued for the family in Bangkok, and as we
understand it, they are traveling outside Thailand with
the permission of the Government of Thailand.

We have no information here on his, or the
family's future plans.

"Asylum" is not the way I would describe his
visit to the United States.

Q What type of visa does he have, Bob?

A B-2.

B 12

Q That's the tourist?

A Tourist.

Q Bob, does the Secretary still plan to visit Tokyo on the way into Peking? Or is that holding up?

A We are still holding to the announced schedule, which would call for departure on October 21. I would have to say ON BACKGROUND if you will permit me, that we have to look at this each day in light of the situation in the Middle East and the Secretary's involvement in it.

If we decide on a change -- that is, a later departure, or any other aspect of it -- I'll let you know.

Q Ambassador McCloskey, in light of the award which the Secretary of State received yesterday and in light of his expressed wishes that it symbolize reconciliation -- could you comment on the charges by the North Vietnamese that the U.S. has committed gross violations of the Peace Agreement on October 16th?

A No, sir.

Q Bob, coming back to the Middle East for just one minute: In response to Marvin's question

B 13

about the specific proposal, could you tell us whether
or not the Soviet Union has actually provided a
specific proposal to us, or other countries?

A In our discussions back and forth,
ideas have been exchanged on the nature of a possible resolution
These have been, I would have to say, a little more general
in nature than citing specific language as the body
of a resolution --- but, yes, we have talked about that
kind of matter.

Q Thank you, Bob.

[The proceedings terminated at 1:18 p.m.]

SECRETARY KISSINGER: We are now engaged in very serious, very open-minded consultations with many countries, trying to bring about an end to the hostilities in the Middle East. So that this crisis through which we are now living is a test of the possibilities of diplomacy and of the real meaning of detente. Because it must be clear that while the United States is trying to make our nation safe from war, we will not do so at the price of making the rest of the world safe for war.

We believe that there exists an opportunity for a decent and just settlement, fair to all of the parties, which must be reached first by bringing about an end to hostilities, and then by a dedicated effort that will end the conditions that produced this current conflict.

This is our policy which we will pursue with conviction and which we believe and hope will succeed.

No one would understand these purposes better than the man in whose honor this award was named. He was a master in the art of war, and he won equal acclaim for his dedication in building peace. He demonstrated that one of the quotes of DeToquville, who was one of the ke meeat observers of the American scene, about the dilemmas of democracies in the conduct of foreign policy was wrong. DeToquville wrote that "It is

[L-C]

2

especially in the conduct of their foreign relations that democracies appear to me decidedly inferior. There is" he said "a propensity that induces democracies to obey impulse rather than prudence, and to abandon a mature design for the gratification of a momentary passion." This is indeed a great danger in democracies. But General Marshall, as Secretary of State, faced a nation tired of the sacrifices of war and reluctant to sacrifice for the maintenance of peace. With no clear vision of America's role in the world, partisan political considerations had begun to dominate post-war foreign as well as domestic affairs. But General Marshall's great contribution was to prove that democracies can conduct an effective foreign policy. He provided a new vision, making foreign policy an expression of national rather than partisan purpose. He induced Congress to share in its design, and he established the closest relations with Senator Vandenberg and other congressional leaders.

While every moment in history is unique, a few moments are similar in their openness to fundamental choice.

George Marshall faced the danger of a world descending into chaos, and he had the opportunity to build a new international order. The reconstruction of Europe, the creation of NATO, the rebuilding of Japan, the beginning of Point IV were major acts of statesmanship and substantially determined the course of the past quarter century.

Now we face another open moment in history, when once again we must clearly perceive the shape of the world and purposefully seek to shape it. And this moment indeed has come about because much

3

of the vision that General Marshall represented has been fulfilled. It is due to the success of the policy he inspired.

In our relationship, particularly to Europe, which was shaped by a plan that bore his name, we now must redesign that relationship in the face of new conditions.

Western Europe is no longer as weak as it was in the immediate post-war period, and is able to assume a much greater political responsibility. The military vacuum that existed at the time has been filled to a considerable extent by the Atlantic coalition. The relationship with the Soviet Union, despite difficulties that exist at this moment, nevertheless gives hope that the danger of war has receded.

The unity of Europe, which we have forged and which we have supported, creates the need for a new set of economic relationships.

This is why we are now in the process of developing a new set of patterns and strategy in political relationship and economics in which we hope to be worthy of the vision that inspired General Marshall. Because if the nations of the Atlantic area, sharing similar traditions, having experienced many of the same agonies and combining the same or very similar purposes, cannot work together, it is difficult to see how we can achieve cooperative relationships in a dynamic situation in other parts of the world.

And so it is around the globe.

Japan has recovered. In Southeast Asia a new relationship has to be developed.

4

China, with which General Marshall's name was associated, has gone through a dramatic period and has re-entered the international scene.

We have the opportunity to repeat his great tasks of construction. But we face it in a different environment.

At the time that General Marshall was Secretary of State, his wisdom was a bonus, because the United States was physically so preponderant that we could overwhelm every problem with resources. We could always substitute our resources for thought. We were not in a position where we faced the danger of irretrievable error.

But today we face the problem of making scarce resources, of applying scarce resources to limited objectives. We require intelligence and vision and foresight -- not just/an accident of history, but as a necessity for all times.

We also confront choices that are clouded by ambiguity.

A generation ago the challenges were clear, the alternatives were naked. Today the dangers appear less immediate, the choices less clear-cut.

We are therefore required to summon an unaccustomed ability to deal with nuance, to strike for what is good while never forgetting what is best. The America of DeToquville faced no such challenge. Even the America of General Marshall knew no such overwhelming need.

Now we have to decide -- were the achievements of General Marshall an interlude or an introduction, a passing moment of

American maturity or the beginning of an era of great achievement. ■
We

Will we follow President Truman's wise advice, that peace
is not a reward that comes automatically to those who cherish it,
it must be pursued, increasingly and unswervingly, by every means
at our command. This is the challenge that General Marshall summoned
America to meet, and this is the summons we must once again answer.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1840

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

11:40 A.M. EDT

OCTOBER 18, 1973

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: The President has been working in his Oval Office this morning. He met for an hour with Secretary Kissinger. He also met with Al Haig, General Scowcroft who, as you know, is Secretary Kissinger's Deputy and Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and he met with Ron Ziegler this morning.

At noon the President will meet with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Congressman Manuel Lujan, Jr. and Congressman Harold Runnels, both of New Mexico. They will present to the President a wood carving from the New Mexico Bicentennial Commission with the bicentennial logo on it. The wood carving was done by Mr. John Burton, who is an employee of the New Mexico State Park and Recreation Commission.

After that meeting, the President will meet with Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, who will bring in Miss Christy Carter, who was named American Princess Soya. Miss Carter lives in Eldred, Illinois. She was given this title by the American Soybean Association in August 1973. Miss Carter is a senior at Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois.

Q Will there be any coverage of that?

MR. WARREN: We will try to arrange that for you, Gene, but I can only let one UPI reporter in.

At 3:00 o'clock this afternoon the President will meet with the Cabinet in the Cabinet Room. We expect Secretary Shultz to discuss the meetings he has held recently in Nairobi with the International Monetary Fund, and his visit to Russia. I imagine he will touch on other aspects of the economy, as well as his testimony this morning on the debt ceiling. He testified, as you know, before the House Ways and Means Committee this morning.

The President then will call on other Cabinet officers to discuss issues which are important to their various departments.

There is nothing set on the schedule for tomorrow. If anything develops, we will post that at 3:00 o'clock.

MORE

#1840

[L.C]  
Tobacco Statements  
10/18/75

- 3 -

#1840

MR. WARREN: I really have no guidance to give you, Pete. The matter remains as it was yesterday. The decision is under study in the White House, and I have no guidance for you.

Q Can you tell us if there will be action today?

MR. WARREN: I have no indication there will be action today, but if there is, we will let you know. I have no guidance at this point.

Q Reports from the Hill indicate that there will be no confirmation action on Mr. Ford until after Thanksgiving. How does that fit in with the President's hope for expeditious --

MR. WARREN: The President's hope remains the same: that both Houses of Congress will act expeditiously. The President certainly agrees with the idea that both Houses should thoroughly examine the nominee for Vice President. The White House will cooperate in that process to the extent we can. However, the President hopes that the confirmation proceedings will proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Q Does Thanksgiving seem like an expeditious time to you?

MR. WARREN: I wouldn't presume to inject myself in the Congressional planning on this matter. White House congressional liaison people under Bill Timmons are in contact with the pertinent committees, and I am sure will help expedite matters to the best of their ability.

Q We are not asking for your personal opinion. Does the White House consider that Thanksgiving --

MR. WARREN: I fully understand the question, Gene, but the point I am trying to make to you is that we will cooperate with the Congress in helping to gather the information that we can provide, and will work with the Congress to see that this moves along.

Q Mr. Warren, Senator Jackson yesterday, reacting to the Arab announcement concerning the 5 percent, said, "We are not going to be blackmailed. The U.S. has to stand up to this thing. If they want to play rough, we can do that, and blackmail is resented by Americans of all ages."

Does the White House have a comment on the Arab thing, or Senator Jackson's reaction to it?

MR. WARREN: The phrasing of your question leads me to remind you that we are -- and I know the reminder is not necessary, in all respect -- but we are in delicate diplomatic negotiations at this time. The Secretary of State is in contact with the parties. Nothing constructive would be served, nothing useful would be served, by my commenting on the situation you refer to in your question.

MORE

#1840

- 4 -

#1840

The hope and objective of this Government, as stated by the President and by the Secretary of State, is to achieve an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and then move to create an atmosphere which will assist in moving to a diplomatic settlement as rapidly as possible.

Q Did they have any comment on the oil, the announcement of the oil? And this wasn't my phrase, Mr. Warren; this was Senator Jackson's.

MR. WARREN: I understand that, sir, but in all respect, I feel that in the situation in which we find ourselves today with the situation in the Middle East, with the diplomatic contacts which are going on, it would not serve any useful purpose for me to comment in that vein.

There was a meeting yesterday at the White House, which you are all aware of, which the President said was a very constructive meeting. Secretary Kissinger last night said that we are now engaged in very serious and very open-minded consultations with many countries, trying to bring about an end to the hostilities in the Middle East. Because of this, and because of the situation, I prefer not to comment.

Q Where did he say that, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: He said that at the United States Army Association dinner where he received the George Catlett Marshall Award.

Q Jerry, let me phrase a more delicate question.

There have been reports that Kosygin's presence in Cairo relates to diplomatic efforts -- reports leaked, in fact, at the State Department -- of a joint attempt by the United States and the Soviet Union to phrase a resolution in the United Nations that, in fact, the thrust is a cease-fire in place. I wonder, on that basis, if you can at least generally, in broad brush strokes, describe the kind of diplomatic goals the United States is pursuing, other than the rhetoric that we have been hearing for the last couple of days about peace and settlement, and so forth?

MR. WARREN: I am afraid if I broad-brushed it, it would be more rhetoric than what you call rhetoric, in all respect, Jerry, and I do think that the Secretary of State was quite eloquent last evening in describing the goals of this country. I do not think I could improve upon his language.

Q Jerry, did the Arab Ministers who met with the President and Dr. Kissinger yesterday propose a specific peace plan?

MR. WARREN: The meeting that the President held with the four Foreign Ministers yesterday was described by the President and by the spokesmen for the four nations. Based on my earlier comments, and based on the comments of the Secretary of State in his speech last evening, I would not comment

MORE

#1840

- 5

#1840

on that question except to refer you back to what the President said after the meeting.

Q The Secretary of State last night, apparently in speaking of a cease-fire, described a cease-fire in place, without implying the name. Is that an accurate interpretation of what he was saying?

MR. WARREN: I am sure there will be many interpretations of what he said. The objective of this country is to assist in any way we can to achieve an end to the fighting. The Secretary referred to his belief and our belief that an opportunity exists for a decent and just solution, fair to all parties. I would not attempt to interpret the Secretary's remarks.

Q Jerry, was President Nixon made aware of Mr. Kosygin's plans to visit Cairo?

MR. WARREN: Gene, to answer that would be to comment on the reports. I really believe that while the Secretary and the President and others in the Government are pursuing intensely the diplomatic initiatives and consultations, it would not be of any useful purpose for this Government spokesman to comment on that situation. However, you may be assured that the President is receiving his morning briefings. He is receiving cable reports and is in discussion with the Secretary of State. As I said, he talked to him for an hour this morning. They are in discussion throughout the day.

As a matter of fact, yesterday afternoon there was a meeting of the Washington Special Action Group, and the President, late in the afternoon, asked the group to come up to the Cabinet Room for a few moments, and the President dropped in on that meeting and discussed the current situation with the Washington Special Action Group.

Q Jerry, a Republican Senator, after talking here in the White House, said something to the effect that the Soviet fleet has moved out of the Eastern Mediterranean. Can you confirm this?

MR. WARREN: Bob, I would not comment from here on the movements of the Soviet fleet.

Q Can you say what gives you grounds for optimism on this great opportunity for a solution, for peace in the Middle East?

MR. WARREN: The diplomatic contacts and initiatives are continuing. There is discussion going on between the United States and all parties to the conflict, and with the major parties, but I would not go on beyond that.

Q Jerry, can you tell us if the President is pleased that Mr. Kosygin is in Cairo?

MORE

#1840

- 6 -

#1840

MR. WARREN: Gene, I am really going to rely on what I have said earlier on the whole matter.

Q On another matter, back to the tapes, is Elliot Richardson discussing with Mr. Cox some possible compromise?

MR. WARREN: I believe I was asked a similar question yesterday, Fran, and what I said was that that was a matter you should address to the Attorney General. The White House Counsel's Office is studying the decision.

Q On that same subject, is the Attorney General participating or involved in any way in the White House study of the matter of the tapes problem?

MR. WARREN: Not being in a position to guide you on timing or direction of a possible decision by the White House, I am similarly restricted in describing for you the details of the study that is underway. However, you could be assured that the Attorney General would be apprised of the study and would be consulted.

Q Has the President been talking to the White House Counsel on this matter?

MR. WARREN: Yes, he has.

Q Has the "Hot Line" been used since a week ago Saturday?

MR. WARREN: No. However, we do not discuss the use of the "Hot Line".

Q Jerry, this is an additional factor, isn't it, the Attorney General now coming into the tapes issue between Cox and the White House?

MR. WARREN: I am sorry; there was some talk in the back and I really didn't get that, Bob. Would you say it again?

Q Going back to the previous question, where you said we should address the question about perhaps talks about a compromise on the tapes issue to the Attorney General --

MR. WARREN: Any discussions that the Attorney General may have with the Special Prosecutor should be a subject addressed to the Attorney General.

Q Yes, but we are talking about discussions between the White House and the Special Prosecutor.

MR. WARREN: That is not the way the question came to me, Bob.

Q Sorry, but are there discussions between the Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor on this subject? Isn't the Attorney General acting on behalf of the White House?

MORE

#1840

- 7 -

#1840

MR. WARREN: I have described to you, to the limit of my ability this morning, the study on the tapes.

Q Jerry, does the President still hold, as he did in one of the legal briefs, that the Special Prosecutor is an employee of the Executive Branch, and if so, will he order him to stop investigating the Rebozo $100,000 contribution matter?

MR. WARREN: In the first place, you are asking me to make a legal judgment, and I have promised Mr. Buzhardt and Mr. Garment, et al., not to do that.

As to the contribution you referred to in your question, we said yesterday that the President was unaware of when it was received. Mr. Rebozo and the President discussed this. As you know from reading reports, the money was returned, and we said that the President felt there was no impropriety on the part of Mr. Rebozo, and that is the way it stands. We are sure that whatever investigation is conducted will be thorough and it will show that there is no impropriety or that there has been none.

Q Could you restate just for the record, so we have it clear, the President's position on the use of oil as a political tool?

MR. WARREN: The matter of oil in this current situation is one that I feel somewhat restricted in discussing, Jerry, because of the diplomatic initiatives that this Government is undertaking and because of the hopes that this Government has for an early stopping of the fighting and diplomatic settlement, so I will leave it at that.

Q But the President has clearly gone on record over the last several months now, and made some very clear and concise comments on our position vis-a-vis the use of oil. He said we would not be held hostage by any nation. Does he still hold to those comments, or is he now changing those comments?

MR. WARREN: No. He feels very strongly that this country should be self-sufficient in energy. He has stated that as one of the Administration's major goals, and he still holds that view.

Q Jerry, in New York City today, Senator Javits said that he believes and feels assured that within a matter of days there will be negotiations begun aimed at leading toward settlement to the fighting in the Middle East. I wonder if the White House shares his optimism on that?

MR. WARREN: Jim, I have stated the White House vidw on this morning, and I will stand on what I said.

Q Jerry, to go back to the question of the Hughes money for a moment, on what basis -- since you told us yesterday

MORE

#1840

- 9 -

#1840

he does not discuss campaign contributions with those who wish to offer them or those who are going to receive them, and that has been his view and principle for a long time. So, therefore, that is where it stands. I have covered this yesterday and today, and that is where it stands.

Q Jerry, when can we expect action on the war powers bill, and will it be a veto?

MR. WARREN: I am not going to predict the President's action; however, you are aware of our stated position on the Hill. I believe I stated it most recently in Key Biscayne.

That bill, as other bills, will receive study at the White House and in the Office of Management and Budget. I would not expect any action on that this week.

Q Mr. Warren, I was just wondering, has the President at any time offered Mr. Rebozo any Government post, such as Under Secretary of the Treasury?

MR. WARREN: No.

Q Would you tell us whether there is a possibility for a late afternoon briefing in view of the fact that you are going to have a Cabinet meeting, and also the possibility of a tape decision?

MR. WARREN: I do not expect a late afternoon briefing. We will post at 3:00 o'clock, and I do not expect a report out of the Cabinet meeting.

Q JErry, to get back to Cliff Evans' question, was the "Hot Line" ever used? It was my impression that we were told that the President's communications with Mr. Brezhnev were through normal diplomatic channels.

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q So it has never been used?

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q Has he communicated with Mr. Brezhnev other than the one exchange a weekend ago?

MR. WARREN: Here, again, Gene, we are in consultation with the major powers to reach the goals that I have stated, and the Secretary of State stated very eloquently last evening, and that process continues. While that process is underway, I am going to maintain a position where anything that I might say might interfere with that consultative process, and I do not want that to happen. I do not think anyone does.

Q You told us again today that the President doesn't discuss campaign contributions with those who contribute or with those who receive them.

MORE

#1840

Department of State

TELEGRAM

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 02 STATE 206705

YESTERDAY, THERE HAS BEEN NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE
LAST 24 HOURS.

Q. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE ACCURACY OF A WHOLE FLURRY OF REPORTS THIS MORNING THAT THE SOVIETS HAVE PROPOSED A PLAN -- ITSELF PROPOSING A RETURN TO THE 167 CEASE-FIRE LINES, AND AN INTERNATIONAL PEACE FORCE MADE UP OF U.S. AND SOVIET OBSERVERS?

A. I CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY IT. I JUST DON'T KNOW IT TO BE A FACT.

Q. THERE'S A REPORT TODAY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ARABS CAME UP WITH FOUR MINISTERS WHO MET WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND DR. KISSINGER HAD A PEACE PLAN OF SOME KIND. CAN YOU DISCUSS THAT FOR US?

A. FRANKLY, NO, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH, IN FULL MEASURE THE MIDDLE EAST SITUATION -- BOTH MILITARILY AND DIPLOMATICALLY -- WAS THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. BUT IT IS NOT MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY ADVANCED A SPECIFIC FORMULA.

Q. CAN YOU SAY WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS CURRENTLY UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION, THE POSSIBILITY OF JOINING IN AN INTERNATIONAL PEACE FORCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST REGION?

A. NO.

Q. IS AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION?

A. NO.

Q. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL STATEMENTS BY SOME SENATORS THIS MORNING, AND THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE SPECULATION WHICH SUMS UP TO AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE A BREAK IN THE SITUATION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS. DO YOU SEE ANY BASIS FOR THIS KIND OF OPTIMISM?

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM 02 STATE 206705

Department of State

TELEGRAM

[LC]

UNCLASSIFIED

PAGE 03 STATE 206705

A. I CAN'T WITH ANY CONFIDENCE, TELL YOU THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE SEE THE OUTCOME AT THIS TIME.

Q. IS THE SOVIET AIRLIFT CONTINUING AT THE SAME RATE THAT YOU DESCRIBED TWO DAYS AGO AS "MASSIVE?"

A. YES.

Q. DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE ANY REACTION TO THE ANNOUNCE- MENT BY THE ARAB OIL PRODUCERS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BEGIN CUTTING EXPORTS FIVE PERCENT PER MONTH AS LONG AS ISRAEL MAINTAINS ITS OCCUPATION OF THE TERRITORIES?

A. WELL, FIRST, THAT WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED, THAT WE CAN MEET AN EMERGENCY SITUATION IF IT ARISES AS A RESULT OF THAT ANNOUNCED CUTBACK IN PRODUCTION. IT IS NOT CLEAR YET, AT LEAST TO ME, WHAT SPECIFIC QUANTITATIVE IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE AND OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME. BUT I HAVE SAID HERE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS THAT SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF FIGHTING, CONTINGENCY PLANNING HAS BEEN UNDERWAY WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, CONTINGENCIES THAT PRINCIPALLY ARE DRAWN UP BY GOVERNOR LOVE'S OFFICE, AND THAT WHILE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A MATTER OF SOME REGRET, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS THE RESOURCES TO MEET SUCH A CONTINGENCY.

Q. DID THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT CONVEY TO YOU ANY IDEAS ON THE CEASE-FIRE OR A LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DURING THE LAST FEW DAYS?

A. WELL, NATURALLY, IN ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT THEIR VIEWS ON THE FIGHTING, A POSSIBLE CEASE-FIRE, AND HOW YOU GO ON FROM THERE HAVE BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. IT IS NOT MY IMPRESSION, HOWEVER, THAT THEY HAVE PUT IN A SINGLE FORMULA ON A PIECE OF PAPER FROM WHICH THEY WOULDN'T MOVE. THAT IS NOT MY IMPRESSION AT ALL.

Q. HAVE THE KISSINGER-DOBRYNIN TALKS GENERATED A PRODUCT THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO EGYPT AND SYRIA FOR CLEARANCE?

A. NO COMMENT. END QUOTE. KISSINGER

UNCLASSIFIED

FORM

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 3:00 P.M., EDT

OCTOBER 19, 1973

Office of the White House Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am today requesting that the Congress authorize emergency security
assistance of $2.2 billion for Israel and $200 million for Cambodia. This
request is necessary to permit the United States to follow a responsible
course of action in two areas where stability is vital if we are to build a
global structure of peace.

For more than a quarter of a century, as strategic interests of the major
powers have converged there, the Middle East has been a flashpoint for
potential world conflict. Since war broke out again on October 6, bringing
tragedy to the people of Israel and the Arab nations alike, the United States
has been actively engaged in efforts to contribute to a settlement. Our
actions there have reflected my belief that we must take those steps which
are necessary for maintaining a balance of military capabilities and achieving
stability in the area. The request I am submitting today would give us the
essential flexibility to continue meeting those responsibilities.

To maintain a balance of forces and thus achieve stability, the United States
Government is currently providing military material to Israel to replace
combat losses. This is necessary to prevent the emergence of a substantial
imbalance resulting from a large-scale resupply of Syria and Egypt by the
Soviet Union.

The costs of replacing consumables and lost equipment for the Israeli Armed
Forces have been extremely high. Combat activity has been intense, and
losses on both sides have been large. During the first 12 days of the conflict,
the United States has authorized shipments to Israel of material costing
$825 million, including transportation.

Major items now being furnished by the United States to the Israeli forces
include conventional munitions of many types, air-to-air and air-to-ground
missiles, artillery, crew-served and individual weapons, and a standard
range of fighter aircraft ordnance. Additionally, the United States is
providing replacements for tanks, aircraft, radios, and other military
equipment which have been lost in action.

Thus far, Israel has attempted to obtain the necessary equipment through the
use of cash and credit purchases. However, the magnitude of the current
conflict coupled with the scale of Soviet supply activities has created needs
which exceed Israel's capacity to continue with cash and credit purchases.
The alternative to cash and credit sales of United States military materials
is for us to provide Israel with grant military assistance as well.

The United States is making every effort to bring this conflict to a very swift
and honorable conclusion, measured in days not weeks. But prudent planning
also requires us to prepare for a longer struggle. I am therefore requesting
that the Congress approve emergency assistance to Israel in the amount of
$2.2 billion. If the conflict moderates, or as we fervently hope, is brought
to an end very quickly, funds not absolutely required would of course not be
expended.

(MORE)

- 2 -

I am also requesting $200 million emergency assistance for Cambodia. As in the case of Israel, additional funds are urgently needed for ammunition and consumable military supplies. The increased requirement results from the larger scale of hostilities and the higher levels of ordnance required by the Cambodian Army and Air Force to defend themselves without American air support.

The end of United States bombing on August 15 was followed by increased communist activity in Cambodia. In the ensuing fight, the Cambodian forces acquitted themselves well. They successfully defended the capital of Phnom Penh and the provincial center of Kampong Cham, as well as the principal supply routes. Although this more intense level of fighting has tapered off somewhat during the current rainy season, it is virtually certain to resume when the dry season begins about the end of the year.

During the period of heaviest fighting in August and September, ammunition costs for the Cambodian forces were running almost $1 million per day. We anticipate similar average costs for the remainder of this fiscal year. These ammunition requirements, plus minimum equipment replacement, will result in a total funding requirement of $380 million for the current fiscal year, rather than the $180 million previously requested. To fail to provide the $200 million for additional ammunition would deny the Cambodian Armed Forces the ability to defend themselves and their country.

We remain hopeful that the conflict in Cambodia be resolved by a negotiated settlement. A communist military victory and the installation of a government in Phnom Penh which is controlled by Hanoi would gravely threaten the fragile structure of peace established in the Paris agreements.

I am confident that the Congress and the American people will support this request for emergency assistance for these two beleaguered friends. To do less would not only create a dangerous imbalance in these particular arenas but would also endanger the entire structure of peace in the world.

RICHARD NIXON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 19, 1973

#          #          #

NEWS CONFERENCE

This Copy For

#1842

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

3:15 P.M. EDT

OCTOBER 19, 1973

FRIDAY

MR. WARREN: Before I go to the other announcements we have today, I think it is important to draw your attention to some points in the President's message to the Congress requesting emergency security assistance for Israel and for Cambodia.

As the President says in his message, this request is necessary to permit the United States to follow a responsible course of action in two areas where stability is vital if we are to build a global structure of peace. As you know, and as the President points out, until this time Israel has attempted to buy the necessary equipment by cash sales and through credit purchases. However, the magnitude of the current conflict in the Middle East is such, along with the scale of the Soviet resupply activities to Syria and Egypt, that Israel's capacity to continue with cash and credit purchases has been exceeded.

Therefore, the President is asking in this message to the Congress for the authority and the flexibility to provide Israel with grant military assistance as well.

Q I just wondered if there was a formula, what the breakdown would be between grants and cash.

MR. WARREN: That is hard to say. This $2.2 billion is, in effect, a ceiling, and the President is asking for that authority.

Q Ceiling on grants or cash?

MR. WARREN: Both, but what we are asking for for the first time is grant authority to provide grants to Israel because their capacity has been exceeded, as the President says in his message.

Q So, Jerry, $2.2 billion in grants and purchases would be correct to say?

MR. WARREN: That is correct; in grants and purchases.

Q Grants and credits?

MR. WARREN: You are quite right; grants and ceilings.

MORE

#1842

- 2 -

#1842

Q You don't know what portion will be grants and what portion credit?

MR. WARREN: No, but I would imagine the majority would be in grants because, as the President says, Israel's capacity to continue with cash and credit has been exceeded.

Q Is the $825 million that has already been furnished included in this?

MR. WARREN: That will be included in this. The authority for that is contained in the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968. Israel has signed contracts for that $825 million worth of equipment and material for either cash or credit authorization.

Q That is included in the $2.2 billion?

MR. WARREN: Yes. This $2.2 billion would be retroactive to the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East.

Q Will not some of this go to replace the stocks that have been used to transfer to Israel.

MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. That is an important point to make. The money will be spent in the United States for equipment and to replenish Defense Department stocks which have been sent to Israel. I notice there has been some reference to $500 million to $700 million as cited by Budget Director Roy Ash. That is his estimate of what the budget impact might be on the current year. It is hard to say, and very difficult to estimate, because you cannot really make an accounting until the funds are expended. But his estimate was $500 million to $700 million in the current fiscal year.

Q What does this impact come from?

MR. WARREN: That would come from the additional grants that will be necessary in this current conflict above what is already committed.

I should correct myself on the $825 million. $300 million of that is in existing authority, so it is not all new. $300 million of it is in addition to the $2.2 billion that is in the existing foreign assistance bill.

Q In other words, it is $525 million that is involved in the $2.2 billion?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

Q I don't want to belabor the point, but are you absolutely sure that the $2.2 billion includes credits?

MR. WARREN: Yes, but mainly grants. It is hard to tell, you know, at this point, how much --

MORE

#1842

- 3 -

#1842

Q But the point is, why would the President be
asking for authorization for credits at this point? Are there
not enough monies --

MR. WARREN: He wants flexibility at this point.
As I said, the tradition is for Israel to pay for everything.
That capacity has been exceeded. It is hard to tell now
exactly how much that will be, but he needs the flexibility
for grants. So primarily it will be for grant authority.

Q Jerry, can you delineate the difference between
emergency security assistance and emergency military assis-
tance?

MR. WARREN: I do not think there is a difference.
I am not an expert on that, but what we are talking about is
foreign military sales and grants and credits under foreign
military sales.

Q Have you not even a rough estimate in percentage
terms of how much of this is grants, 90 percent or 80 percent?

MR. WARREN: No, but primarily grants. The President
is asking for grant authority for the first time.

Q If it is primarily for grant assistance, why
isn't it going to have a greater budgetary impact than $500
million to $700 million?

MR. WARREN: Because you just cannot be precise until
the money is expended. In other words, we really don't know at
this point.

Q Just to be sure I understand, you say that
$525 million will come out of the $2.2 billion; is that cor-
rect?

MR. WARREN: That is correct.

Q Jerry, just to make this clear, it says here
that Israel tried to get this equipment, presumably the $825
million, through cash and credit purchases. Now, that indicates
that some of that $825 million would be cash and wouldn't be
included in the $2.2 billion.

MR. WARREN: Let's start from scratch. We have
authority now for $300 million. That is in existing law. As
the President says here, the United States has authorized
shipments to Israel of material costing $825 million, which
exceeds the authority by $525 million. Now, as I say, the
authority for that is contained in the Foreign Military Sales
Act of 1968 and Israel has signed contracts for this material
in either cash or credit authority.

But the money from the United States' standpoint is
contained in the $2.2 billion.

MORE

#1842

- 4 -

#1842

Q. They were willing to pay cash, but they won't actually have to; is that the idea?

MR. WARREN: They want to pay cash for as much as they can, but the level of fighting is so intense and the resupply on the Soviet side is such that their capacity is being exceeded and the President needs the authority for the grants.

Q. Jerry, could you explain for a broad body of people who aren't versed in the sophistication of geopolitics how the two superpowers can be fueling a war at the same time they are cooperating on peace?

MR. WARREN: Jerry, I would not attempt to respond to that question while our diplomatic activity is underway. I think that has been addressed to a certain extent by Ambassador McCloskey, but in all due respect, I don't think it would be proper for me to get into that from here.

Q. Jerry, are you saying that if the Congress says no to this request, that the shipment of $825 million, even though it is over the $300 million authorized, is still legal?

MR. WARREN: Yes, that is what I am saying.

Q. Mr. Warren, my friend from Kol Israel is sitting on the floor and is trying to get your attention, but she couldn't be seen, so I will defer to her and then I have a question.

MR. WARREN: That is very nice.

Q. Do you know at this point when Israel might be expected to have to pay back this money, and also, do you know whether the Arab states are paying for the arms they are receiving?

MR. WARREN: Remember, in the case of grants there is no repayment. In the case of credits, of course, there is, but I do not know.

Q. Do you know if the Arab states are having to pay Russia?

MR. WARREN: No, I do not.

Q. The question here is, in the sixth paragraph you stipulate air-to-air, air-to-ground missiles, artillery and so forth. Since you have listed some of the things to which it is going, we in Idaho picked up a news release from Spain from a paper called Ya, I believe it was, that said a charter load of U.S. flyers, 150 Vietnam pilot veterans, were on their way to Israel and were noted stopping in Spain and took off on a charter flight.

MORE

#1842

- 5 -

#1842

Number 1: Will they lose their citizenship if they serve for a foreign power; and Number 2, will the U.S. funds go to support these allegedly American flyers?

MR. WARREN: I am simply not aware of the report to which you refer. However, I would think that any questions along that line could be cleared up rapidly by the Defense Department.

Q Would you happen to know the total value of military aid -- that is, cash and credit sales -- provided Israel up to now, not including the $825 million, up to October 6th? Would you have a ballpark figure for that?

MR. WARREN: No, I would not have that. I did not come in with that; I am sorry.

Q Would you know now to what extent the aid to Israel and the aid to Cambodia is linked, and why it is linked at all?

MR. WARREN: It is not linked. I believe, as the message says, the requirement for Cambodia -- and I should make this clear for you -- the Cambodian part of this, the $200 million for Cambodia is strictly grants. There is no credit in this at all. We had planned a supplemental, Peter, for Cambodia for the reasons the President states in his message; that when we requested $180 million, we at that time did not anticipate the August 15th bombing halt and, therefore, obviously did not anticipate the Communist offensive which followed that bombing halt, the intensive offensive which followed the bombing halt.

So we feel that this extra $200 million is absolutely necessary for Cambodia to defend itself. They have been using their own aircraft, and the ammunition supply has been depleted to a great extent in the fighting in that period referred to in the message. So to the crux of your question, there is no linkage. We had planned a supplemental on Cambodia and it was just sent up at this time.

Yes, Jim?

Q I was going to ask, do you know how many American military personnel we have on the ground in Israel to help effect this airlift?

MR. WARREN: No, I do not, but I think the Defense Department could get that for you.

Q How much more than $825 million could we send without an okay from Congress like this?

MR. WARREN: I am not an expert on the Foreign Military Sales Act, so I really cannot answer that question. I know that there is authority in the 1968 Act for long-range, open-ended credit arrangements with Israel, but as the statement

MORE

#1842

[L]

- 6 -

#1842

points out, and as the President has pointed out before, Israel has always paid for what it has received, and in this current situation the fighting is such that the grants are necessary.

Q What kind of timing would you like to see on this? I don't know what the procedure is on the Hill. Is this something they could or should put through under emergency procedures?

MR. WARREN: The President is calling it emergency security assistance and would ask for prompt action on it.

Q You mean before the Thanksgiving recess?

MR. WARREN: I would hate to put a time limit on it, but it is emergency security assistance.

Q Does this request come in response to any specific communication from the Government of Israel to the Government of the United States, and can you give us the nature of this communication?

MR. WARREN: I really cannot. The matter of the United States resupply to Israel has been a matter that has been discussed thoroughly at State. I can tell you that, as the President says here, the equipment is necessary and that is why the President is asking for it.

Q Is the phrase "fighter aircraft ordnance" a euphemism for airplanes?

MR. WARREN: You know, I cannot answer that question because the next sentence says the United States is providing replacements for tanks, aircraft, radios and other military equipment. I am in a position where I cannot be more specific than the President's message is on that.

Q Wouldn't ordnance be rockets?

MR. WARREN: I would think it would be ordnance, yes.

Q Would the President sign a bill that authorizes aid for Israel but does not authorize aid for Cambodia?

MR. WARREN: The President is asking for both. The President thinks both are necessary on an emergency basis, and wants both of them.

Q Of equal importance, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: I am not going to equate or try to say which is more important than the other. Both of these countries are fighting for their existence and need assistance.

- 8 -

#1842

Q Jerry, what can you tell us about your other announcements?

MR. WARREN: I have nothing for you on the matter of the tapes or the decision of the Court of Appeals and I am in the same position I was this morning. We will, of course, let your bureaus know, and let you know if something comes up.

I would like to mention two other things before we break.

Q You mean if something comes up?

MR. WARREN: When.

Q Is it worth hanging around for?

MR. WARREN: No, I wouldn't hang around for it.

Q Are you saying if nothing comes up that you are accepting the Court of Appeals ruling?

MR. WARREN: Wait a minute, I am not saying anything new beyond what I said this morning. I have no guidance for you. When something comes up we will call you and I am saying there is no need to stick around here.

Q The Court of Appeals gave the White House five days in which to appeal from its decision. I am assuming that would be midnight tonight. Are you saying we are going to get something later this evening on this?

MR. WARREN: I am saying we will have something later today and we will let you know.

In answer to a question, I don't think there is any need to stick around here.

Q It is 3:30 now. About 5:00?

MR. WARREN: I understand that. I can't give you any guidance on timing.

Q You will definitely have something?

MR. WARREN: We will have something later on today.

Q Will you be making some kind of announcement on this later on or is there going to be a one sentence from out of inside?

MR. WARREN: I am in the same position I was this morning. I can't give you guidance on timing or form at this point.

MORE

#1842

- 9 -

#1842

Q It won't be related to when the court goes home, necessarily?

MR. WARREN: I just have no guidance on it for you.

Q What is the big secret, Jerry?

MR. WARREN: I just have nothing to give you.

Q Do you know how much money is in this arts bill?

MR. WARREN: I am delighted to get that question because I was going to try to volunteer that. Thank you very much.

Q Some of you have, and maybe all of you do not have, a budget matter which is unrelated to the emergency assistance to Israel and Cambodia, and that is that the President is asking Congress for an additional $150 million in foreign assistance as a result of unanticipated relief and rehabilitation needs for flood, drought and earthquake disasters in Pakistan, West Africa and Nicaragua.

Q Has he asked anything for Nicaragua before?

MR. WARREN: We will check that for you, Fran.

In the arts and humanities bill, the funding levels are $145 million for fiscal '74; $200 million for fiscal 1975, and $252 million for fiscal 1976. Now, to supplement your background on this, the amount expended by the Administration when it came into Washington in fiscal '69 was $14.1 million, so the amount for arts and humanities has grown from $14.1 million in fiscal '69 to $145 million in fiscal '74.

We have a posting which will give you all the details on the bill.

Q Jerry, I don't want to again belabor a point, but there must be some difference between security assistance and military assistance, because the Cambodian aid is called emergency military assistance and the Israeli aid emergency security assistance.

MR. WARREN: There very well may be, and I am not an expert on that, but I would be delighted to get it for you. What we are asking for in Cambodia is pure grant, and what we are asking for in Israel is --

Q May that be the distinction?

MR. WARREN: It may be. I am sure there is an expert here who could tell me. I don't know the distinction.

MORE

#1842

- 10 -

#1842

Q Jerry, if this question was asked earlier, I apologize, but will the White House oppose any efforts in the Senate to divorce aid to Cambodia and the aid to Israel?

MR. WARREN: We are sending up a bill which asks for the emergency security authorizations for both.

Q I understand, but if there is an effort to divorce them and get a separate vote, will you oppose that effort?

MR. WARREN: We want both of them in this one bill. That is what we are asking for and I would not make a judgment on the legislative strategy.

Q Does the President still think a mutual balance of military force in the Middle East is essential to world peace?

MR. WARREN: The President mentions in his message that this authority is necessary to bring a balance, and therefore, stability, and I will just leave it where the President did.

THE PRESS: Thank you, Jerry.

END

(AT 3:36 P.M. EDT)

#1842

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1841

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

12:30 P.M. EDT

OCTOBER 19, 1973

FRIDAY

MR. WARREN: The President has been working in his Oval Office since 8:00 o'clock this morning. He met with Secretary Kissinger for an hour. He also met with Major General Brent Scowcroft. He met with Ron Ziegler and with Al Haig.

Q: Is that all together, in the same meeting?

MR. WARREN: No. These were separate sessions.

I have no other schedule information for you today. If anything develops, I will have it for you at 3:00 o'clock this afternoon.

We have just a few announcements this morning.

The President is announcing that he will nominate Kieran O'Doherty, of Hampton Bays, New York, for reappointment as a member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. He has been a member of this Commission since June of 1972 and is being nominated for a three-year term.

The President has signed 11 bills, and we will post the details of these bills following this session. Eight of the bills are private relief bills. The other three are H.R. 7699 which alters the method of filling vacancies in the Virgin Islands Legislature, H.R. 6628 which amends the Micro-nesian Claims Act of 1971 to provide for more prompt settlement of claims, and Senate bill 1914 which authorizes appropriations for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty for fiscal year 1974. It also establishes a Board for International Broadcasting to administer the Government funds to the two radios.

We will have information posted on all of those bills following this session.

Before I attempt to take your questions, I would like to say that I have nothing this afternoon to offer you on the questions that I have received this morning on the matter of the Court of Appeals decision on the tapes. We will have something on this later on today. I am not prepared to entertain questions on that matter at this session.

Q: At 3:00 o'clock, then?

MORE

#1841

- 6 -

#1841

Q Can you discuss the President's plans for this weekend? Will he be here or will he go to Camp David?

MR. WARREN: I expect him to be in the Washington area. For your GUIDANCE, he possibly could go to Camp David. I don't have anything definite at this time.

Q Today?

MR. WARREN: It is possible. That is still on GUIDANCE.

Q Yesterday the President told a Congressman that he needn't worry about the Middle East because everything was going to be all right over there. Can you expand any on that statement and can you tell us from whence he gains his optimism?

MR. WARREN: Well, as we have said both here and at the State Department in recent days, we are now in a period of delicate diplomatic activity, and as I said yesterday, I am sure that you would understand that I wouldn't be able to go into details about the specific exchanges or possible negotiating positions, so I really have nothing to add to the overall subject of the Middle East today beyond what we have said here and beyond what has been said at the State Department.

The President continues to follow the developments closely. He met with the Secretary for an hour this morning. The Secretary continues to be in close touch with the parties to the conflict and the major powers.

As the Secretary said, and as we have said, we are actively seeking a halt to the fighting under conditions and in an atmosphere which will facilitate negotiations to reach a final and just settlement in the Middle East. We are hopeful that there can be progress soon towards bringing this fighting to a halt.

Because of the contacts that are underway, and because of the sensitivity of the situation, I really have nothing to add.

Q Mr. Warren, you mentioned the major powers. Is a smaller power, for example Yugoslavia, involved?

MR. WARREN: I am just unable to give you a check-list of all of the Secretary's diplomatic contacts or of those of other representatives of this Government.

Q Can you say whether the White House was aware that Mr. Kosygin was in Cairo?

MR. WARREN: I have seen the story that you refer to and I really would have no comment on the visit of Mr. Kosygin to Cairo. With regard to the report I think you are referring to, I would have to remind you that it is our general practice not to discuss the details of our diplomatic contacts.

MORE

#1841

- 8 -

#1841

Q Jerry, maybe I am wrong, but this is the first time I have heard a formulation in which you have said that we are actively seeking a halt to the fighting. Can that be interpreted to mean a cease-fire in place?

MR. WARREN: That is not a new formulation by this Government.

Q Do you mean to imply that we were in touch with Mr. Kosygin while he was in Cairo?

MR. WARREN: I do not mean to imply anything. The question had to do with was the President aware or was he informed, and I am simply saying that as a general practice we do not discuss our diplomatic contacts.

Q Can you say on what basis you are hopeful for progress soon?

MR. WARREN: Helen, again, because of the delicate diplomatic activity, I would not characterize -- and I am going to be very careful this morning so there is no misunderstanding -- because of the delicate diplomatic activity underway, I am not in a position to characterize this Government's degree of hopefulness.

Q Has there been any change in the status of Secretary Kissinger's plans to go to China next week? Is that under evaluation in the White House now?

MR. WARREN: That is a matter I believe that was discussed yesterday at State and I have nothing to offer on that.

Q What did they say?

MR. WARREN: I think a date is set. I am not sure whether it is firm, but I think a date is set.

Q If there is no resolution of these negotiations in the coming week, would the President still want the Secretary to go to China and arrive there Friday as scheduled?

MR. WARREN: Bill, I would not want to get into a hypothetical discussion along that line because of the current situation.

Q Mr. Warren, I would like to ask you something that deals with something you have already told us, and that is this: When the President -- I am sorry to bring a Bebe question in, but this is something I am not clear on -- when the President was told and discussed this thing with his friend, Bebe, I am wondering if he said anything about what my friend for the Christian Science Monitor here estimates a $20,000 loss of interest in three years because the $100,000 stayed in a safe deposit box instead of drawing interest?

MORE

#1841

This Copy for Public Statements

NEWS CONFERENCE

#1843

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

12:15 P.M. EDT

OCTOBER 24, 1973

WEDNESDAY

MR. WARREN: The President returned from Camp David this morning at 9:50 and has been working in his Oval Office since his return. He spent two hours this morning with Dr. Kissinger, and has met with Ron Ziegler and Al Haig.

As you know, the President drove up to Camp David yesterday afternoon. The President has been following the Middle East situation in extensive meetings, and last evening phone calls, with Dr. Kissinger. As I said, he met with Dr. Kissinger this morning and will be involved in meetings throughout the day on the Middle East situation.

The discussions have centered around the matters connected with the establishment of the cease-fire lines in the Middle East, and the concentration that the President has been giving on the Middle East, and the establishment of the cease-fire lines in the Middle East, are such that the President will hold a press conference tomorrow night at 9:00 o'clock in the East Room, a broadcast press conference, in lieu of a speech to the Nation this evening.

In meetings this morning with Dr. Kissinger, the President said that the cease-fire appears to be taking hold. The President and Dr. Kissinger have been in contact with leaders of major powers and also parties to the conflict, and it appears this morning that matters are calming down in the Middle East situation. I do not have an assessment to give you on the particulars of the military situation, but we are working toward full implementation of the United Nations resolutions, and as I said, it appears to us that matters are calming down in the Middle East.

So the President will not address the Nation this evening at 9:00 o'clock, but in lieu of that will hold a televised press conference tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. in the East Room.

Q Jerry, did you mean that it will not be televised.

MR. WARREN: No. It will be available for live television and radio tomorrow evening.

Q It is available on both subjects, the Middle East and the tapes; right?

MR. WARREN: Yes.

MORE

#1843

- 2 -

#1843

I have a few other announcements this morning. I should point out to you that Ambassador McCloskey this morning announced that it had been agreed upon through consultations that the visit to the People's Republic of China by Secretary Kissinger will be postponed until November 10th through 13th. The original dates for this were October 26th through October 29th. That has been announced by Ambassador McCloskey at the State Department.

The President today is announcing the reappointment of four members of the National Council on Indian Opportunity for terms expiring August 31, 1975. We have provided you with a release which gives you the background of the members and the functions of the National Council on Indian Opportunity.

The President also has signed an Executive Order which provides a tax exempt status for the cost of living allowance provided employees of the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. This Executive Order puts employees of the Commission in the same situation as Federal employees who work in Alaska.

The reason for the length of this Executive Order, which I believe you have, is that these individuals who are employed by the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission are not technically Federal civil servants and there had to be some legal groundwork established to enable their compensation to be comparable to that of other Federal employees in Alaska.

Those are all the announcements we have this morning.

Q Jerry, in your explanation of the President's activity this morning, I think you said he had been in contact with major powers.

MR. WARREN: That is correct, yes.

Q In view of the fact that the Chinese have been very upset that they haven't been included in the major powers discussions, they have expressed this at the United Nations, is he now in touch with the Chinese on this situation in the Middle East?

MR. WARREN: Bob, I am not in a position to detail precisely the President's individual contacts on this, although on BACKGROUND I can tell you that there has been contact between this Government and the People's Republic of China.

Q Jerry, did the President's remark that the situation was calming down, was that made before the recent bulletins from the Mideast saying that fierce fighting was raging around Suez city?

MR. WARREN: No. That was made quite recently. Ambassador McCloskey will be briefing at State and will be closer in touch, I am sure, with the situation, but that was the sense of those bulletins.

MORE

#1843

- 3 -

#1843

Q What was the channel of communication in these new contacts with the President and Mr. Brezhnev? Was it the Hot Line, or the ordinary channels?

MR. WARREN: No, Jim; the established means of direct communication between the President and Chairman Brezhnev.

Q When did they take place?

MR. WARREN: They have taken place in the last few days. There has been communication between the two leaders.

Q Jerry, you made a point of saying that the President has been preoccupied with the Mideast cease-fire.

MR. WARREN: I didn't say preoccupied. I said that the President has been concentrating on foreign policy matters, and primarily matters involving the establishment of the cease-fire, which has already been announced.

Q All right. Accepting that, has there been no discussion of the negotiations that reportedly will take place after the establishment of the cease-fire; that is, have no ground rules been laid down by the Soviet Union and the United States on negotiations that are upcoming or outlined?

MR. WARREN: I can tell you that this Government is undertaking intensive diplomatic activity to bring about full implementation of the cease-fire and of the United Nations resolutions, Bob, but that is as far as I can go on that.

Q Jerry, why did the President cancel his speech tonight?

MR. WARREN: For the reasons I gave you, John.

Q You mean because he was so busy on the Mideast that he didn't get a chance to write it, or what?

MR. WARREN: He has spent his time concentrating on matters of the establishment of the cease-fire which was created by the U.N. resolution.

Q Has he been spending so much time on that that he couldn't write his speech, or what?

MR. WARREN: He made the decision that during this work with Dr. Kissinger and others on foreign policy matters, and primarily the matter I have related to you, that he would hold a press conference tomorrow evening in lieu of the speech that had been planned today.

Q In that connection, is he likely to have any kind of opening extensive statement on this subject?

MR. WARREN: I cannot give you any guidance on that this morning.

MORE

#1843

This Copy For

NEWS CONFERENCE #1844

AT THE WHITE HOUSE

WITH JERRY WARREN

10:35 A.M. EDT

OCTOBER 25, 1973

THURSDAY

MR. WARREN: I do not plan to have a regular briefing at the White House today.

The President has been involved in discussions on the Middle East situation last night and throughout this morning. He met with Secretary Kissinger this morning for an hour prior to the leadership meeting.

He will, to a great extent, devote his time throughout this morning and this afternoon to the Middle East situation.

As I think the Speaker told you, and this was discussed in the leadership meeting this morning, the alert, which you are all aware of, is precautionary. I am not in a position to go into any detail on that.

The Secretary of State is meeting again with the President at this time following the leadership meeting. The Secretary of State will have a press conference at noon at the State Department, and there is a Security Council meeting in New York this morning. I don't have the time on that.

So, that is the situation at the White House this morning.

Q Jerry, the Speaker also said that the precautionary alert was because of a very serious situation in the Middle East. Do you agree with that characterization?

MR. WARREN: Our position and our view of the situation will be spelled out at the Security Council meeting in New York and by the Secretary of State at his press conference at noon.

Q Jerry, two questions please. What is the precaution being taken against, and (b) does the President still intend to hold his press conference tonight?

MORE #1844

- 2 - #1844

MR. WARREN: To take (b) first, he does intend to hold his press conference, yes, indeed, this evening at 9 o'clock.

I am not in a position to respond to your first question. As I said, the United States position will be spelled out at the Security Council meeting in New York.

Q Jerry, what time did he alert the troops?

MR. WARREN: I am in the position that any details on the alert beyond what I have said should come from the Department of Defense, and again I remind you that there will be a Security Council meeting in New York and that the Secretary of State will hold a press conference at noon.

Q Jerry, I understand that, but it is now 10:40 and you have made the statement that it is a precaution.

MR. WARREN: That is right.

Q That it is precautionary, and you are going to let that hang for at least two hours. Do you not think the situation is such that we should get an explanation now for the precaution?

MR. WARREN: I am not in a position to go beyond what I have said.

Q Jerry, is it still the policy of this Administration that American military forces will not be directly involved in this war?

MR. WARREN: The position, as I have said before, of the United States will be spelled out at the Security Council meeting and by the Secretary of State at noon.

Q Jerry, you are leaving that open.

MR. WARREN: I am not leaving anything open.

Q Jerry, you said yesterday that the cease fire is taking hold. Does this change everything you said yesterday?

MR. WARREN: I am going to defer to the Secretary of State, who will be addressing you all at noon.

Q Jerry, you said yesterday that the United States had no intention of sending troops to the Middle East. Does that still stand?

MR. WARREN: I have nothing to add and, as I said earlier, our position on this matter will be spelled out in the Security Council and by the Secretary of State at noon.

MORE

#1844

- 3 -

#1844

Q Are you adding the possibility that we may have changed our minds?

MR. WARREN: No, I am not adding to what I said yesterday.

Q Do you want to foreclose the possibility?

MR. WARREN: I am not broadening nor adding to nor foreclosing anything. What I am saying is don't draw any assumptions from what I have said. There was an extensive briefing of the leadership this morning. The Security Council will go into session in New York shortly, I am told, and Dr. Kissinger will hold a press conference at noon.

Q Jerry, how long did the leadership meeting last?

MR. WARREN: The leadership meeting lasted an hour and a half this morning.

Q Did the President personally order this alert, and how did that come about?

MR. WARREN: Fran, I am not in a position to go into any details. The President is meeting at this time with the Secretary of State, and he will be holding a press conference at noon.

Q Jerry, yesterday you said that we had not received a request from Egypt to send troops for a peace keeping force. Do you still say that?

MR. WARREN: There was a Security Council meeting last evening, of course, where this was discussed.

Q Jerry, is it possible that the signal for the alert, or the tripwire for the alert, was involved in some form in communications between the United States and the Soviet Union over the last 24 hours?

MR. WARREN: The United States Government has continued to remain in touch with the major powers and all parties, but beyond that, I defer to the Secretary of State.

Q Will any attempts be made to remove Israel, or suggest that Israeli troops return from the western side of the canal?

MR. WARREN: Jerry, I have given you what I have. The Secretary of State will be briefing at noon, and the Security Council will be in session.

Q Jerry, in view of the complexity of all these events, will the President allow tonight's press conference to run beyond the ordinary 30 minutes?

MORE

#1844

- 4 - #1844

MR. WARREN: I will check on that.

Q Jerry, was there a National Security Council meeting last night?

MR. WARREN: There was not a National Security meeting last night.

Q Was the Washington-Moscow hotline used in connection with this?

MR. WARREN: No, it was not.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

(AT 10:42 A.M. EDT)

* * * * * * * * *

(AT 11:15 A.M. EDT)

MR. WARREN: Based on what I told you earlier, the President has been concentrating on the Middle East situation throughout the morning. He will be concentrating on the Middle East situation throughout the afternoon, and, based on that, he has decided to hold his press conference tomorrow.

Q At the same time?

MR. WARREN: We will let you know the time. The time will be announced.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END (AT 11:16 A.M. EDT)

#1844

PRESS
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

October 25, 1973

No. 390

#3

PRESS CONFERENCE BY
THE HONORABLE HENRY A. KISSINGER
SECRETARY OF STATE
OCTOBER 25, 1973

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Ladies and gentlemen, I thought the most useful introduction to your questions would be a summary of events between October 6 and today so that you can evaluate our actions, the situation in which we find ourselves, and our future course.

The crisis for us started at 6 a.m. on October 6, when I was awakened with the information that another Arab-Israeli war was in progress. I mention this personal detail because it answers the question that the United States intervention prevented Israel from taking preemptive action. The United States made no demarche to either side before October 6 because all the intelligence at our disposal and all the intelligence given to us by foreign countries suggested that there was no possibility of the outbreak of a war. We had no reason to give any advice to any of the participants because we did not believe -- nor, may I say, did the Israeli Government -- that an attack was imminent.

In the three hours between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., we made major efforts to prevent the outbreak of the

For further information contact:

PR #390

2

war by acting as an intermediary between the parties, of
assuring each of them that the other one was attempting
to obtain the assurance of each side that the other one
had no aggressive intention.

Before this process could be completed, however,
war had broken out. And it started the process in which
we are still engaged.

I do not think any useful purpose is served
in reviewing every individual diplomatic move, but I thought
it would be useful to indicate some of the basic principles
we attempted to follow.

Throughout the crisis the President was con-
vinced that we had two major problems: first, to end
hostilities as quickly as possible -- but, secondly,
to end hostilities in a manner that would enable us to
make a major contribution to removing the conditions
that have produced four wars between Arabs and Israelis
in the last 25 years.

We were aware that there were many interested
parties. There were, of course, the participants in the
conflict -- Egypt and Syria on the Arab side, aided by
many other Arab countries; Israel on the other. There
was the Soviet Union. There were the other Permanent Members

PR #390

of the Security Council. And, of course, there was the
United States.

It was our view that the United States could
be most effective in both the tasks outlined by the
President -- that is, of ending hostilities, as well
as of making a contribution to a permanent peace in the
Middle East -- if we conducted ourselves so that we
could remain in permanent contact with all of these
elements in the equation.

Throughout the first week, we attempted to
crystallize a consensus in the Security Council which
would bring about a cease-fire on terms that the world
community could support. We stated our basic principles
on October 8th. We did not submit them to a formal
vote because we realized that no majority was available
and we did not want sides to be chosen prematurely.
On October 10th, the Soviet Union began an airlift
which began fairly moderately but which, by October 12th,
had achieved fairly substantial levels.

Let me say a word here about our relationship
with the Soviet Union throughout this crisis and what we
have attempted to achieve. The United States and the
Soviet Union are, of course, ideological and, to some

PR #390

extent, political adversaries. But the United States and
the Soviet Union also have a very special responsibility.
We possess -- each of us -- nuclear arsenals capable of
annihilating humanity. We -- both of us -- have a
special duty to see to it that confrontations are kept
within bounds that do not threaten civilized life. Both
of us, sooner or later, will have to come to realize that
the issues that divide the world today, and foreseeable
issues, do not justify the unparalleled catastrophe
that a nuclear war would represent. And, therefore, in
all our dealings with the Soviet Union, we have attempted
to keep in mind and we have attempted to move them to a
position in which this overriding interest that humanity
shares with us is never lost sight of.

In a speech -- Pacem in Terris -- I pointed
out that there are limits beyond which we cannot go. I
stated that we will oppose the attempt by any country to
achieve a position of predominance, either globally or
regionally; that we would resist any attempt to exploit
a policy of detente to weaken our alliances; and that
we would react if the relaxations of tensions were used
as a cover to exacerbate conflicts in international trouble
spots. We have followed these principles in the current

PR #390

[Lc]

5

situation.

It is easy to start confrontations, but in
this age we have to know where we will be at the end
and not only what pose to strike at the beginning.

Throughout the first week, we attempted to bring
about a moderation in the level of outside supplies
that were introduced into the area and we attempted to
work with the Soviet Union on a cease-fire resolution
which would bring an end to the conflict.

This first attempt failed, on Saturday, October
13th, for a variety of reasons -- including, perhaps,
a mis-assessment of the military situation by some of the
participants. We were then faced with the inability to
produce a Security Council Resolution that would command
a consensus, and the substantial introduction of arms by
an outside power into the area. At this point, on
Saturday, October 13th, the President decided that the
United States would have to start a resupply effort of
its own.

PR #390

[LC]

6

And the United States, from that time on, has engaged in maintaining the military balance in the Middle East in order to bring about a negotiated settlement that we had sought.

Concurrently with this, we informed the Soviet Union that our interest in working out an acceptable solution still remained very strong, and that as part of this solution, we were prepared to discuss a mutual limitation of arms supply into the area.

In the days that followed, the Soviet Union and we discussed various approaches to this question, the basic difficulty being how to reconcile the Arab insistence on an immediate commitment to a return to the 1967 borders with Israeli insistence on secure boundaries and a negotiated outcome.

As you all know, on October 16, Prime Minister Kosygin went to Cairo to work on this problem with the leaders of Egypt. He returned to the Soviet Union on October 19th.

We began exploring a new formula for ending the war that evening, though it was still unacceptable to us. And while we were still considering that formula, Secretary General Brezhnev sent an urgent request to President Nixon that I be sent to Moscow to conduct the negotiations in

PR #390

7

order to speed an end to hostilities that might be difficult
to contain were they to continue.

The President agreed to Mr. Brezhnev's request,
and, as all of you know, I left for Moscow in the early
morning of October 20th.

We spent two days of very intense negotiations and
we developed a formula which we believe was acceptable to
all of the parties and which we continue to believe repre-
sented a just solution to this tragic conflict.

The Security Council Resolution had, as you all
know, three parts. It called for an immediate cease-fire
in place. It called for the immediate implementation of
Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted in Novem-
ber 1967, and which states certain general principles on
the basis of which peace should be achieved in the Middle
East. And, thirdly, it called for negotiations between the
parties concerned under appropriate auspices to bring about
a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

This third point was the first international
commitment to negotiations between the parties in the Middle
East conflict. The United States and the Soviet Union were
prepared to offer their auspices if this proved to be
acceptable to the parties to bring about and then to speed

PR #390

[lc]

8

the process of negotiations. The United States continues
to be ready to carry out this understanding. This, then,
was the situation when I returned from Moscow and Tel Aviv
on Monday evening.

Since then, events have taken the following turn.
On the first day--that is, Tuesday--of the implementation
of the cease-fire, there was a breakdown of the cease-fire
which led to certain Israeli territorial gains. The United
States supported a resolution which called on the participants
to observe the cease-fire, to return to the places from which
the fighting started, and to invite United Nations observers
to observe the implementation of the cease-fire. This
seemed to us a fair resolution.

In the last two days, the discussion in the
Security Council and the communications that have been
associated with it have taken a turn that seemed to us
worrisome. We were increasingly confronted with a cascade
of charges which were difficult to verify in the absence
of United Nations observers, and a demand for action
that it was not within our power to take. There was a
proposal, for example, that joint U.S. and Soviet military
forces be introduced into the Middle East to bring about
an observance of the cease-fire.

PR #390

9

I would like to state on behalf of the President the United States position on this matter very clearly. The United States does not favor and will not approve the sending of a joint Soviet-United States force into the Middle East. The United States believes that what is needed in the Middle East above all is a determination of the facts, a determination where the lines are, and a determination of who is doing the shooting, so that then the Security Council can take appropriate action. It is inconceivable that the forces of the great powers should be introduced in the numbers that would be necessary to overpower both of the participants. It is inconceivable that we should transplant the great power rivalry into the Middle East, or, alternatively, that we should impose a military condominium by the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States is even more opposed to the unilateral introduction by any great power, especially by any nuclear power, of military forces into the Middle East in whatever guise those forces should be introduced. And it is the ambiguity of some of the actions and communications and certain readiness measures that were observed that caused the President at a special meeting of the National Security Council last night, at

PR #390

[LC]

10

3 a.m., to order certain precautionary measures to be taken by the United States.

The United States position with respect to peace in the Middle East is as follows: The United States stands for a strict observance of the cease-fire as defined in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 adopted on October 22nd. The United States will support and give all assistance and is willing to supply some personnel to a United Nations observer force whose responsibility it is to report to the Security Council about the violations of the cease-fire, and which would have the responsibility, in addition, of aiding the parties in taking care of humanitarian and other concerns that are produced by the fact that on the Egyptian-Israeli front a series of enclaves exist in which demarcation is extremely difficult.

If the Security Council wishes, the United States is prepared to agree to an international force, provided it does not include any participants from the Permanent Members of the Security Council, to be introduced into the area as an additional guarantee of the cease-fire.

[LC]

PR #390

11

The United States is prepared to make a major
effort to help speed a political solution which is just
to all sides.

The United States recognizes that the conditions
that produced the war on October 6th cannot be permitted
to continue, and the United States, both bilaterally
and unilaterally, is prepared to lend its diplomatic
weight to a serious effort in the negotiating process
foreseen by paragraph 3 of Security Council Resolution 338.

We are, therefore, at a rather crucial point.

From many points of view, the chances for
peace in the Middle East are quite promising:

Israel has experienced once more, the trauma of
war and has been given an opportunity for the negotiations
it has sought for all of its existence, and it must be
ready for the just and durable peace that the Security
Council asks for.

The Arab nations have demonstrated their concern

PR #390 [LC]

12

and have received international assurances that other countries will take an interest in these negotiations.

The Soviet Union is not threatened in any of its legitimate positions in the Middle East. The principles I mentioned earlier of the special responsibility of the great nuclear powers to strike a balance between their local interests and their global interest and their humane obligations remain.

And, seen in this perspective, none of the issues that are involved in the observance of the cease-fire would warrant unilateral action.

As for the United States, the President has stated repeatedly that this Administration has no higher goal than to leave to its successors a world that is safer and more secure than the one we found. It is an obligation that any President, of whatever party, will have to discharge, and it is a responsibility which must be solved -- if mankind is to survive -- by the great nuclear countries at some point, before it is too late.

But we have always stated that it must be a peace with justice. The terms that have been agreed to in the United Nations provide an opportunity for the

PR #390

[LC]

13-3

peoples of the Middle East to determine their own fate in consultation and negotiation -- for the first time in twenty-five years.

This is an opportunity we are prepared to foster. It is an opportunity which is essential for this ravaged area and which is equally essential for the peace of the world. And it is an opportunity that the great powers have no right to be permitted to miss.

Now I'll be glad to answer questions.

Q Dr. Kissinger, could you go into a little more detail on the Soviet threat that caused the alerting of U.S. military elements last night?

And also, if you could tell us if Ambassador Dobrynin delivered you a brutal note, as described by Senator Jackson on the Middle East situation?

A Senator Jackson is a good friend of mine, but he does not participate in our deliberations.

I will not discuss the details of individual communications.

We became aware of the alerting of certain Soviet units and we were puzzled by the behavior of some Soviet Representatives in the discussions that took

PR #390

14

place.

We do not consider ourselves in a confrontation
with the Soviet Union. We do not believe it is necessary,
at this moment, to have a confrontation. In fact, we
are prepared to work cooperatively toward the realization
of the objectives which we have set ourselves.

But cooperative action precludes unilateral
action and the President decided that it was essential
that we make clear our attitude towards unilateral
steps.

Q Mr. Secretary, when you were, early on,
talking about the special responsibility of the two
nuclear super powers to avoid anything which would eliminate
or incinerate humanity, you went on to say that there are
limits beyond which we can't go.

And among those, you said: We would resist any
attempt to exploit the detente in a manner to weaken others,
or weaken our allies -- I didn't get that exactly -- but
you will recall what you said.

And what I want to know -- what I wanted to
ask you is whether you believe that the action of the
Russians so far -- particularly in departing from what

PR #390

-15

you thought was an agreement -- has gone to the
point where it threatens exploitation of the detente
to an adverse extent.

A We are not yet prepared to make this
judgment. We have to realize, of course, as I pointed
out in my remarks, that the Soviet Union and we are in
a very unique relationship. We are at one and the same
time adversaries and partners in the preservation
of peace.

As adversaries, we often find ourselves drawn
into potential confrontations and each of us has
friends that let themselves pursue objectives
that may not be sought fully by either of us.

When we took the precautionary steps of which
you are all aware, we did so because we thought there
might be a possibility that matters might go beyond the
limits which I have described. But we are not yet
prepared to say that they have gone beyond these limits
and we believe that the possibility of moving in the
direction that the Security Council had established
earlier this week, is still very real. And if the
Security Council today were to pass a resolution that

PR #390

permitted the introduction of United Nations forces
except those of the Permanent Members, the United
States would feel that we are back on the road that
had been charted earlier this week.

PR #390

17

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us whether the United States received a specific warning from the Soviet Union that it would send its forces unilaterally into the Middle East? Do you have intelligence that the Russians are preparing for such an action? The reason I raise these questions -- as you know, there has been some line of speculation this morning that the American alert might have been prompted as much perhaps by American domestic requirements as by the real requirements of diplomacy in the Middle East. And I wonder if you could provide some additional information on that.

A. Marvin, we are attempting to conduct the foreign policy of the United States with regard for what we owe, not just to the electorate, but to future generations. And it is a symptom of what is happening to our country that it could even be suggested that the United States would alert its forces for domestic reasons.

We do not think it is wise at this moment to go into the details of the diplomatic exchanges that prompted this decision. Upon the conclusion of the present diplomatic efforts, one way or the other, we will make the record available, and we will be able to go into greater detail. And I am absolutely confident

PR #390

[cc]

18

that it will be seen that the President had no other choice
as a responsible national leader.

Q Dr. Kissinger, would you say, sir, why
the United States feels that the permanent members of the
Security Council should not send forces, although there
is a chapter in the UN Charter, I believe, that calls upon
all members of the UN to provide forces if called upon to do
so.

A We believe that the particular provision
of the Charter which you mentioned should be seen in
the light of the particular circumstances. When you have
a situation in which several of the permanent members
may have conflicting interests, and when the presence
of the forces of the permanent members may themselves
contribute to the tension in the area, it seems to us
the only possible course is to exclude the members -- the
forces of all permanent members.

It would be a disaster if the Middle East,
already so torn by local rivalries, would now become,
as a result of a UN decision, a legitimized theater
for the competition of the military forces of the
great nuclear powers.

And therefore it seemed to us that the political

PR #390

19

purposes would be best served if any international
force that were introduced were composed of countries
that have no possibility of themselves being drawn into
rivalry as a result of being ...

Q Dr. Kissinger, it may seem obvious, but I
would just like to ask you -- is the purpose of the alert
which is now going on to tell the Soviet Union that if
they send forces into the Middle East we will do the
same?

A I don't want to speculate about what the
President may decide to do in circumstances which we
fervently hope will not arise. It would seem to us that
to threaten all that has been achieved in the search for
peace by unilateral action, would be a step of
irresponsibility that we do not believe is likely. And
therefore, I do not want to speculate what the United
States would do if it should appear that instead of
beginning an era of cooperation, we were thrown back
to the confrontations which sooner or later will have to
be surmounted -- because humanity cannot stand the
eternal conflict of those who have the capacity to
destroy it.

Q Mr. Secretary, Cairo Radio said that such

[LC]

PR #390

20

an offer of Soviet troops for enforcing the cease-fire
has been received from Moscow. Has such an offer been
made, and if so, have the Soviet troops indeed been
alerted, and are they on the move?

A We are not, of course, aware of the
diplomatic exchanges that may go on between the
Government of Egypt and the Government of the Soviet
Union. We are also not aware of any Soviet forces that
may have been introduced into Egypt. And we believe, and
we will bend every effort in that direction, that any
actions that are taken by any country in the Middle East
will be within the framework of the Security Council and
of United Nations decisions.

I want to repeat again: we do not now consider
ourselves in a confrontation with the Soviet Union. We
continue to be prepared, and we believe it is entirely
possible to maintain the direction that has brought us
to this point, and on which the peace of the world depends.

Q Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the
Soviet Union has threatened unilateral action and pushed
this circumstance to the brink of confrontation? Do you
see it possible that they saw the events of last weekend as
having so weakened the President-- he was threatened with

PR #390

21

impeachment, that they saw a target of opportunity and
decided to move?

A Speculation about motives is always
dangerous. But one cannot have crisis of authority in a
society for a period of months without paying a price
somewhere along the line.

Q Dr. Kissinger, from a public standpoint, until this morning the public would have had the belief and the view that this crisis was in hand, that the cease-fire was taking hold. You have declined to discuss the diplomatic context of the specific ommunications. But was there prior to this latest sudden development any indication that this situation might go into such a direction?

A No, there was not. Until yesterday
afternoon we had every reason to believe that the basic
direction that had been established, and to which all
parties had agreed, would in fact been implemented. And
I repeat -- we still believe that it is possible to
continue in this direction. Nobody can gain from
introducing great power rivalry, or from compounding --
by compounding great power rivalry. The overriding
goal in the Middle East must be a just and durable peace

[lc]

PR #390

22

between the Arab nations and Israel. That the United
States is prepared and indeed determined to promote. And
that is the issue to which we should address ourselves.

Q Dr. Kissinger, to follow that up, please,
Senator Jackson among others has said that this government
has been operating under what he called an illusion of
detente from the very beginning. Can you be a little more
precise now under these circumstances about the status
of the detente with the Soviet Union?

A Mr. Lisagor, we have, from the beginning
of this Administration, recognized that there is a -- that
we are dealing with an ideological and political adversary.
We have also believed that we had an historic obligation,
precisely in these conditions of being in opposition, to
attempt to remove the dangers of war. We have always made
clear, and we have always practiced, that we would resist
any foreign policy adventures through the many crises
in the early parts of this Administration.

Where we have differed with some of our critics,
in
it was/our conviction that it was dangerous to attempt to
interfere in the domestic affairs of a
country with such a different domestic structure and
such a different ideological orientation.

PR #390

-23

We have maintained the integrity of our allies
and the security of the United States, while reducing
the danger of war.

As I said in my remarks, this is a historic
task that somebody will have to solve, and that it is in
the interests of all Americans and all of mankind that
it be solved as quickly as possible.

As for the status of the detente, I think we
can make a better judgment when we know whether peace
has taken hold. If the Soviet Union and we can work
cooperatively, first towards establishing the cease-fire,
and then towards promoting a durable settlement in the
Middle East, then the detente will have proved itself.
If this does not happen, then we have made an effort--
for which we have paid no price--that had to be made.
And then one has to wait for another moment when the
task of insuring or of bringing peace to mankind can
be attempted.

Q Dr. Kissinger, the reports of this joint --
the Soviet plan for a joint Soviet-U.S. force were
rather widespread before you went to Moscow, especially
in Eastern Europe. Did Mr. Brezhnev discuss this idea

[LC]

PR #390

24

with you in any way? And if not, why do you think he
kept quiet about it then only to appear to activate it
a few days later?

A I don't know what plans were widespread
in Eastern Europe. I can only deal with plans which
reach us in some official manner. The plan for a joint
U.S.-Soviet military force in the Middle East was never
broached to us, either publicly or privately, until
yesterday. And we immediately made clear that we would
not participate in such a force, and also that we would
oppose any unilateral moves.

Q Dr. Kissinger, you have said that U.S.-
Soviet auspices might be useful in moving this along
diplomatically. Are you prepared personally to play a
role in getting these talks started? And secondly,
have all the parties accepted the necessity for direct
Arab-Israeli talks?

A We have not been in equally close
contact with all of the parties. And we have reason
to believe that a sufficient number of the parties have
accepted these talks for them to start. And indeed, as
late as yesterday afternoon, preliminary conversations took
place between Ambassador Dobrynin and me about the site,

PR #390

25

the participation and the procedures for these talks.

Q Dr. Kissinger, earlier you referred to legitimate Soviet interests in the Middle East and indicated that we felt they were not threatened there. Have the Soviets indicated they agree with your assessment?

A On the basis of the conversations that I had with General Secretary Brezhnev as late as last Sunday, and the communications that were exchanged afterwards between the President and General Secretary Brezhnev, there was every reason to expect that while, of course, our interests were not congruent, and while, of course, there were differences in approach, that a certain parallelism could develop in the direction of producing a permanent peace. And therefore I would have to say that we had reason to believe, and we have no reason yet to alter our estimate, that the joint auspices of which the Security Council resolution speaks can yet be implemented.

Q Dr. Kissinger, between the two cease-fire resolutions in the United Nations, in that period the Israeli forces have made substantial military gains on the ground. Is the United States prepared to urge

PR #390

26

Israel to comply with the resolution which calls for all
parties to withdraw to the lines at the time of the first
cease-fire?

A The United States supported both resolutions and is today supporting another resolution containing similar provisions, as well as a provision for an international force drawn from all member states of the United Nations -- for which all member states of the United Nations would be eligible except the permanent members of the Security Council.

Q Dr. Kissinger, I notice that you said the President decided on the military alert, and that you said the President had no other choice. Did you recommend this, or did the President initiate the military alert matter, and do you feel that it is a totally rational decision?

A Mr. Mollenhoff, I have a general rule not to provide a check-list of what advice I give to the President. But due to the particular implications of your remark, I may say that all of the President's senior advisors--all the members of the National Security Council--were unanimous in their recommendation, as a result of a

PR #390

27

deliberation in which the President did not himself
participate--and which he joined only after they had
formed their judgment--that the measures taken,--that he in
fact ordered--were in the essential national interest.

Q Dr. Kissinger, would you say what in your
judgment changed from the period yesterday when you and
Ambassador Dorbynin were talking about participation and
site and so on for talks, and the period last night
which led the Soviets to take the action that they took?
What in your estimation changed?

A I would like to make clear that as of now
the Soviet Union has not yet taken any irrevocable action.
It is our hope that such an action will not be taken.

I repeat again what I have said on many occasions
in this press conference. We are not seeking an
opportunity to confront the Soviet Union. We are not
asking the Soviet Union to pull back from anything that
it has done.

The opportunity for pursuing the joint course
in the Security Council and in the diplomacy afterwards
is open. The measures we took and which the President
ordered were precautionary in nature. They were not

PR #390

29

directed at any actions that had already been taken. And
therefore there is no reason for any country to back off
anything that it has not yet done.

As to the motives, I think we should assess
that after the current situation is over.

Q Dr. Kissinger --

Q Mr. Secretary --

A Well, let me get this question, and then you.

Q Sir, in the reasons that prompted the
President to make his decision, did any of those reasons
include a threat aimed against this country as opposed
to a threat in the Middle East?

A I really do not think it is appropriate
for me to go into the details of the diplomatic exchanges.
We are not talking of threats that have been made against
one another. We are not talking of a missile crisis
type situation. We are talking of a situation where
seventy-two hours ago we still introduced joint
resolutions, where the necessity for a joint movement
towards peace is as real now as it was then, where the
participants in the Middle East have everything to
gain from a period of quiet and from at least watching
or attempting to see what an American diplomatic effort

PR #390

29

can produce. And therefore we are talking about a
precautionary situation and not an actual one.

Q Mr. Secretary, it seems to me that you are
asking the American people -- you and the President -- who
are already badly shaken by the events of the last week,
to accept a very dramatic military alert, involving
nuclear forces, on the basis of a kind of handful of
smoke, without telling them or us exactly why. If I
understood you earlier, you said that we had discovered
the alert of some Soviet forces, and we were disturbed
by the behavior apparently of some people that American
officials were dealing with. And that is all we really
have to justify this alert.

Now, this country is pretty badly shaken right
now. And I wonder if you can give us any more information
that will help convince people that there is some solid
basis for the actions that have been taken.

A We are attempting to preserve the peace in
very difficult circumstances. It is up to you ladies
and gentlemen to determine whether this is the moment to
try to create a crisis of confidence in the field of
foreign policy as well. We have tried to give you as

PR #390

30

much information as we decently and safely and properly
can under these conditions. As soon as there is a clear
outcome, we will give you the full information. And
after that you will be able to judge whether the decisions
were taken hastily or improperly.

The alert that has been ordered is of a
precautionary nature and is not of any major and
irrevocable -- it is not in any sense irrevocable.
It is what seemed to be indicated by the situation.

We will be prepared, however, and I am certain
within a week, to put the facts before you.

But there has to be a minimum of confidence
that the senior officials of the American government
are not playing with the lives of the American people.

Q Dr. Kissinger, the chief problem in the
Middle East at the moment seems to be the concern by
the Egyptians for the safety of its Third Army on the
east bank of the Canal. Are there any steps being
taken to possibly ameliorate their situation? And
secondly, could you give us some more details about the
results of your conversation as to forthcoming talks?
About twelve hours ago everybody was waiting for talks

PR #390

31

to begin. Can you tell us in which direction we can
anticipate that will go?

A We believe that the particular problems
that are raised by a cease-fire in which the forces are
deployed in such a curious fashion--each army having units
behind the lines of the other--that these conditions first
of all produce, especially in the initial phases, many
difficulties. We also are absolutely convinced that
with the presence of observers, with good will on all
sides, and with the active participation of the United
States and the Soviet Union, that the difficulties can
be substantially eased and eventually removed.

It is my understanding, for example, that some
humanitarian supplies reached the Third Army today.

And we would certainly be prepared to lend our good
offices to an effort in which neither side gained a
decisive advantage as a result of the deployment of their
forces.

I therefore am convinced that the particular
conditions of the cease-fire, difficult as they are, can be
dealt with and can be ameliorated with statesmanship on
all sides.

PR #390

32

Q Mr. Secretary, you have surely told Dobrynin and others what you have told us and perhaps even more. Can you give us any indication of what effect this had on these people?

A We are at this moment in the Security Council debating the resolution that we are supporting. If that resolution is accepted and carried out, we believe that it will lead to an immediate easing of the situation and to a restoration of the conditions as we observed them at noon yesterday.

May I say also that this press conference was scheduled at a time before this latest event was known or suspected. And I went through with it in order to be able to put into perspective the evolution that brought us here, and as much of the reasoning as I could, given the delicacy of the situation.

Q You didn't answer the second half of my question, Dr. Kissinger --

A What was the second half?

Q About negotiations, where they were going to go.

A We believe that negotiations can and should begin in a matter of a very few weeks.